Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Kevin Gorman (talk | contribs)
12,000 edits
→‎QuackGuru: removing rfar as declined by arbcom
Line 6: Line 6:


<!-- PLEASE PLACE NEW CASE REQUESTS BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- PLEASE PLACE NEW CASE REQUESTS BELOW THIS LINE -->

== QuackGuru ==
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Levelledout|Levelledout]] ([[User talk:Levelledout|talk]]) '''at''' 12:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Levelledout}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|QuackGuru}}

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQuackGuru&diff=656114890&oldid=656112843 diff of notification QuackGuru]

;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
Two most recent ANIs (many more [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=QuackGuru&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search here]):
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive880#Proposed_Block_for_QuackGuru link1]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:QuackGuru link2]

=== Statement by Levelledout ===
QuackGuru has a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=QuackGuru&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= long block log] and an even longer [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=QuackGuru&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search section history] at ANI. I don't know his full history of ArbCom cases but he has been sanctioned and banned at least twice previously [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=306745796&oldid=306358014 diff1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=441110372&oldid=441107978 diff2].

I can only speak of my personal experiences with him at the [[Electronic Cigarette]] article where he has become incredibly disruptive of late. Considering the 500 word limit I provide a summary of his actions since his last ANI section was closed in March 2015:

* Abuse of the page (un)protection process and thus [[WP:GAMING]]. Also forcing through large-scale changes without consensus and edit-warring, thus violating [[WP:CONSENSUS]] and [[WP:CAUTIOUS]]. Sequence of events as follows:
*#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&diff=651890960&oldid=651890831 Single handedly] getting page protection removed, no notification of discussion on article talk page.
*#Immediately dumping [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=651934787&oldid=651933833 massive] (9k) amounts of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=652013332 error-ridden] material into article, no notification/discussion on article talk page.
*#After article was consequently reprotected, immediately running [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=652755079 straight back] to requests for page protection without notifying article talk page and getting expiry date reduced.
*#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20150401000000&limit=500&tagfilter=&contribs=user&target=QuackGuru&namespace=2 Intensely editing] article in sandbox for next ten days until protection expired again, no notification or discussion to article talk page.
*#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=654236549&oldid=654235971 Dumping] vast (17k) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=654469951&oldid=654445443 error-ridden] sandbox edits into article as soon as protection expired again, no prior discussion, in direct violation of instructions [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=652767561 given by admin].
*#Edit-warring the changes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=654262411&oldid=654262239 back into the article] after they were reverted.
* Removing a POV tag 5 times within a few days thus edit-warring - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=654533618&oldid=654480685 diff1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=654263156&oldid=654262515 diff2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=654970508&oldid=654968063 diff3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=655640801&oldid=655585890 diff4] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=655728002&oldid=655655704 diff5]. On at least two occasions ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=654263156&oldid=654262515 diff2]/[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=654263315&oldid=654262922 talkpagediff] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=654970508&oldid=654968063 diff3]/[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=654970512&oldid=654969493 talkpagediff]) doing so purely due to a personal fued, thus disrupting Wikipedia to prove a [[WP:POINT]].
* Breaching [[WP:NPOV]], likely in order to try and prove a [[WP:POINT]] in a personal feud with the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=651934787&oldid=651933833 insertion] of the following into the article, sourced from an editorial:
<blockquote>"They (e-cigarette users) also undertake in uncivil online attacks on any person who implies that e-cigarettes are not an innovation, with at least one person associated to an organization that receives donations from the [[tobacco industry]]."</blockquote>
* [[WP:COMPETENCE]] issues regarding language and grammar, error-ridden edits (see above) and failing to understand the concepts of [[WP:OR]] and paraphrasing - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=651971221&oldid=651954069 diff1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQuackGuru&diff=651980492&oldid=651597969 diff2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=654554823&oldid=654554577 diff3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=654938142&oldid=654936852 diff4] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=654965787&oldid=654955124 diff5]
* [[WP:FILIBUSTER|WP:FILIBUSTERING]], often to the extreme, stating one objection, then when that is shown to be redundant, coming up with a different one, then when all else fails simply telling all other editors that their objections are invalid and inadmissible - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=654667363&oldid=654667173 diff1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=655728229&oldid=655728026 diff2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=655789269&oldid=655788529 diff3] also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=654720157&oldid=654690099 diff1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=654722292&oldid=654721595 diff2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=654727566&oldid=654726751 diff3]
* Personal attacks and incivility [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&diff=652761483&oldid=652760344 diff1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=654234961&oldid=654234760 diff2].

QuackGuru obviously has a good deal of adversaries but some editors support him, some of whom are well respected and/or admins. ANI has proved ineffective in dealing with him and no firm action has been taken against him for any of the above by admins, even in consideration that there are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Electronic_cigarettes discretionary sanctions] in place on electronic cigarette articles. Therefore I think that this is the right place to raise this matter.
:@ [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] The SPA accusation is brought up against practically everybody that opposes QuackGuru, whether they actually are an SPA or not. In my case, I'm still a relatively new editor with relatively few edits. I have a relatively high number of edits to the main e-cig article talk page but the large majority of my main wiki editing is not on e-cig related articles [https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=levelledout&project=en.wikipedia.org&toplimit=10 diff]. Overall so far most of my edits have gone on e-cigs because it's a topic that interests me and because there have been long protracted debates on the talk page. But I do not advocate for e-cigarettes, I recognise that there are both potential risks and benefits in line with the majority of sources. I also try to implement the NPOV that QuackGuru is intent on preventing. QuackGuru edits mainly what he would consider pseudo-science topics, does that make him an SPA? Your claim that QuackGuru is not the real problem and that he is causing less disruption than other editors is categorically wrong. Take a look at [https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/index.php?lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&page=Electronic_cigarette this page] and [https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/index.php?lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&page=Talk:Electronic_cigarette this page] and you will realise nobody is adding more material than QuackGuru and no active editor (Fergus M1970 is blocked and AlbinoFerret is on a voluntary ban) is contributing more to the talk page. Combined with the fact that QuackGuru violates many important policies and guidelines as demonstrated above, this means that QuackGuru is the most disruptive editor on the whole article at the moment. I do not believe that FergusM1970 was shown to be a paid e-cig advocate, although I could be wrong I think he was shown to be paid to be editing the [[Derwick Associates]] article. In any case, you seem to be arbitrarily accusing me of being a paid advocate simply because one other editor was at some point in the past, even though you have no evidence to suggest that I am.[[User:Levelledout|Levelledout]] ([[User talk:Levelledout|talk]]) 13:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
:@ [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] It is difficult to respond to a re-assertion that I am an SPA except for to re-assert that I am a relatively new editor and am here to improve the encyclopedia. I am not sure why you have provided a link to an old copy of my sandbox but it was a result of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=654504592 this discussion] on the talk page. I later decided to abandon the copy-edit since there was no point in attempting it all the time that QuackGuru was editing the article.[[User:Levelledout|Levelledout]] ([[User talk:Levelledout|talk]]) 14:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
:@[[User:Zad68|Zad68]] Since this is the only place I have raised the issue then by definition it is not forum shopping. There are several reasons I believe that ArbCom is the appropriate place:
# QuackGuru's conduct issues are multiple, serious, protracted and therefore somewhat complex.
# A substantial amount of the diffs presented are {{tq|dated before discretionary sanctions were enforced and therefore would not be actionable under discretionary sanctions}}.
# A substantial amount of the diffs presented are also dated after discretionary sanctioned were enforced, i.e. most of the POV tag removals and competence diffs, all of the filibustering diffs. The diffs show that QuackGuru's conduct has not improved since April 1st but despite admins patrolling pages no action has been forthcoming under discretionary sanctions.
# QuackGuru has at least some amount of admin support
# The allegations presented are serious and discretionary sanctions only allows for blocks of up to one year for instance.
# QuackGuru has a long history of ANI cases as recent as March 2015, blocks and bans, ArbCom sanctions clearly demonstrating that the community has struggled to deal with his conduct previously.[[User:Levelledout|Levelledout]] ([[User talk:Levelledout|talk]]) 15:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
:@[[User:QuackGuru|QuackGuru]] I'm not sure why QuackGuru states that it wasn't entirely accurate to suggest that he dumped 17k of information into the article with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=654236549&oldid=654235971 this] edit. The revision history clearly shows +17,183 bytes of data. He remarks that I received a final warning. I have in fact received two warnings. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALevelledout&diff=652022041&oldid=641509758 first] was for reverting QuackGuru's 9k of edits referenced above on the basis of [[WP:CAUTIOUS]]. This was in fact the first wholesale revert I have ever made on Wikipedia. It certainly was not edit-warring since it was only one revert and I'm still slightly at a miss as to what I did wrong. The admin that made the warning appeared to concede that I was not edit-warring and that the warning was for informational purposes to prevent the situation descending into an edit-war. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALevelledout&diff=654269063&oldid=653180579 second] warning was for again reverting QuackGuru on his 17k of edits two weeks later. Once again I only reverted the once. I assumed that since I was not edit-warring the first time round and that QuackGuru was in direct violation of instructions received by an admin and also [[WP:CAUTIOUS]], that reverting would be OK and the right thing to do. In all honesty it feels like I have received two warnings simply for trying to implement [[WP:BRD]] and to stop QuackGuru from forcing through large-scale changes without consensus.[[User:Levelledout|Levelledout]] ([[User talk:Levelledout|talk]]) 17:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
:@[[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] Can I please again emphasise that most of the diffs, including a lot of the most serious stuff, relate to activity which took place '''before''' discretionary sanctions were imposed. Therefore as I understand it I am not able to request action under discretionary sanctions for most of the above activity.[[User:Levelledout|Levelledout]] ([[User talk:Levelledout|talk]]) 18:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
:@[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] Note that one user (me) receives a warning for a single revert (by definition not edit-warring) and then a final warning for a second revert (quite possibly not edit-warring either) two weeks later whilst for instance QuackGuru gets nothing for removing a POV tag from the article 5 times, forcing through large-scale changes without consensus multiple times and in fact practically everything that I have listed above aside from one polite notice for edit-warring his 17k of changes back into the article. You call the request "frivolous" because you don't admit that action should already have been taken against QuackGuru and hasn't been.[[User:Levelledout|Levelledout]] ([[User talk:Levelledout|talk]]) 21:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
:Furthermore [[User:SPACKlick|SPACKlick]] was warned for simply making two reverts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASPACKlick&diff=654606927&oldid=654603594 here] by Bishonen and [[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|KimDabelsteinPetersen]] was warned [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKimDabelsteinPetersen&diff=655824272&oldid=655668503 here] by Bishonen for simply inserting the wrong type of article tag.[[User:Levelledout|Levelledout]] ([[User talk:Levelledout|talk]]) 00:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
[[User:SPACKlick|SPACKlick]] has correctly pointed out that the following discussion should have been had here at this ArbCom page because it is somewhat relevant to this case request: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Levelledout#A_few_points_about_your_request_for_arbitration LINK].[[User:Levelledout|Levelledout]] ([[User talk:Levelledout|talk]]) 13:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
:@[[User:Black_Kite|Black Kite]] Who exactly are you suggesting is a "company shill, quack and charlatan"? As you so confidently make such an assertion I'm sure you'll have no problems clarifying who you are referring to and providing the necessary evidence for all of these claims. On the other hand I suspect this is yet another baseless accusation and [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] that [[User:Thryduulf|Thyryduulf]] refers to that gets thrown at literally everyone that opposes the likes of QuackGuru and that does actually provide evidence of wrongdoing.[[User:Levelledout|Levelledout]] ([[User talk:Levelledout|talk]]) 13:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
:@[[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] I disagree that it is forum shopping for reasons stated to Zad68 above and note that Zad68 has withdrawn that assertion. The point is that surely the diffs that I have presented here must be actionable '''somewhere'''? It doesn't seem like they will be actionable through discretionary sanctions because many of them occurred before the sanctions were imposed. And I think I have demonstrated (as has Les Vegas somewhat) that the traditional ANI route with QuackGuru has been exhausted and is proving ineffective, probably mainly due to QG's support amongst those who see him as a righteous crusader against all those paid advocating shills of quacks of which anyone who opposes him must apparently be one.[[User:Levelledout|Levelledout]] ([[User talk:Levelledout|talk]]) 12:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by QuackGuru ===

I did explain [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=654263543&oldid=654221381#Page_protection_over_-_NPOVing_resumes my significant changes on the talk page]. I spotted original research in the article and I did rewrite the text closer to the source. I cited the sources that confirmed the wording was original research or at least a bit misleading. I also made follow up edits that improved the wording to my original significant changes. [[User:Levelledout]] has been given a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Levelledout&oldid=654618911 final warning]. I added numerous high-quality sources, including MEDRS compliant reviews. Levelledout says I added about 17k. That's not entirely accurate [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&curid=22747298&diff=656147044&oldid=656146829 because the edit history shows I added a total of about 25k].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&offset=&limit=500&action=history] I added more information recently. The page was 90,260 bytes. Now it is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&oldid=656142254 115,982 bytes]. I started a new discussion on the talk page for the 3 tags. See [[Talk:Electronic_cigarette#No_evidence_has_been_presented_that_this_article_has_multiple_issues]]. More later if this case is accepted. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="vermillion">'''QuackGuru'''</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<font color="burntorange">talk</font>]]) 16:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

User:S Marshall wants to significantly shorten the lede and delete a lot of text from the page.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=656148031&oldid=656144791] I disgreed.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&curid=15087626&diff=656149522&oldid=656148616] This was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=656150138&oldid=656149522 the response] by S Marshall. This previous edit by S Marshall was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=654397713&oldid=654397196 not an improvement] to the lede. Now that his edits did not gain consensus he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=655865336&oldid=655856054 tagged the lede] with 3 tags. Now it appears that S Marshall wants me [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&diff=656149462&oldid=656147553 banned] [[WP:ASPERSIONS|without providing evidence]]. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="vermillion">'''QuackGuru'''</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<font color="burntorange">talk</font>]]) 18:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

===Statement by Softlavender (uninvolved party)===
Hi, I've never edited any of the various e-cig articles, but I have observed the obvious pattern of [[WP:SPA]] editors who advocate for e-cigs and/or the e-cig industry, of which {{noping|Levelledout}} is one, and of which [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#Community_ban_discussion_of_FergusM1970 at least one has been banned from Wikipedia because of paid advocacy for the e-cig industry], and of which [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive880#Proposed_topic_ban_for_AlbinoFerret another has had to swear off his SPA advocacy for six months]. Although he has his own problematical behaviors, the real problem on the e-cig articles isn't QuackGuru, but rather the e-cig SPA advocates. And if one has been proven to be paid, how can we not suspect that the others are or may be as well? (Smoke/fire, and all that.) QuackGuru is a convenient target for the SPAs, and a convenient smokescreen to haul into ANI while masking the real issues at hand. It would also be very convenient for the e-cig SPAs to get rid of QuackGuru or topic ban him, because then they would have much more free reign to outnumber the non-SPAs, and to re-write the articles in the industry's favor. The sorry fact of the matter is, the issue that should be an ArbCom request is the obvious (and possibly paid) [[WP:SPA]] advocacy across all of the e-cig articles, not QuackGuru. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 13:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Levelledout: No, we don't call people editing the e-cig articles SPAs unless they are SPAs, and it takes no time at all to scroll through your contributions history and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Levelledout/sandbox&oldid=654710842 your sandbox] to determine you are an e-cig SPA. Other than to mention the fact that there are other e-cig SPAs besides you and the two whom I've mentioned above, I've said what I wanted to say and have no interest in any further back and forth or discussion here. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 14:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Zad68 ===

Compared to many at that article, I'm relatively lightly involved, holding the [http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/?article=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&project=en.wikipedia.org #8] position for Talk-page commenters by edit count but [http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/?article=Electronic_cigarette&project=en.wikipedia.org not even ranking] in the top 20 by article edits.

This request is premature and the specific complaint against QG should be rejected because [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&oldid=656122158#Community_sanctions_authorised Community Sanctions] were <u>just</u> authorized 11 days ago pursuant to a request at ANI, and the article has <u>just</u> picked up active monitoring from an uninvolved admin {{u|Bishonen}}. Bish has made warnings to other editors in the topic area, but not QG. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=electronic+cigarette&prefix=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search Not a single AE request] has yet been made regarding the topic area. Why not let the community-authorized DS have a chance to work first? <s>A case can be made that this request is a bit of forum-shopping.</s> ''Struck as explained below'' <code>[[User:Zad68|<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Zad'''</span>]][[User_Talk:Zad68|<span style="color:#206060">''68''</span>]]</code> 14:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

*[[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK]], according to the General Sanctions log, the ANI thread resulted in the community authorization of discretionary sanctions, and [[WP:AE]] is indeed an appropriate place for editors to ask admins to review behavior and see if a discretionary sanction is warranted. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but according to my reading at both [[WP:GS]] and the instructions at [[WP:AE]] that's how it's set up to work.) <code>[[User:Zad68|<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Zad'''</span>]][[User_Talk:Zad68|<span style="color:#206060">''68''</span>]]</code> 18:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

{{u|Levelledout}} the reason why I said "forum-shopping" is because in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive880#Community_authorized_discretionary_sanctions_for_Electronic_cigarette_articles this] ANI discussion you did not support community sanctions, and you supported an indef block of QG or a full ArbCom case. Because you didn't get the outcome you desired there, trying now to get a full ArbCom case before we've had a chance to see if DS will work seems like forum-shopping. But perhaps you just weren't aware of how this process is supposed to work. Either way, I can see that comment of mine is a distraction so I'll strike. <code>[[User:Zad68|<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Zad'''</span>]][[User_Talk:Zad68|<span style="color:#206060">''68''</span>]]</code> 19:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

*OK [[User:Bishonen|Bish]], shoot, but I'll stop spreading that rumor. Without at least some period of having uninvolved admins visibly roaming the halls and handing out pink slips as needed I'm afraid we are indeed going to end up right back here within a matter of weeks. <code>[[User:Zad68|<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Zad'''</span>]][[User_Talk:Zad68|<span style="color:#206060">''68''</span>]]</code> 23:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Mr. Stradivarius ===
I closed the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive880#Community authorized discretionary sanctions for Electronic cigarette articles|ANI discussion]] authorising the community sanctions on April 1. (And no, that wasn't an April Fool's joke.) I think 11 days is a little too soon to say whether the sanctions have worked or not. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr.&nbsp;Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪&nbsp;talk&nbsp;♪]]</sup> 15:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
* {{ping|Bishonen}} I have the e-cig pages on my watchlist, but I haven't really been actively monitoring them. Call it "watching from a distance". — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr.&nbsp;Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪&nbsp;talk&nbsp;♪]]</sup> 04:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by S Marshall ===
We'll end up here, but QG hasn't had enough rope yet.—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 17:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
*... but I'll support SPACKlick to this extent: QG is infuriating and impossible to deal with, and the article is unimprovable while he very actively guards it against any and all substantive edits by the evil cranks, paid editors and pro-e-cig-industry stooges such as, apparently, myself. We're basically marking time until QG crosses the line egregiously enough for a topic ban.—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 09:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
*@{{User|Black Kite}}: This is where you get off. "Company shills, quacks and charlatans" is bang out of order.—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 14:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Beyond My Ken ===
Since the community imposed discretionary sanctions on the E-cigarette subject area, shouldn't any complaints about abuse there go either to AN/I or to the complainant's admin of choice, in order to have those sanctions enforced? Coming directly to ArbCom, especially when a case request has been turned down very recently, appears like an attempt to bypass community sanctions without giving them a chance to work. I suggest that the committee refuse this case request and refer the issue to AN/I. [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 18:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|Zad68}} I could well be wrong, but I don't believe that community sanctions are enforced at AE, since the remit there is to enforce decisions of the Arbitration Committee. Normal community processes via an admin or AN/I should be utilized. [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 18:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the correction. [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 10:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
::@DGG: You write that the community sanctions have not been very successful in the (mere) 11 days since they were instituted, but, in fact, admins have been putting their attention to this subject area for a much more limited time than that. In addition, there has been no evidence presented in this case request that there has been misbehavior in the subject area significantly before admins began to deal with it, I suggest that ArbCom, as the "court of last resort", should actually '''''wait''''' until it is, in fact, the last resort before it gets involved. Your acceptance of the case appears to me to be untimely and usurping of the community's realm of authority. ArbCom should only take cases when it has been shown definitively that the community cannot deal with the problem, which is hardly the situation here. I urge you to reverse your opinion. [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 06:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
:::@Levelledout: If the diffs are from before community sanctions, then there has already been a massive AN/I which declined to sanction QuackGuru, and a request for a case to ArbCom, which declined in favor of community sanctions. Because of this, I agree with Zad68 that this request is essentially forum shopping to get another bite of the apple. If your evidence is an accurate portrayal of QG's behavior (about which I make no judgment), and he continues that behavior, then community sanctions will cover it and he will be sanctioned. [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 00:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Levelledout}} My feeling is that if you are convinced that Quack Guru's behavior is a serious problem and needs to be addressed by ArbCom, you're probably going to have a file a less exclusive case request concerning that behavior across a number of subjects. [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 19:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
{{out}}'''Question to any Arb''', prompted by AGK's vote on the request: Can the Committee initiate a case on its own, or does it require that a case request be filed? Specifically, this case request is clearly going to be turned down, but several Arbs have written about Quack Guru's behavior as possibly needing to be examined. Can the Committee itself launch a case to do that, based (perhaps) on the collective knowledge of the Arbitrators, or must an editor collect the pertinent evidence and file a case? (Not that I'm offering or desiring to do that, this is asked as a point of information only.) [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 22:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
:Incidentally, this case request's name really ought to have been "Quack Guru and electronic cigarettes" or something like that. [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 22:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

===Comment by Bishonen===
This is a pretty frivolous arbitration request in my opinion. I think the community general sanctions can work. It's true I've so far only given one e-cig warning specifically related to the sanctions.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen&diff=prev&oldid=655824272] But it may be worth mentioning that both I and Mr Stradivarius gave the OP here final warnings for disruptive editing on [[Electronic cigarette]] only hours before the sanctions came into effect;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Levelledout&oldid=654618911] the difference between those and "sanctions" warnings is pretty technical. That said, [[User:Zad68|Zad68]]'s kind mention makes my "monitoring" sound more magnificent than it is, as I don't have very much Wikipedia time and sometimes prefer the less prickly jobs, where users don't explode as soon as addressed. However, I'm assuming [[User:Mr. Stradivarius|Mr. Stradivarius]] is watching too; aren't you, Mr S? [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 20:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC).
:'''Changing my mind: I no longer think the community sanctions have much chance of working.''' There's far, far too much going on for me to even remotely take stock of — it's way beyond my pay grade, and no other uninvolved admin seems to want to touch it. Just as one tiny example, look at QuackGuru and SPACKlick going at it hammer and tongs on [[WP:AN3]]. (Unless the report there has yet again been moved to [[WP:AN]] as I write. It's been bouncing back and forth.) I'm sorry, but I will now unwatch the relevant pages and save myself. Please nobody ever say "electronic cigarette" to me again. Ever. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 15:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC).

=== Statement by A1candidate ===

This Committee needs to understand that the heart of this dispute revolves around several complicated issues including:

* QuackGuru's ownership of medical articles
* QuackGuru's accusations against other editors
* Disagreement among administrators on how to deal with QuackGuru

Some administrators are convinced that QuackGuru fights [[quackery]] and is a net asset to the encyclopedia, while others are aware of the amount of disruption he causes but are unwilling to take action because they view Wikipedia as a battleground between COI-vested advocates and a group of well-established and trusted editors to which they (and QuackGuru) belong. At this point in time, I do find it appropriate to highlight the indisputable battleground nature of this conflict that is well-documented in previous ArbCom filings and exemplified by a specific comment posted by this particular administrator:

:"Second, it ''is'' a battleground. A battle against [[quackery]] in the real world, with prosecutions and a litany of exploitation of cancer victims by unscrupulous quacks, a battle on Wikipedia to hold back the [[Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans|lunatic charlatans]] whose motivation and determination to use Wikipedia to promote their beliefs is generally far stronger than the determination of any individual Wikipedia to ensure that we remain dependable ont hese subjects"
:'''- Administrator [[User:JzG|JzG]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AG._Edward_Griffin&diff=649066241&oldid=649063685 09:39, 27 February 2015]'''

Whether Wikipedia is a battleground or not isn't the main issue here, I'm simply pointing out the fact that some administrators do in fact view this place as a ''real-world battleground''. Other administrators such as {{U|Kww}} have also openly acknowledged their sympathetic views towards QuackGuru's cause [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQuackGuru&diff=615467634&oldid=614670663 ]. This partly explains why previous attempt at dispute resolution have failed and it also indicates that future attempts at dispute resolution are likely to fail, unless these administrators change their behavior.

I opposed a proposal to bring this issue to ArbCom initially, because I believed (and trusted) in the community's ability to resolve it. I probably should say that I was completely wrong. Those defending QuackGuru (both here and elsewhere) must first answer the following question before this dispute has any chance of being resolved: Has QuackGuru's editing improved after a decade of repeated blocks and warnings? As Administrator EdJohnston noticed many years ago: "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=441110372&oldid=441107978 there is no apparent progress in QG's approach to editing]". That was back in 2011, so has anything changed four years later?

According to administrator John, one of the few editors who stood up against QuackGuru's disruptive editing and repugnant behavior:

:"''If the community lacks the cojones to sanction QG, who is the main culprit, and is content to let him off with a weak "warning" (how many warnings is that now?) it is against natural justice to sanction AF. I tend to agree with the view that arbitration will be the way forward here.''"
:'''- Administrator [[User:John|John]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=650724485&oldid=650724356 07:10, 10 March 2015]

The wisdom of John's statement is evidenced by the fact that QuackGuru continued to escalate the situation right after receiving his warning, first by making baseless accusations against other editors and then by bringing the entire issue to the Committee's attention [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=652020924 ] after his attempt to ban KimDabelsteinPetersen was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=651433153&oldid=651433011 quickly opposed by the community]. John recently blocked QuackGuru for disruptive editing (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:QuackGuru block log]), so did QuackGuru accept his fault and improve his behavior? Did he take notice of John's advice to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQuackGuru&diff=636654326&oldid=636653393 be a little more patient, and work on building consensus in talk before making any more bold edits]? The answer is ''no'', because if QuackGuru had heeded John's advice, the issue would have been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. -[[User:A1candidate |<b><font color="#380B61">A1candidate </font></b>]] 20:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Kww ===
I think it is becoming time that we need to revisit the fundamental ''purpose'' of discretionary sanctions. In some cases (Palestine, the interminable dispute over Cyprus, the Ukraine, and other political issues come readily to mind) the purpose of the sanctions is to make the editors involved behave. In other cases (pseudoscience and alternative medicine articles, for example) the purpose of the sanctions is to ensure that the content of the article reflects our purpose as an encyclopedia.

The e-cigarette disputes seem to fall more towards the latter: the problems here are based on a long-term and contentious fight against industry forces that would paint e-cigarette use as a harmless hobby. That fight is being badly handled by an editor that isn't known for his subtlety and dispute resolution skills. I'd have no problem topic-restricting QG in this and similar battles if the topic-restriction was accompanied by revamping the sanctions to ensure that editors striving for accurate presentation had an intrinsic advantage over people shilling for industry interests and charlatans.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 22:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
:Btw, [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]], I believe my answer is directed towards your question.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 22:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
[[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]]: the problem is that QG gets in his own way. It's like a battle being led by someone the persistently shoots his own soldiers. That's why I can never fight too hard in QG's favour, but I hate the alternative of having no one lead at all. That's why I favour being explicit about the purpose of discretionary sanctions but also topic-restricting QG. If we would come out as a community and say that no, industry shills, acupuncturists, homeopaths, ayurvedists, etc, were simply not welcome to edit here, we could topic restrict some of the more troublesome skeptics and still get an encyclopedia when we were done.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 16:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Les Vegas ===
What a coincidence, this is too funny! I came to the Arbcom committee to file a request against QuackGuru on the Acupuncture article (after his latest round of IDHT'ing on the talk page), and noticed that Levelledout stole my thunder! Is there a possibility of joint-filing this request asking for a site ban? Afterall, I'm prepared to make a lengthy argument that QuackGuru's behavior on Acupuncture is as equally reprehensible as it is on E-Cigarette. The difference, however, is that the Acupuncture article has been under sanctions for some time. So, all that is to say, I don't expect QuackGuru's behavior to change on E-Cigarette (or anywhere else on Wikipedia for that matter) anytime soon. He is, by far, the worst, most lawless Wikipedian I have ever seen. [[User:LesVegas|LesVegas]] ([[User talk:LesVegas|talk]]) 02:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|Thryduulf}} Thank you for asking for some examples of QuackGuru's editing history across Wikipedia. Here is just a smattering of noticeboard incidents, each full of diffs, over the years. There's more, but I got tired and also didn't want to go over the word/diff limit(:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive880#Proposed_Block_for_QuackGuru Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incident/Proposed Block for QuackGuru] 6 March 2015 <br>
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:QuackGuru Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incident/Archive864] 15 November 2014 <br>
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive Wikipedia:Administrators/noticeboard/3RRArchive] 23 May 2014 <br>
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive259#Chiropractic Wikipedia:Administrators/noticeboard/Archive259#Chiropractic] 12 February 2014 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2]] 26 January 2014 to 16 April 2014 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#user:QuackGuru either WP:STALKING me or WP:TAGTEAMing with user:BullRangifer]] 10 January 2014 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#Disruptive editing by User:QuackGuru]] 15 December 2013 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#QuackGuru]] 26 November 2013 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive93#QuackGuru]] '''TOPIC BAN: 24 July 2011 to 24 July 2011''' <br>
[[Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive108#QuackGuru]] 9 July 2011 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive681#QuackGuru]] 19 March 2011 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive221#QuackGuru again - what do I do now?]] 8 March 2011 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive654#Unresponsiveness of QuackGuru]] 8 December 2010 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive652#QuackGuru]] 28 November 2010 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive93#QuackGuru]] 13 October 2010 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive91#QuackGuru on Chiropractic]] 6 September 2010 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive52#Request concerning QuackGuru]] 5 December 2009 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive50#QuackGuru]] 13 November 2009 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive559#QuackGuru: continued harassment and edit warring/baiting]] 23 August 2009 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive529#User:QuackGuru]] 9 April 2009 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive518#Disruptive editing by User:QuackGuru on Larry Sanger]] 2 March 2009 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive58#QuackGuru seems to want ownership of the Larry Sanger page]] 8 February 2009 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive33#QuackGuru 2 week block]] 24 January 2009 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive499#Harassment at my usertalk by User:QuackGuru]] 16 December 2008 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive171#QuackGuru topic ban]] 4 October 2008 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive474#QuackGuru and Kelly going at it]] 9 September 2008 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive469#QuackGuru's talk page template]] 27 August 2008 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive409#QuackGuru]] 28 April 2008 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive403#Disruptive editing by Quack Guru, OrangeMarlin and Eubulides at Chiropractic]] 18 April 2008 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive357#User:QuackGuru]] 22 January 2008 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive343#Quackguru doesnt tolerate opposition]] 21 December 2007 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive294#Block of QuackGuru]] 1 September 2007 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive265#QuackGuru]] 29 June 2007 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru]] 12 April 2007 to 28 June 2007 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive257#QuackGuru.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_blocked_and_unblocked_re:_Chiropractic_-_review_requested|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive257#QuackGuru (talk · contribs) blocked and unblocked re: Chiropractic - review requested]] 11 June 2007 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive236#QuackGuru, again]] 30 April 2007 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive7#Proposed ban of User:QuackGuru]] 22 April 2007 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive6#Proposed article ban for User:QuackGuru]] 12 April 2007 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive5#QuackGuru and Wikipedia-related articles]] 21 March 2007 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive217#User:QuackGuru & Wikipedia community]] 20 March 2007 <br>
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive214#Talk:Essjay controversy & User:QuackGuru]] 13 March 2007 <br>

:Each of these links contains multiple diffs of QG's behavior, but would you also like individual diffs of QuackGuru's editing behavior on articles? If so, I would be happy to provide them. I have countless examples of IDHTing, disruption, edit warring, POV editing, claiming consensus when there is none, ignoring consensus, sending subtle threats to administrators, gaming the system, and some examples where QuackGuru probably even invents new policy violations. Would you like to see those as well? Any particular categories, or all of the above? Seriously, I would be happy to provide anything you need. [[User:LesVegas|LesVegas]] ([[User talk:LesVegas|talk]]) 05:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
::@Arbcom: with most editors, it is absolutely reasonable to give sanctions a try, for awhile, especially since they were only recently imposed. I must say, though, that as an editor who has become very familiar with QuackGuru's disruptive patterns, this goes beyond jus the E-Cig article. It's the E-Cig article '''and''' any other article QuackGuru touches. I assume some of you are relatively unfamiliar with this editor. Would any of the members who voted to decline be willing to reconsider based on behavior all over Wikipedia? As I showed above, his behavior is atrocious on articles with sanctions already, so undoubtedly, sanctions won't stop him and he'll be here, facing you all again soon. [[User:LesVegas|LesVegas]] ([[User talk:LesVegas|talk]]) 06:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

:::Here is a fresh diff, highlighting QuackGuru's behavior, where '''just today''' he thought it would be a good move to join in on an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=656639938&oldid=656598777 edit war]. Of course, QuackGuru isn't the only one editiwarring, but he is the only editor with an active ArbCom case at the moment. He knows he's being watched, and yet simply does not care. His brazenness is remarkable. While we have to respect a Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle, we do not edit war while it's being discussed and QuackGuru knows that. This diff, while paltry in comparison to many of his other Wikipedia crimes, might be the most telling example of how he could care less about the rules of order and his utter disrespect for this Arbcom. [[User:LesVegas|LesVegas]] ([[User talk:LesVegas|talk]]) 22:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by [[User:SPACKlick|SPACKlick]] ===
I will mostly stay out of this one as I've made it clear elsewhere I've run out of Good Faith for QuackGuru and he winds me up to the point where I make bad edits and bad judgement calls. I only wanted to respond to Softlavender's and Kww's assertions that the problem at the page is advocates for e-cigs trying to hide information. It belies a lack of understanding of the page to say that. Yes there are advocates, and they and their edits are generally dealt with. However the majority of the advocacy, as seen on the talk page and in edits, is for structure to make the information presented more readable and deliver the same information more informatively. Most of the content removals and removal requests are to remove duplications.
As for the fact that there are SPA concerns. I don't know about others but I've noticed in the past that Battlegrounds tend to become a point of focus for editors with skin in the game. I've seen before with myself and other editors that the one fight going on, where you feel your editing could make a significant difference, gets most of your wiki-effort and edits there start to drain your wiki-effort overall.
Quack is a disruptive editor. He's had several warnings about the way he edits and blocks for the way he edits. I wouldn't personally want to see him gone entirely, he does have an eye for finding sources he just doesn't have the competence to translate sources into readable prose and he doesn't have the competence or wikiquette to discuss changes to help achieve consensus. A ban from editing the e-cigarette articles broadly construed (excluding removal of blatant copyright and obvious vandalism) would help the article massively. Even a 3-6month one would allow people to get the article into a reasonable state from which Quack would likely be able to add new information easier as he does seem to be better in good articles than one's he's creating whole cloth. --[[User:SPACKlick|SPACKlick]] ([[User talk:SPACKlick|talk]]) 08:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{{tping|Thryduulf}} For a good example not on e-cigarettes see the section on [[Talk:Acupuncture#Ernst's review of reviews|Ernst's Review]] over at talk:Acupuncture. It's a reasonably good example of Quacks IDHT attitude to discussion of sources meaning. I don't even necessarily think he's wrong with his intent for the article in this case but he makes it very hard for a consensus to form. [[User:SPACKlick|SPACKlick]] ([[User talk:SPACKlick|talk]]) 11:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@{{User|Black Kite}} I'd be careful with the [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] if I were you. Many people, I'd point to myself but for distance point to S Marshall as a fine example, don't like Quack's edits and neither of us are Shills, Quacks or Charlatans. It's not to do with disagreeing with his positions but his methods and styles. Read his discussions (or what he calls discussions) look at the sheer volume of edits he drops in immediately following protection with no discussion. Quack has some serious behavioural issues in these article spaces and talk spaces, it's not just quackery disagreeing with him. [[User:SPACKlick|SPACKlick]] ([[User talk:SPACKlick|talk]]) 11:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
:{{tping|Black Kite}} Well most of us would choose none of the above and I wouldn't call them {{TQ|categories that [you] mentioned}} I'd call them name calling you chose to use in an attempt to discredit people who disagree with how Quack edits. So I ask for any evidence that any editor involved in this discussion is a Shill, a Quack or a Charlatan or request you remove the aspersions. [[User:SPACKlick|SPACKlick]] ([[User talk:SPACKlick|talk]]) 12:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With reference to the discussion where Quack and I go hammer and tongs (referred by Bishonen above) it's now at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban for User:SPACKlick|ANI]], where hopefully it will stay. I would like to thank Bish for their efforts on the page and apologise for the part I played in it draining their will to Admin I hope you get your wind back in a far less messy part of the wiki. [[User:SPACKlick|SPACKlick]] ([[User talk:SPACKlick|talk]]) 16:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{{ping|Count Ibis}} Something like that was proposed however part of the issue with Quack Guru's editing has been edits of 17K in one go. I would love to have him bringing sources to talk, discussing areas where he feels there's NPOV or accidental SYN. I think an article space TBAN for QG would bring back several editors and allow the articles to improve more steadily. A one edit a day limit would just encourage him to do large intractable edits that other editors cannot keep up with or quality and fact check. [[User:SPACKlick|SPACKlick]] ([[User talk:SPACKlick|talk]]) 16:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a Relevant discussion, again, back at [[WP:ANI#Proposed topic ban for User:SPACKlick]] where Quack is, in part, being discussed [[WP:ANI#Proposal]] [[User:SPACKlick|SPACKlick]] ([[User talk:SPACKlick|talk]]) 12:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: KWW's April 14th comment
{{TQ| I favour being explicit about the purpose of discretionary sanctions but also topic-restricting QG. If we would come out as a community and say that no, industry shills, acupuncturists, homeopaths, ayurvedists, etc, were simply not welcome to edit here, we could topic restrict some of the more troublesome skeptics and still get an encyclopedia when we were done.}}
This is pretty much exactly how I feel. Except for one small change. I have no problem with these people editing as long as they can keep their POV away from their edits. I also would draw a distinction between Quackery like Acupuncture<small>(where the science is pretty clear. There's a strong placebo effect but the treatment itself has no efficacy beyond that and the theory behind the treatment is bunkem.)</small> novel areas like e-cigarettes<small>(where there is lots of uncertainty and the data is limited. There is scope for concern in lots of areas but slowly other areas are showing as less likely for concern</small>. [[User:SPACKlick|SPACKlick]] ([[User talk:SPACKlick|talk]]) 16:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Black Kite ===
Company shills, quacks and charlatans really don't like QuackGuru's edits. This is unsurprising, as pointed out by Kww above, and can be safely ignored. Which leaves us with a mild bit of edit-warring. Why is this request here again? [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 11:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
: :@{{User|SPACKlick}}: The evidence by S Marshall was mainly what I was referring to by edit-warring. As for the rest, other involved parties can decide whether they belong to any other category that I mentioned. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 07:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist ===
If we were in what were once normal circumstances, I'd agree case be declined and community measures be exhausted in the form they were enacted.

I don't believe normal circumstances apply here. There are too many other issues and backlogs with seemingly less people who will deal with it. The time the community will need to spend will be disproportionate cleaning up the types of messes described by Bish above (which AC disc sanctions would more easily address). Even reading the above, I still am not clear regarding which uninvolved administrators have put their hands up to deal with this at the expense of the other issues which are reported on community noticeboards. At most, I could see one or two administrators who were "watching from a distance" or something. Can anyone clarify with certainty who will enforce these properly?

In saying the above, I'm not saying a case should be accepted; I agree that should not be seriously considered until after a few weeks if needed. But I am suggesting a motion right now to vacate the community regime and replace it with the AC regime. Despite my reservations with DS and similar regimes, I think it has more of a chance of resolving the issues than community-initiated regimes in the present circumstances. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 16:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Count Iblis ===
Why not impose restrictions on QG that would limit what he can do when it comes to editing the pages in question, but which would allow him to put forward his arguments in favor of making the edits he wants to see made? E.g. a 1RR restriction plus a one edit per day restriction per page. That would force him to make contructive edits and comments that other editors can follow up on. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 16:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Kevin Gorman ===
The sanctions passed 11 days ago. Sooner or later any troublemakers in the field will do something egregious enough to get sanctioned out of the area. [[User:Kevin Gorman|Kevin Gorman]] ([[User talk:Kevin Gorman|talk]]) 05:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by {Non-party} ===
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*

=== QuackGuru: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/8/0/0> ===
{{anchor|1=QuackGuru: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>
*Awaiting more statements, but my initial thoughts are that something needs to change regarding the e-cigarettes topic area, and if the community sanctions aren't working then it's probably up to us to usher that in - but I want more opinions about whether they truly have failed, and if so what might work? {{replyto|softlavender}} (and anyone else) whether someone is being paid is irrelevant to resolving this dispute - either they are editing in a manner that is improving the article(s) (directly, or indirectly) or they are not, and it is possible for someone who is being paid to edit to fall into either of those groups. Please also bear in mind [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] and [[WP:OUTING]] when making allegations against editors. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
**It's clear that the time is not right for an arbitration case related to e-cigarettes, as the community is in the early stages of handling the matter with sanctions. However, I've not made up my mind about a case regarding the behaviour of QuackGuru more generally - I'd like to hear more input about his behaviour in other topic areas, with sample diffs of alleged wrongdoing, etc. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 09:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
**'''Decline'''. The community sanctions need to be given time to see if they can fix the e-cigs topic area, and I'm not seeing a general appetite to pursue an arbitration case regarding [[user:QuackGuru|QuackGuru]]'s conduct in other areas at this time - although I would strongly advise him to take on board the opinions expressed here and moderate his behaviour. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 18:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
*At the moment inclined to decline. I think it's too early to say that community sanctions aren't working. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 15:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
**'''Decline''' I really want to give community sanctions more time. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 18:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
*Awaiting statements. I would be particularly interested to hear why the community sanctions are not believed to have worked given how recently they were imposed, and would be inclined to give more time to see if that settles things down there. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 19:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
**While I'm also in the minority and it may not matter, '''accept'''. I don't think the sanctions are going to be sufficient here. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 23:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' The GS were put in place 11 days ago. I don't see why we can't wait until mid-May to see if they work. --[[User:Guerillero|<font color="#0b0080">Guerillero</font>]] &#124; [[User_talk:Guerillero|<font color="green">Parlez Moi</font>]] 01:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' this will be here sooner or later, and Community sanctions have not been very successful with this sort of problem--just as Kww points out above. We can have further disruption and then step in, or we can step in now and do what can be done to short-circuit the further disruption . The attitude of letting things become worse so the need for sanctions will become even clearer, is detrimental in the meanwhile to everyone who works in good faith with good manners in the area. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 05:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' at this point, with no prejudice against accepting a future case if it becomes clear after a suitable length of time that the DS are not working. [[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Yunshui|<sup style="font-size:90%">雲</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/Yunshui|<sub style="font-size:90%">水</sub>]] 07:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' - not opposed to a case examining all sides of editor conduct at e-cigarette articles. But a) this specific request lacks vigour, and b) the community sanctions have only just been imposed. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 10:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. Let's give community sanctions a chance to work. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 10:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
* '''Decline'''. Per Euryalus and Salvio, &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]</sup> 12:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
* '''Decline''' Let's see how the community sanctions go. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] <small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 20:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
* '''Accept.''' Although I accept I am a minority in this matter, in my judgment we need to examine this editor's conduct. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 21:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:09, 20 April 2015

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion (orig. case) 26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 8 September 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=657317270"