Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Lankiveil (Talk) & L235 (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: DeltaQuad (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Case duration[edit]

I guess we can see how the evidence development works out, but I still urge the committee to be open to considering a longer case schedule on this one. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assume that things will close as currently scheduled unless we explicitly say so, but certainly we will consider whether phases need to be extended as we progress. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Has anything been explicitly said so regarding the Proposed Decision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B002:F416:0:0:0:103 (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Editor conduct in e-cigs articles (December 2015)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by AlbinoFerret at 23:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Editor conduct in e-cigs articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. [[1]]
  2. [[2]]
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Provide evidence so Quackguru is topic banned or blocked.
  • Include Cloudjpk and allow arbs to block for tag teaming/meatpuppetry.

Statement by AlbinoFerret[edit]

I would like to provide evidence that was impossible for me to provide during the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles case. I was on a 6 month self ban from E-cigarette related topics during the start of the case. That ended on September 16th, the case was still open and I asked to provide evidence.[8] The evidence I would like to provide is about two editors, Cloudjpk and QuackGuru.

The complete evidence I would like to present totals a little under 6000 words and 228 diffs/links. It averages about 27 words per diff. The complete evidence is copy/paste ready. I request more words and diffs to add more here. Examples are below.

Partially withdraw, QuackGuru has been topic banned for 6 months. AlbinoFerret 14:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru[edit]

Competency[edit]

  • 12/24/2014 The McKee source was clearly marked on the source as an editorial.[9] Per WP:MEDRS it was not usable for medical claims. This also NPOV problem, improper source used for negative claims. QG added it here.[10] Talk page on it.[11] Argues Its a review.[12][13] Says its MEDRS compliant.[14] Starts a new topic on the same article with deceptive heading arguing again that it should be included.[15] Inserted the editorial into the main article below line 158.[16]
  • Mixes first and second hand aerosol claims.[17]
  • QG cant understand there are different size particles.[18]
  • Endless round in circles, 11 Year old girls.[19][20]
  • Does not comprehend that while something may be possible, it isnt always the case. [21] SPACKlick points out that the sources do not list Propylene Oxide as a component of the vapor.[22] QG, unable to tell the difference between "can or could" and "is" defends that the source says it is a component of the vapor.[23] GuackGuru says he is basing the claim on future sources.[24]
Misuse of OR[edit]
  • Fixed OR and POV problem by adding POV to recreate the problem. [25] Reintroduced edit below line 23 [26]
  • Youth changed from young people. [27] The talk page section. [28] saying not Verifiable. Websters dictionary suggests they are the same.[29] as does Youth.
  • QG argues over the word "some", even when he admits the source says that the chemicals are not found all over. [30]
Misrepresenting[edit]
  • "There is no serious dispute". This is not just misrepresenting, but is a serious competency issue with ongoing issues. [31][32][33] [34] [35][36]
  • Misrepresents consensus [37] when its the opposite [38].

NPOV/Negative advocacy[edit]

  • 12/25/2014 Removed cited claim that none of the components environmental impact has been done.[39]
  • 4/26/2015 Toddlers motivated to ingest, using non MEDRS source.[40]
  • On August 16, 2015 QG inserted a claim,[41] but left out the rest of the information that says " nicotine outside tobacco has not been shown to be associated with cancer in the real world" that was added later by Johnbod on the 20th.[42]
  • 3/10/2015 Nicotine is "lethal" poison (source says harmful).[43]link to the discussion. Tweaked it a bit.[44] Sees talk page and changes to "toxic".[45]
  • 3/21/2015 From the source "Based on 76 studies, ECs cannot be regarded as safe, even though they probably are less harmful than CCs." QG added to the article, leaving out probably less harmful [46]
  • 3/24/2015 Exposure to children, added claims about the dangers. [47] But did not add that this had not been studied yet. From the source, "Nicotine levels in infants and children exposed to electronic cigarette aerosol and surface deposits have not yet been studied and the health effects of nicotine in this age group are uncertain." England, Lucinda J "Nicotine and the Developing Human"
  • On 6/10/2015 Quack removed a part of a positive referenced claim that he completely removed later[48]
  • Moved negative claim in front of a positive one. [49]
  • On 6/10/15 QG removed a positive, referenced claim. [50] citing "Dated and repetitive" in comments. The source is from 2011, within 5 years WP:MEDDATE.
  • Blatant twisting of a source to a negative claim. The PHE source.[51] On pages 76-77 discusses the failed methodology of studies that found formaldehyde. What QG added, near the bottom of the edit. [52]

Cloudjpk[edit]

Out of the blue[edit]

Cloudjpk appears out of the blue whenever QuackGuru needs support, then disappears off WP. As of 11/16/2015 he has 579 total edits and 379 to E-cig articles 65%.[53]

  • I went to RSN about a source and made a post to the talk page.[54] QG starts to replace the questionable source.[55][56] Cludjpk hows up and WP:RSN having not edited for 4 days.[57] QG undoes one of his replacements.[58] Cloudjpk doesnt make another post for 18 hours.
  • 9/14/2015 QG added 70% information in WP's voice.[59] but did not include where the information comes from. The source states " now 70 percent of American smokers who are looking to quit are turning to e-cigs, according to statistics compiled by Ecigsopedia." TracyMcClark added a FV tag because QG left off the source.[60] Cloudjpk showed up out of the blue to remove the FV tag.[61] He had not made an edit since 9/9/2015, did not comment in the talk page section on this. He did not make another edit until 18 hours later at 00:35 16/9/2015 September. The purpose of this edit [62] was to argue against a temporary injunction because of QG's activities.[63]
  • 10/15/2015 After not editing the articles since 8/26/2015 Cloudjpk reverts out relevant sourced claim.[64] When this is pointed out [65][66] Cloudjpk blows it off[67] and does not replace the claim.
  • 11/10/2015 QuackGuru doesnt want a image added to the page.[68] Out of the blue Cloudjpk comments against it having made one other edit 18 hours earlier to another page.[69] then doesn't make another WP edit until 11/16/2015.

Responses[edit]

I would like to point out to QG that this is to amend the case, as such the time frame should be prior to the case closing, not after. AlbinoFerret 21:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeltaQuad since space is no longer a problem since I have withdrawn QuackGuru because of his ban, can this request proceed on the remaining editor? AlbinoFerret 14:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by QuackGuru[edit]

I acknowledge there is a request for clarification. If this request is accepted or admins have any questions let me know. QuackGuru (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was evidence of disruption by the e-cig promoters, but there was no specific remedies to dealing with any specific editor.

Based on this comment I moved my request to WP:AE. QuackGuru (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cloudjpk[edit]

If this case for clarification is approved I am happy to discuss this matter. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by S Marshall[edit]

Apparently the fun never stops.

I don't see any need for me to present any evidence here. I see from QuackGuru's evidence that one of the edits I made today does vaguely resemble one I made in March. I offer no defence, and I'm content for Arbcom to deal with this complaint in whatever way it sees fit. It is definitely true that I waited for the Arbcom case to be over before making any changes to the page; in fact I said at the time that this is what I was doing. I'm amused to note that QuackGuru lumps me in with his group of "e-cig promoters" and I'm content for Arbcom to judge the truth of this for themselves based on the diffs he provides without further input from me.—S Marshall T/C 23:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Spartaz[edit]

Is this still needed now that QuackGuru has been banned from the topic area for six months for disruptive forum shopping and derailimg discussion on the article talk page? Spartaz Humbug! 08:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

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 amendment request or provide additional information.

Editor conduct in e-cigs articles: Clerk notes[edit]

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

Editor conduct in e-cigs articles: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

  • Having been inactive on this case, and hence unfamiliar with the material considered, I'll formally abstain from anything regarding this ARCA. Courcelles (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: I'm currently hearing a request on my talkpage of a evidence limit extension, and I'd ask Arbitrators to hold off for the moment on making any comments till that is resolved. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline any clarification Having reviewed what is remaining on this, there is no direct evidence that this is meatpuppetry, and I feel that any issues with tag teaming (or not since QG has been removed from the topic area) should proceed at WP:AE, and I don't see a need to clarify the case at this point. I would encourage though any presentation to AE be made with new diffs. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per Amanda. Doug Weller (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per Amanda. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not seeing much prospect of this being resolved before these votes become void, but decline. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Editor conduct in e-cigs articles (February 2016)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Mystery Wolff at 11:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles

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


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Statement by Mystery Wolff[edit]

1. Regarding the Arbcom outcome. It states: 

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.

Clarification is sought on how this works. Specifically in a case where other dispute resolutions options are not used, and an editor brings AE Requests. SHALL the outcome of the first event be no greater than 30 days? If the answer is Yes please state. If the answer is NO, please clarify what the language means.

2. Is the outcome of the Arbcom that all issues with Dispute Resolution needs with first be visited to the for AE requests? That the AE is the only Dispute Resolution option for all pages covered by the Arbcom? If not, what are the expectations of how Dispute Resolution should be handled for pages subject to Discretionary Sanctions?

3. For Appeals of AE decisions premised upon Arbcom (or otherwise) Should Admins who were involved with the original decision be participating in the Appeals process as "judges" i.e. Is the documented Appeals process to be carried out only by Admins who did not participate in the first AE?

4. Who determines if an Administrator is "involved" with editors in the AE. Is there any process. When should the determination of such be made?

5. Is the Closing Admin, expected or actually required to make a statement after the Appeal to the AE is made. If they refuse to comment or answer questions, can that then be used to show that the AE was determined improperly, and thus if the Closing Admin refuses to respond, SHALL the case then be resolved in the favor of the requesting editor.

Thank you for your Clarifications in advance. Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • 6. What part of discretionary sanctions allow or suggest: "People who are still coming up the learning curve on Wikipedia should stay away from troubled areas." What are the various tiers of editorship? I was previously of the understanding that there was only locking of articles to where you needed to be verified. How is the learning curve graded, and how are editors graduated through the different levels?
Reply to @Thryduulf: This request for clarification is being done generically. It is not being done as a request for modification to the ARB, and I was not involved in the ARB where I am asking the question to. You have not addressed the additional Two questions I have asked, and raise new question by your response.
The question 6, is referring to a policy where editors much have an undefined differentiator than simply following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Guidance_for_editors I want to know about how the tiers are managed and what is necessary. Because enforcing admins use the phrase I placed, I want to know about it. Its something that all editors on Wikipedia should know about, or that policy of levels of editorship on articles with Discretionary sanctions should be removed. Please talk to that.
on 5, I asked about the rules that are well documented that Enforcing Admins are accountable, and must explain their actions. Its simple, if they choose to refuse to answer questions about their enforcement actions, they are not accountable at all. My reading of the guidelines says its not optional, that it is required.
@Thryduulf: Your new assertion is wrong, and its a wrong reading of the rules. Without the enforcing Admin commenting on the Appeal, its is nearly certain to fail, rather than you misunderstanding that it is beneficial to the appealing editor....because it nearly guarantees the status quo. For an appeal to succeed, a reviewing admin must see a difference, find a difference, to change the Status quo. As you know, often the case win Admin reviews is a process of follow the leader. The process problem is there is no way that the appeal editor has any idea of why the decision was made, and often is not presented with enough information that a review has been done with any level of completeness. You also know that the pejorative of wikilawyering is also abused by admins as a way to stifle the very plea of the appeals itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Role_of_administrators somehow is not being seen as a requirement.
Why is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Expectations_of_administrators not a requirement? Rather, its written as a requirement, but it treated as optional.
If the clarification is a stratified set of tiers of editorship, that's fine, but it need to be part of a process and documented. Otherwise you are left with more and more frequent sanctioning of editors, without those editors being told which edits are the basis. I would appreciate clarification to process in general. These answers are for the whole of the project and not simply a single case. Please focus on process Mystery Wolff (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@In actu: I do not understand your response below, and I did google it. I believe that I am asking for important clarifications to a process that is out of sorts. Its an important process because it one used to close down and restrict editorship to an open project, so checks and balances are important especially with consideration to a process of an Appeal. If editors are not given a fair process, and by fair process I mean that the process if defined AND followed, it will result in an outcome that is a disservice to the entirety of the Wikipedia community. Its well known that the pejorative "wikilawyering" is often used to BITE at editors, and as an excuse to circumvent process, but in an Appeals process, it must be that editors are given a fair hearing. The Closing admin "MUST" explain their actions, and a designated Admin should be responsible for the Appeal as it proceeds. Otherwise a transient random Admin may requested to close it out, out of favor, boredom, or otherwise, without giving the editor a fair hearing. I don't think any Admin can disagree with anything above.
In actu, what I am raising here contradicts that assertion of @Thryduulf:. A. There is a requirement of Admin, and its not optional, its defined as MUST, explain their administrative actions. The template for Appeal, creates a section for the closing Admin to explain their decision. IT IS fundamental to the existing appeals process. If a closing Admin refuses to explain their actions, informally as listed out by the Topic Ban template, Directly to their TALK page, the editor has only one option to bring it to an Appeal. The appeal can only be by a shift of the Status Quo. If no Admins bother to look at the appeal, or address anything in the actual appeal, the status quo remains. If the enforcing Admin refuses to to explain their actions, the result will always be the status quo, and the appeal process is mooted, or gamed.
@In actu: I would also appreciate you responding to the various tiers of editorship on Wikipedia, and how an editor is to move through them. Directions are put out that editors should only edit XYZ articles, and other articles are only appropriate for 123 editors. All of this is undocumented, but it is being used by the AE board itself.
Again I appreciated these needed clarifications to the processes. Mystery Wolff (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Please stop shifting my request for clarification to something it is not. This is not "appeal that appeal to the arbitration committee", or an appeal. Above, I am asking for clarification to process. As the items have not been remarked to, I can not disagree with something that is not there. Please stop personifying and respond to the process questions above or if TLDR for you, allow others to do so. Stop making it about me. Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf:, there are two items above which have not been addressed, (5 clarification, and 6). However, I apologize for my error...of drafting them incrementally here.
They are generalized to process and not individual case specific....and I will re-craft them again, and ask them, independent of this. Mystery Wolff (talk) 10:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf[edit]

In response to Mystery Wolff's followup question, when an appeal is made then uninvolved administrators look at all the information available and decide based on that whether the sanction was appropriate or not. If the blocking administrator does not or cannot (for whatever reason) contribute to the discussion then the other administrators will just not have that information available. They will still be able to examine the logs, the original thread, and all links posted with the appeal and with the original discussion that led to the sanction. If anything, the closing admin not participating is more likely to favour the appealing user as they will not be able to present their case or explain why they chose the action they did that another admin may not have done.

Neither arbcom nor AE is a court and nobody wins or loses based on minor procedural errors - not that there were any in your case. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mystery Wolff: I have explained above what happens if the admin making the initial action does not contribute. That you choose not to believe this does not make it untrue, nor does it make your preferred interpretation correct.
You made your appeal, it and the comments left by other users (including the admin who originally placed the resitrction) were reviewed by uninvolved administrators. Your appeal was declined. You have now chosen to appeal that appeal to the arbitration committee, who have also declined it. You appear to be confusing people disagreeing with you for people not hearing you. Please read Wikipedia:I didn't hear that, and move on. There is nothing to be gained by continuing to beat a dead horse. Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What process questions remain outstanding? As far as I can tell, everything has been answered already:
  • Administrators who impose sanctions are encouraged and recommended to take part in any appeal of that sanction, but they are not obliged to - read WP:ADMIN again.
  • That a section of the appeal exists for comments from the admin who imposed it does not create an obligation for them to take part in the appeal.
  • The appeal is judged by uninvolved administrators whether the original admin takes part or not.
  • The appeal is judged based on the evidence presented in the original discussion, the evidence presented in the appeal, and the comments of all users who choose to comment.
  • Appeals made without the input of the imposing administrator can be and have been successful.
Fundamentally you need to read and understand WP:NOTBURO. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

5. Is the Closing Admin, expected or actually required to make a statement after the Appeal to the AE is made. If they refuse to comment or answer questions, can that then be used to show that the AE was determined improperly, and thus if the Closing Admin refuses to respond, SHALL the case then be resolved in the favor of the requesting editor.

The closing admin is recommended to make a statement, but is not required to. If they do not comment or answer questions, then all that happens is that their judgement is interpreted based on what was written (by them and others) in the thread that they closed. It does not affect whether the closure was correct or otherwise, and has no bearing on whether the appeal is successful or not. It is very uncommon for a sanction to be overturned on procedural grounds.

What part of discretionary sanctions allow or suggest: "People who are still coming up the learning curve on Wikipedia should stay away from troubled areas." What are the various tiers of editorship? I was previously of the understanding that there was only locking of articles to where you needed to be verified. How is the learning curve graded, and how are editors graduated through the different levels?

"People who are still coming up the learning curve on Wikipedia should stay away from troubled areas." is advice not a sanction. That Wikipedia has a learning curve is a factual statement independent of anything else, and given that the learning curve exists and new editors arrive all the time, there are by definition editors at all points on the curve. The experience of those of us who have been around a long time shows that the learning curve is much easier to scale in a non-contentious area - things happen at a slower pace, meaning the experienced editors there have the time and patience to teach and guide those who are learning rather than firefight to maintain article quality. Experience also shows that editors whose sole focus when starting is to narrow, controversial topic rarely go on to become long term productive editors, while those people who do have long, productive editing careers almost always started with a broad focus and learned the culture of Wikipedia on articles that are not controversial.
There are only four classes of access level for editing, unconfirmed, confirmed, 500/30, and administrator:
All users start out as unconfirmed, and anyone edits without using an account can only hold this level. Unconfirmed users can not edit any page that is protected, semi-protected or under a 500/30 restriction.
Users can be confirmed by any administrator, or become autoconfirmed when their account is at least four days old and they have made at least 10 edits. There is no difference in practical terms between confirmed and autoconfirmed. These users can edit pages that are semi-protected but not fully protected or under a 500/30 restriction.
500/30 is a restriction applied to a very small number of topics that is similar to semi-protection but requires users to have been registered for at least 30 days and have made at least 500 edits.
Administrators are the only group of editors who can protect or unprotect pages, edit fully protected pages and block and unblock users. To become an administrator you need to pass a Request for adminship.
Actual experience as an editor is judged informally to no set criteria, based on how long someone has been editing, the standards of their editing and conduct, and their demonstrated understanding of Wikipedia policies and practices.
Discretionary sanctions do allow uninvolved administrators to issue topic bans, that is to disallow an editor from editing a given topic or topics where their contributions are judged to be a net-negative to the project for some reason. This ban will either be for a finite length of time (typically 3-12 months) or indefinitely. Topic bans may be appealed, but that appeal will not be granted unless uninvolved administrators are happy that the editor concerned will not cause disruption. The easiest way to demonstrate this is to present evidence of several months productive contribution to an unrelated area of the project without being the cause of or exacerbating drama or controversy.
Those editors who do not move on from a topic they have been topic banned from, and/or cause disruption in another topic area, are the least likely to be successful when appealing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion by Beyond My Ken[edit]

If I may, perhaps the Committee, or some number of Arbs, could instruct one of the clerks to wrap this up neatly with a bow and put it in the archives? Unless, that is, Salvio wants to bask in the healing warmth of the accolades a while longer. BMK (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Editor conduct in e-cigs articles: Clerk notes[edit]

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

Editor conduct in e-cigs articles: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

  • Clarification is sought on how this works. Specifically in a case where other dispute resolutions options are not used, and an editor brings AE Requests. SHALL the outcome of the first event be no greater than 30 days? If the answer is Yes please state. If the answer is NO, please clarify what the language means.
    • No, the section you link to only deals with the enforcement of sanctions imposed by ArbCom (for instance, editor A gets indefinitely topic banned by ArbCom, he violates his restriction and is reported to AE, assuming it's his first violation the admins there can only block him for up to one month). Those provisions do not apply to admins imposing discretionary sanctions.
  • Is the outcome of the Arbcom that all issues with Dispute Resolution needs with first be visited to the for AE requests? That the AE is the only Dispute Resolution option for all pages covered by the Arbcom? If not, what are the expectations of how Dispute Resolution should be handled for pages subject to Discretionary Sanctions?
    • Basically, any editor is free to choose whatever dispute resolution method he thinks will be best suited to solve a dispute, provided he is acting in good faith.
  • For Appeals of AE decisions premised upon Arbcom (or otherwise) Should Admins who were involved with the original decision be participating in the Appeals process as "judges" i.e. Is the documented Appeals process to be carried out only by Admins who did not participate in the first AE?
    • Only the admin who imposed the sanction being appealed is considered involved, those who have expressed an opinion but did not directly impose the sanction are not considered involved.
  • Who determines if an Administrator is "involved" with editors in the AE. Is there any process. When should the determination of such be made?
    • In the first instance, you should ask the admin in question to refrain from acting on account of his involvement; if he doesn't comply, you can ask the other administrators commenting in the AE thread; if they disagree, it is up to those who hear the appeal and, finally, to ArbCom.
  • Is the Closing Admin, expected or actually required to make a statement after the Appeal to the AE is made. If they refuse to comment or answer questions, can that then be used to show that the AE was determined improperly, and thus if the Closing Admin refuses to respond, SHALL the case then be resolved in the favor of the requesting editor.
    • No. Admins are free to, and ought to comment during appeals, in keeping with the spirit of WP:ADMINACCT, but the fact they choose not to is not grounds for the case to be resolved in favour of the appealing editor. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Salvio. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Salvio said. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to Salvio for a clear concise reply. Which of course I agree with. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many different ways can we find to say "Salvio is right"? Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a academic would say, "See Giuliano (2016a) for a full explanation of the problem." --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need more people to agree with Salvio? Gamaliel (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Motion: Removal of Unused Contentious Topics, Editor conduct in e-cigs articles (October 2023)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remedy 1 of Editor conduct in e-cigs articles ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

  1. I remember having a number of relevant pages on my watchlist due to the disruption. I have since taken most of them off my watchlist because the disruption stopped. Barring any evidence to the contrary I am inclined to lift this. Primefac (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The CT has only ever been used once in 2020 --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

  1. I'm abstaining on all these issues as I don't have the time to go through them, and don't want my dithering to hold matters up. SilkTork (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussions (Editor conduct in e-cigs articles)[edit]

Community discussion (Editor conduct in e-cigs articles)[edit]

Based on my AE assessment logs, this CT has shown up ~10 times overall since the case closed, with only one thread involving it in the last five years. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor_conduct_in_e-cigs_articles&oldid=1180831952"