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

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

 * Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

=Proposed final decision=

Proposed principles
I hold these truths to be self-evident.

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopaedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promoting original research is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Making allegations against other editors
2) An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making it at all. A claim of misconduct should be raised directly with the other user himself or herself in the first instance, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. If direct discussion does not resolve the issue, it should be raised in the appropriate forum for reporting or discussing such conduct, and should not generally be spread across multiple forums. Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Neutral point of view
3) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion, either in favour of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Conduct during arbitration cases
4) Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The day after the evidence phase closed, controlling behaviour on the talk page: 1, 2, 3. "Let me know what you would like summarised for a specific section. I need to know the page number."  QuackGuru continues to feel that all edits made to the article should be made by him.— S Marshall  T/C 20:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Recidivism
5) Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behaviour may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviour.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Role of the Arbitration Committee
6) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

History 1
1) The dispute on electronic cigarettes has been long and involved, with a number of incidents of sockpuppetry, inappropriate edits for pay, and other disruptive behaviour. Editors have been subject to attacks which have spread off-wiki.  During this time, editors adopted assertive article management techniques intended to maintain a NPOV article in the face of a large number of inappropriate edits.  As a result of the disruptive behaviour, the community decided to impose discretionary sanctions on 1 April 2015.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * "number of incidents of.. inappropriate edits for pay". User:FergusM1970 was blocked for being paid to edit Derwick Associates, see .FergusM1970 did frequently edit e-cig articles but denied being paid to edit them. Whilst this denial may not be true, we have no evidence to the contrary that I'm aware of. So we don't actually have any evidence of paid editing to e-cig articles.Levelledout (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "assertive article management techniques" often translated to ownership, edit-warring, filibustering and other plain rule-braking - two wrongs don't make a right. Not clear that some of the editors using the "assertive article management techniques" were trying to implement NPOV.Levelledout (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

History 2
2) Although discretionary sanctions were enacted, they have not hardly been enforced.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * User:SPACKlick was "prohibited from adding images to or removing images from articles related to electronic cigarettes, broadly construed" by uninvolved admin ., so yes they have been enforced. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 11:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that there has been one occasion. Corrected.— S Marshall  T/C 19:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

History 3
3) No Very little evidence of sockpuppetry or COI editing that post-dates the imposition of discretionary sanctions has been presented to the Committee.

What I do know is that those who would like to excuse QuackGuru's behaviour on the basis that he was dealing with sockpuppetry, haven't produced much recent evidence to support that. Yobol's intervention, for example, was surprising to me because in upwards of six months editing the article I've never noticed him participating there.— S Marshall T/C 15:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Possibly so, though the absence of SPI's doesn't always mean the absence of sockpuppets. Interested however in the point of this as a proposed Finding - there doesn't seem much evidence the discretionary sanctions have achieved much, how have they helped in reducing sockpuppetry?
 * Comment by parties:
 * Arbitrary example: User:OutOfCheeseError was banned for sockpuppeting (SPI). Last e-cig edit July 7th – this was detailed. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 12:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment moved, answer to Arbitrator
 * I really don't know. It's possible that the threat of discretionary sanctions was sufficient deterrent?
 * I don't think discretionary sanctions have deterred sockpuppets whatsoever, there have been at least 3 new SPAs (with under 50 edits, mainly if not only active on ecigs) who started editing after I filed evidence here (Aug 18). I did not anticipate being challenged on the grounds of insufficient recent examples (4 banned sockpuppet accounts these last months), but I can apply for an addendum with evidence of post discretionary sanction cases if need be. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 11:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd have no objection to submitting further evidence on this score. I do want to query CFCF, who seems to be going off on a tangent.  I'm talking about evidence of sockpuppetry and/or COI editing.  CFCF seems to be talking about new editors, people with less than 50 edits, who he characterises as SPAs.  How do we know someone's a SPA if they have fewer than 50 edits, and what does that have to do with sockpuppetry and/or COI editing?— S Marshall  T/C 18:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @S Marshall: My evidence was to provide context to the dispute, and clearly that evidence applies to conduct that occurred before your involvement in the article. I think context, including the disruption caused by multiple SPAs, etc. was important in this case, since it is in regards to editor conduct in e-cig articles in general (which seems to be the proposed scope of the arbitration case according to the title), and not just a dispute about only the last 6 months or only about Quackguru's conduct.  Yobol (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur and would also like to add I never meant to be exhaustive in my evidence. To your point, new editors with ~20 edits on this topic with few elsewhere are highly likely to be sockpuppets. An SPA is indication of sockpuppeting, though not conclusive – which is why WP:Checkuser exists.-- CFCF  🍌 (email) 06:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm trying to show Arbcom some of the reasons why this is a really fraught environment, and I'm sure that comment will help them see.  I'm also sure that Quackguru would strongly agree with you on this point if he was participating here.— S Marshall  T/C 18:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'm not throwing baseless allegations around here – I beg of you to look at the editing patterns of these new accounts since the 20th:, , and say that their editing conduct is not suspicious. --  CFCF  🍌 (email) 21:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * you are on the money there. Those three editors are great examples of the behavior that drives problems in the e-cig suite of articles. Jytdog (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * would you care to expand on the "behaviour that drives problems in the e-cig suite of articles" that I and others appear to be criticised for? As far as I can see, it's the behaviour shown in these talk pages towards new and/or inexperienced editors that drives problems in the accessibility and neutrality of Wikipedia -Jim bexley speed (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I must say that I'm unaccustomed to dealing with bad faith users. I'm a rather experienced editor but up to now I've been active in the less contentious areas of the encyclopaedia; I've translated biographies of Europeans and written articles about rural England and its local history. I don't have to deal with sockpuppets or SPAs on agriculture in the United Kingdom or forestry in the United Kingdom. And I genuinely can't see anything suspicious about the contributions of those new accounts, so you'll have to explain to me what I'm looking at. Incidentally, if you read those two articles I linked, they're ones where I've been able to work unobstructed and get to a stage where I'm reasonably happy with the language, style and structure. I beg you to compare and contrast them with electronic cigarette, which might help you see why I think the latter article is so horribly defective.— S Marshall T/C 07:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * CFCF, I'm unfairly singling you out and this is happening because you're choosing to engage with the process and talk to me. There are others who are not.  I don't want to give Arbcom the wrong impression based on that.
 * The editing patterns are not suspicious in and of themselves (and maybe Jim bexley speed is the odd one out) – but in light of the proven excessive sock-puppeting they become suspicious. As I detailed in my evidence it is very difficult to see which editors are good faith editors and which are socks – when both clearly exist. I would like to point out that this entire discussion surrounds a supposed lack of evidence of sock-puppeting, which is simply not true. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 12:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think everyone's good faith has been warn down by this past process. Causing some to see boogeymen in every corner. There has been very limited COI or puppetry. There are some SPA's but that's less of an issue. I generally agree with the point that COI and Sockputtry are oft brought up in relation to this dispute but are of limited effect in causing this dispute. SPACKlick (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a significant degree of socking here and even discounting specific cases – SPAs are very problematic. Many of the users ignore relevant sourcing policies and only edit on these articles – making it impossible for any general editor to keep up. I don't think I need to remind anyone that WP:NOTADVOCATE is a central policy.
 * Without pointing fingers – was neither a sockpuppet nor a COI-editor – but was very passionate and under two months created an insurmountable degree of talk-page discussion (see talk page link at 570,000kB) – it just simply isn't possible to keep up for an average editor. --  CFCF  🍌 (email) 07:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that highly passionate and active editors make the page impossible to keep up with, although AlbinoFerret is far from the worst offender. Shall we make a table of who has edited the page and the talk page most frequently since discretionary sanctions were imposed?  The data would be easily extracted and would I think shed some light on this aspect.— S Marshall  T/C 07:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , since Johnbod asked for it. My parameters will be 1 April 2015 to this timestamp.— S Marshall  T/C 18:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done for the page, results in my sandbox. I haven't done the talk page yet but will see if I can get it done tomorrow.— S Marshall  T/C 23:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ... and done for the talk page, which is a bit less ridiculously one-sided. Note that evil Lowercase sigmabot III who's clearly a malevolent SPA!  Results again in my sandbox.— S Marshall  T/C 22:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Yes, I've looked "at the editing patterns of these new accounts since the 20th:, , " and I do "say that their editing conduct is not suspicious." Not at all. The first has been editing since 2011 btw. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF is a core policy. I'm not pursuaded. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have repeatedly assumed that e-cigarette advocates were not socks or COI, and I have repeatedly been proven wrong. I have been surprised; perhaps I have been naive. At this point the evidence of socks is perfectly clear. As is the resulting damage. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "repeatedly" as in twice?
 * User:InfiniteBratwurst was a sock of User:FergusM1970
 * User:OutofCheeseError was a fairly obvious sock of User:CheesyAppleFlake
 * Those are the only two incidents that I am aware of.Levelledout (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Shall we make a table of who has edited the page and the talk page most frequently since discretionary sanctions were imposed?" - yes, this would be useful I think. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @S Marshall, your comment "although AlbinoFerret is far from the worst offender" had me wondering, what would happen if you ran the same tests with AlbinoFerret's edits before they were banned from the article to compare. That would also be interesting as that was by far the highest volume of edits overall. Yobol (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

History 4
4) However, the assertive article management techniques have continued, and these have inappropriately affected good faith editors with legitimate concerns about the article's content.  The talk page has become fraught and difficult to use, and the editing environment has become hostile.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think this presentation is a little one sided. There has been some backlash against the "assertive article management techniques" however it perfectly encapsulates my understanding of the problems to that point. To be more explicit with it. People stopped displaying assumptions of good faith. Others responded by stopping displaying assumptions of good faith. SPACKlick (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

QuackGuru restricted (Option 1)
1) QuackGuru's current editing restrictions are adopted by the Committee. The 0RR provisions relating to acupuncture are broadened to include electronic cigarettes and related articles.  The 1RR restrictions on alternative medicine continue.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:

What we ideally need is a remedy that enables him to point out sources for us and to help detect and revert POV material, but removes from him control of the article at the level of individual edits. I have another, more off-the-wall idea that I'll detail below.— S Marshall T/C 00:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * Not ideal. With QuackGuru we don't have a standard/cookie cutter remedy that actually fits the problem.  If he was in bad faith, or if all of his edits were disruptive or detrimental then this would be easy; but he's completely well-intentioned, he makes a useful shield against vandalism and disruptive editing, and apart from one bizarre misjudgement, he's generally shown an ability to add good sources.


 * This focuses on the inflammation and not on the underlying disease of advocacy editing. There is clear ax-grinding here against QG.   Arbcom is not needed to deal with putative disruption by a single editor. Jytdog (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh yes. I certainly have a colossal axe to grind about QG's behaviour, and I don't pretend to be a neutral party.  That doesn't make me wrong, Jytdog.  It says some things quite clearly at the top of this page, and I suggest you read them.  If you're going to pretend that advocacy editing is more of a problem than QG's behaviour, then it's up to you to provide recent diffs of advocacy editing being a problem.  If you don't do that soon, then I'm considering asking a clerk to remove all such allegations from the page.— S Marshall  T/C 09:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The time to present evidence is past, and I do not think I ~can~ present new evidence.  I think CFCF's evidence demonstrates past and present advocacy well.  Also discussed above, with the new SPA accounts.  I do regret that I missed my chance to present my own evidence. Jytdog (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Müdigkeit, but I asked Arbcom to take a case about behaviour in articles about electronic cigarettes, so remedies need to be focused on that. There may be scope for a case about QuackGuru's behaviour in general, but I'm afraid this isn't it.— S Marshall  T/C 09:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Topic specific sanctions won't work. This user's bad actions aren't limited to one topic, they are general behaviour.--Müdigkeit (talk) 06:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru restricted (Option 2)
2) QuackGuru is banned from electronic cigarette and related articles in mainspace and talk space, with the exceptions noted below. He is permitted to create pages in his own userspace, such as User:QuackGuru/Electronic cigarettes or whatever other titles he chooses, and he is specifically permitted to keep logs of editor behaviour in that space for the purpose of detecting and recording advocacy. Exceptions: QuackGuru is permitted to revert uncontroversial vandalism and perform minor, uncontroversial reference maintenance.  No more than once in any rolling 24-hour period, he is also permitted to add up to ten words to an electronic cigarette-related talk page, which may contain a pointer to a section of his own userspace; he is permitted to raise any concerns that he might have about article content or editor behaviour in that space.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I know this is weird. Think of it as brainstorming.— S Marshall  T/C 00:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As above. Jytdog (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

1) SPACKlick claims consensus when there is none


 * Comment by arbitrators


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

2) SPACKlick invents policy which he puts forward as fact


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

3) SPACKlick misrepresents sources to bolster his argument


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

4) SPACKlick fails to understand that it is inadmissible to add a picture of an apple captioned as a picture of an orange using the spurious argument that the artist is representing an orange by an apple


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

5) When challenged SPACKlick descends into incoherence


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

6) SPACKlick cannot control his use of bad language


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

7) Bishonen got so fed up of being sworn at by SPACKlick that she removed him from her watchlist


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

8) SPACKlick tag teams with AstroLynx, CambridgeBayWeather and NeilN to remove the sources added by other editors confirming that a picture is not Muhammad prohibiting intercalation and to revert editors removing it as irrelevant


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

9) Despite warnings, SPACKlick disregards General Sanctions to needle other editors and disrupt the project


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) SPACKlick Site/Community banned with appeal after 1 year


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Müdigkeit
I have been involved with this user here

Discussion after reverts
1) After something has been reverted, and is disputed, someone may propose another solution or simply present arguments. Sufficient time should be given to respond.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I agree but I'm also aware others feel swamped on the sometimes fast moving talk pages. Would some sort of limit to one comment per contributor per discussion per 24 hours or something help slow discussion down and so make edits to the article, while slower, more reasoned when they get there?SPACKlick (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Reverting without reasoning
2) Reverting good faith edits without evident reasoning is disruptive editing.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I would clarify this as "without given reasoning" or "without evident reasoning" most of the infuriating reverts will have a reason, however reasonable it is. However they're infuritating when the reason isn't given to be discussed if disputed. SPACKlick (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Good suggestion by User:SPACKlick. Implemented.--Müdigkeit (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

History of disruptive editing for User:Quackguru
1) User:QuackGuru has previously partipiciated in disruptive editing multiple times, and has been blocked for it again and again, as evident from his block log


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Disruptive reverts
2) User:Quackguru reverts too fast, as evident here


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Canvassing
3) There have been efforts to canvass users as evident here, mostly as meatpuppets.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Quackguru:0RR
1) User:Quackguru is subject to 0RR restrictions, for a period of...


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Too strong.— S Marshall T/C 20:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not too strong given the evidence presented against QuackGuru. I'm not sure exactly what else QuackGuru could actually do in order to have some firm action taken against them. As demonstrated on the evidence page they have already partaken in ownership, edit-warring, gaming the system, abuse of process, honesty issues, disrupting to prove a point, using Wikipedia as a platform for fighting quackery, etc, etc.Levelledout (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it really is too strong. QG's zeal for sourcing is valuable to the encyclopaedia and we shouldn't stop him reverting in medical fields.  If Arbcom does decides to go as far as 0RR on QuackGuru it should be limited in scope to just electronic cigarette, and its subarticles if any survive AfD.  I would prefer something less extreme than that, although I'm blessed if I know what.  We could try to make a laundry list of his problem behaviours and ask him to stop them all, but I wonder whether a mentorship of some kind could be made to work?— S Marshall  T/C 00:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes that's the problem S Marshall. It's not that I particularly want to see QG or any other editor sanctioned. It's more the fact that to do nothing or very little is to give QG a license to continue braking every rule in the book. Which means we have to put up with that. Or in my case and others, not put up with it and get driven away from the articles. That's not an acceptable option to me. QG does make a valuable contribution but he's just one editor. He's not more important than the project and when one editor is driving multiple other editors away from articles and preventing many others from from editing the article, firm action has to be taken. In QG's case he has already been blocked many times before and banned by ArbCom at least twice previously. So firm action is certainly appropriate. 0RR is the least we should be looking at, quite possibly a topic ban to prevent talk page disruption. Mentorship, yes but in addition to other measures given the evidence and history.Levelledout (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Quackguru:1RR
2) User:Quackguru is subject to 1RR restrictions, for a period of...


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Too strong.— S Marshall T/C 20:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Could a more general 1RR restriction calm things down a bit? With standard exclusions for obvious vandalism? Making it so edits only remain when there's consensus would be a big help. SPACKlick (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Quackguru:Siteban
3) User:Quackguru is sitebanned, for a period of...


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Far too strong.— S Marshall T/C 20:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't particularly want to see any editor site-banned unnecessarily. With respect to QG, something does need to be done with regard to their disruption to talk pages and that will not come about via plain editing restrictions (e.g 0RR). The evidence presented in this case is restricted only to electronic cigarettes and therefore I am not sure a site-ban can be justified in any case, a topic ban possibly, but not a site-ban. What I do know is that QG has a very long block log and has been sanctioned and banned by ArbCom at least twice previously. Some type of action is needed on QG that will mean we don't keep going round in circles and ending up back at ANI and ArbCom.Levelledout (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

General sanctions:Standard discretionary sanctions
4)The topic Electronic Cigarette is subject to standard discretionary sanctions, broadly construed. This replaces any community authorized discretionary sanctions regarding electronic cigarettes.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General sanctions:1RR
5)All reverts in the Electronic Cigarette article and its content forks are restricted to one revert in 48 hours, subject to the standard exceptions
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Agree with Johnbod that this might help. Am also attracted to the idea applied in Gamergate, of a minimum edit history for accounts in this space. Other views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not overenthusiastic about Gamergate-style minimum edit histories; it seems un-Wikipedian and counter to the basic principles of our encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Are we in the process of creating a new class of supersemiprotected article?— S Marshall T/C 23:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * There are already discretionary sanctions. We don't need to pile on new sanctions at the article level  it would be sufficient if Arbcom could arrange for the sanctions that are already in effect to be enforced strongly and consistently.  A restriction on the number of reverts would only be workable if it had intelligently-designed parameters (more intelligent than one revert per editor every 48 hours, which is easily-gameable).  I feel that if any additional sanctions are to be created these should be at the editor level rather than the article level.
 * I like the idea of revert-restrictions, but 1RR/48h may be going too far–I prefer 1/24 hours. I've found some users try to get around the 1RR rule on abortion-topics by rewriting their content completely so that reintroducing it does not count as a revert, and having 1RR/48h may cause this behaviour to become more common. As for requiring a minimum edit history I believe that is an excellent idea, and I was not aware that had previously been used. How was that constructed–just by semi-protecting all pages or more strongly enforced? -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 14:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * This might help. Johnbod (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru:Violations
1) If QuackGuru violates any restrictions placed on him, he should be blocked for at least one month for the first violation, and indefinitely if he violates them again or tries to evade a block.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * In general this whole series of proposals is ax-grinding against Quackguru and I don't see support for much of it. I agree with opposes above. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Ax- grinding? No. I have identified this user as long-term disruptive editor, and that means that we need to make clear that really bad things will happen if the undesired behaviour continues. If we want to give this user another chance.--Müdigkeit (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
1) All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a NPOV, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This is particular important for content related to science and medicine, including public health.  Wikipedia's scientific and medical content is solidly grounded on the scientific and medical mainstream.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Reliable sources
2) Reliable sources for content related to health are defined in WP:MEDRS, which calls for content related to health to be based on secondary sources, which in turn are defined as reviews in the biomedical literature and statements produced by major medical and scientific bodies.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Not a platform for advocacy
3) Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing.... Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

4) Per the widely cited essay, WP:SPA, Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Decorum
5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

6) Per the useful essay WP:Controversial articles, editors working on such topics are strongly encouraged to use the best quality sources available, to propose significant content changes on the Talk page rather than being bold, to comment on content and sources, not contributors, and generally to exercise self-retraint in editing and on Talk pages.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Content disputes
7) Restrictions are placed on users only in cases where their behavior seriously disrupts the wiki process or fulfillment of Wikipedia's mission to produce an accurate and useful reference work.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact (Jytdog)
1) Articles related to electronic cigarettes have been subject to pro-vaping advocacy editing with regard to health effects and regulation, by sockpuppets, editors with declared conflicts of interest, SPA accounts, and others.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * They have also been subject to excessive anti-vaping edits of various kinds, by various types of editors. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean by "anti-vaping - would you please define that? Also, please point me to the evidence discussing "anti-vaping" advocacy (although it may be obvious, once you define the term).  Thanks. . Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * would you please define "anti-vaping advocacy"? I defined "pro-vaping advocacy" in my first "Proposed remedy" below.  I may be interested in adding it, if we can define it.  But I don't know what you mean. Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't used that term, so I'm not sure why I should define it. I am somewhat dubious about the whole concept of "advocacy", certainly as you use it. See below, or is it above. I believe the articles, though they have improved just recently, still fall short of the ideal NPOV, on the anti-E-cig side. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok so we have a fundamental disagreement, even about what the problem is. But in any case, now you have used the term, "the anti-E-cig side". Please characterize the views of the the "anti-E-cig side". Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See my evidence (and I might say yours represents not a bad example). Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for answering, but i had already read your evidence before and i don't find "the anti-E-cig side" mentioned or defined there. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well "Meanwhile some think that vaping should be strongly discouraged, regulated and restricted,..." may not be very comprehensive or carefully thought out, but it will do to be going on with. Note the "strongly". Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You were describing "the US medical establishment and so government, plus the WHO" view there.  When I talk about "pro-vaping advocacy" I am talking about stuff like this & this from the same person, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this. Jytdog (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * None of these are WP diffs, & only the first two seem to have any relevance at all. Not sure where you're going with this. Minus polemic & insults, the points the now-banned Fergus makes are not nearly so far away from mainstream as you seem to think. I think you need to keep up with the literature frankly. Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I am aware of that. This is the workshop page, not an evidence page.  The point of the diffs is to show the kind of pro-vaping advocacy that exists online where Wikipedia also resides, and that there has been focus on WP articles in the pro-vaping community. The online pro-vaping advocacy community has been and will continue to be a source of pressure on our articles and is why I am calling out pro-vaping advocacy for special attention here. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day, I'm just not convinced that "pro-vaping advocacy" is the real problem here, at least currently. I've reviewed some of the talk archives for late 2014, when I only looked in sometimes. Some of the "pro-vaping" points have since become easier to reference to strong recent MEDRS sources, and (Cochrane, PHE etc) and are now represented, or represented better in the article (which took a while in the case of some). At the same time, the all-out defensive "Ils ne passeront pas" attitude of QG and some others was unhelpful - you need to be very sure that you are defending the right thing before adopting that. Many of the debates were made too long and too heated by the reactions of the "defenders".  I don't believe our article had a NPOV back then, even on the old set of literature, or fully has one now.  If you want to prevent enraged advocates coming along, the best way is to ensure neutrality in the article(s). Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Very sound comment, agree completely.Levelledout (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To both of you - the goal is not to "prevent enraged advocates coming along" - that cannot be stopped. The goal is to ensure neutrality. Giving advocates what they want, is not the way to preserve neutrality.  It takes a commitment to solid work, day in and day out, keeping one's cool, and minding the sources and the policies and guidelines. I have not seen QG get heated nor have I seen any diffs of that. I have seen the advocates he thwarts get very heated. Hm. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually the flow of enraged advocates would diminish very considerably if the article were truly NPOV. This has been the experience of other very contentious areas.  QK never gets heated certainly; he plays a long game. Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

2) Despite many ANI discussions and community-imposed discretionary sanctions, interactions among editors remains difficult and the suite of articles continues to generate activity on noticeboards that distracts the community from editing and dealing with tractable problems. Long term NPOV and advocacy issues are among the thorniest issues to resolve in Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Apart from this case, has there been much on noticeboards recently? The MEDRS evidence base has clearly been shifting over the last year, with reviews and reports catching up with a much larger body of primary work and professional pondering, & achieving NPOV in the article also requires changes. Also see my answer above. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

3) Disputes among editors have become overly personalized, with Talk page discussions too often focused on contributors, not content. Quackguru has been a particular focus of comments.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

4) Quackguru's editing of the e-cigarette article and its content forks is too aggressive.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Agree, but it is his defensive mode that is worse. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, but it is his defensive mode that is worse. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed remedies (Jytdog)
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) Similar to a sanction imposed on Gamergate articles per this, articles related to electronic cigarettes and their Talk pages are not editable by accounts with fewer than 500 edits and age less than 30 days.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I'm not a fan of limiting editor access. With Gamergate the issue was that we had a lot of people interested in the topic from far and wide. E-cigs doesn't suffer from a mass influx of editors. I'm not strongly opposed here but it feels wrong. SPACKlick (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There has been external efforts to canvass editors to add pro-vaping content to WP (here and here and as you know SPACKlick there is a broad online community of vaping enthusiasts, like http://thevapingmilitia.org/. Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And that off wiki canvassing is not the same as a mass cultural shift in a large online community like Gamer Gate was. Ignoring Fergus's contribution. Which likely has little to no impact, the thread on e-cigarette forums is one I was already aware of, I appealed on the board a while ago to see if any cloud chasers and vapers would provide copyright free images of themselves in order to help resolve a dispute at the page. That thread is not advocating a mass flood on the wiki page and hasn't caused one. Off Wiki activism isn't the same as on wiki activism which still hasn't been demonstrated. As I've said I'm not massively opposed to this proposal but Advocates will work round it (it's not hard to garner 500 edits in 30 days) and it will only stop interested newbies from making corrections. Newbies haven't been the problem here. Experienced editors have on both sides. SPACKlick (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

2) Pro-vaping advocacy in edits or talk page discussions is subject to action via arbitration enforcement. "Pro-vaping advocacy" is limited to the fields of health and regulation, and includes promoting health benefits of vaping, downplaying the health risks, or negative toward regulation of electronic cigarettes, in a way that does not reflect the best source(s) (plural) available. "A pattern" is defined as more than 50% of contribs to electronic cigarette articles and Talk pages in the fields of health and regulation (not all contribs to e-cigarette articles, nor all contribs across Wikipedia), over any 14 day period.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Make that any advocacy please. We don't need the anti-vaping zealots either.— S Marshall  T/C 00:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In my view, the evidence is clear that the disruption stems from pro-vaping advocacy. I have not seen evidence presented for disruption by anti-vaping zealots and should that arise, this can be amended. Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps historically. Recently, it hasn't stemmed from that at all.  QuackGuru is not an advocate of any kind. However, he personally is the editor who behaves most disruptively  obsessive (I've shown that he is by a truly massive margin the most active person on the page), controlling (I've shown him implying that he personally should make all edits to the article), totally unwilling to change in response to reason or evidence (as I've shown), and when we get to a page where we can discuss content I'll show you the many problems he has composing a paragraph of comprehensible English as well. He's appointed himself as article manager and I can't think of a less suitable person for the post.— S Marshall  T/C 00:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If he is not an advocate, I don't understand why you are mentioning him here, at this particular remedy, which is focused on advocacy. I do understand that you are very upset with him. Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have presented such evidence against QuackGuru. Adjwilley, when sanctioning him, has previously told him that he needs to stop using Wikipedia as a "platform for exposing quackery". Quackery which apparently includes e-cigs. I think there are other editors that take a similar stance on similar grounds but I do not have the evidence to back that up so I won't name them. The point is Jytdog, that I think proposing to only clampdown on "pro" advocates but not "anti" is illogical and makes no sense if the aim is to uphold NPOV.Levelledout (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It makes sense when there is a massive online culture of pro-vaping advocacy. We have very few editors who uphold NPOV on science-based issues. I do not think you have demonstrated 'anti-vaping advocacy" at all - you have editors upholding the mainstream concern about health effects of e-cigs.  That is not "anti-vaping advocacy" and I would urge you yourself to be very careful to not frame upholding a mainstream medical stance with  "advocacy" of any kind, other than advocacy for Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and their grounding in mainstream science. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about mainstream concern regarding the health effects, where did I say that? I am talking about ignoring sourcing guidelines, being selective about their application and other such behaviours. You say I have not demonstrated any of this but actually I have provided such evidence. I am saying that this behaviour often stems from the opinion that e-cigs are a form of quackerry and/or pseudoscience. Is that a mainstream opinion? I very much doubt it.Levelledout (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I understand that you think the focus of this Arbcom decision should be QG. I don't know where you get your description of QG's motivations.  As for me, I see him kicking into gear whenever advocates - for whatever reason - are downplaying the mainstream medical/scientific view in a sustained way.  On altmed topics yes there is promotion of quackery/PSCI;  here,  pro-vaping activists who don't want e-cigs regulated, some of them grass-rootsish, some of them astroturfish, whatever, have been fighting against reasonable description of the risks and content about regulation for  a long time.  The point is that they are activists opposed to Wikipedia describing a key mainstream medical/scientific perspective on e-cigs.   I proposed this as a key remedy because it is "disease modifying" - not just treating a symptom.  QG is like Wikipedia's immune system.  The thing to go after, is what the immune system is reacting to.  Yes the immune response can lead to inflammation which itself becomes a problem, but just dealing with the inflammation is foolish.  (note that my proposal is both disease modifying and anti-inflammatory)  Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What is a "reasonable description of the risks" is pretty controversial when the Lancet, notoriously anti-e-cig by English standards, says there is "an almost total absence of evidence of harm" in its latest issue (while still criticizing PHE for its 95% number). I'm afraid QG is like one of those nightclub bouncers who turn out to be running the drugs-sellers. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

holy moly,, do you realize that the little phrase you pulled out from the Lancet editorial comes from the following sentence? "But neither PHE nor McNeill and Hajek report the caveats that Nutt and colleagues themselves emphasised in their paper. First, there was a “lack of hard evidence for the harms of most products on most of the criteria”. Second, “there was no formal criterion for the recruitment of the experts”. In other words, the opinions of a small group of individuals with no prespecified expertise in tobacco control were based on an almost total absence of evidence of harm. It is on this extraordinarily flimsy foundation that PHE based the major conclusion and message of its report." That is a convoluted sentence for sure, but it comes from a part of the editorial eviscerating the lack of care taken in the PHS report and its headline, and is not a claim by the Lancet that there is indeed "an almost total absence of evidence of harm". The Lancet's takeaway message is "Tobacco is the largest single cause of preventable deaths in England—e-cigarettes may have a part to play to curb tobacco use" (may) and they were angry about the trumpeting of certainty of safety where there is no certainty yet. What you just did there, was classic advocacy - dramatically misrepresenting the source. This sort of advocacy is the heart of the problem in these articles. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I do, as my comment made fairly clear. See the long discussion of this at the PHE section of the talk page, and the other public comments I've linked to at the section currently at the bottom of the page. It still includes the opinion that there is "an almost total absence of evidence of harm". That's what they say. Johnbod (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that the Lancet is stating that e-cigs are harmless? Or do you recognize that the Lancet is stating that there is a lack of hard evidence on which to make any determination of harm? Because those are two completely different concepts, one of which is a misleading and inaccurate reading of the source. Yobol (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Johnbod, so you are sticking to your guns. Yes those words are in the editorial, but you are making really inappropriate hay from them.  That you cannot even acknowledge that you are doing that is again, exactly the advocacy problem besetting these articles.  If you were reasonable, and not acting as an advocate, you would at least be able to acknowledge what you doing.   This is what makes Talk discussions so intractable.Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You should perhaps contribute to the article talk page if you have strong views. I have not suggested the words are used in our article, but you will find it hard to extract any meaning from them, or the editorial as a whole, other than that the Lancet felt, passim as the lawyers put it, that in 2014 there was "an almost total absence of evidence of harm" from e-cigs. As I feared, it seems that your definition of "advocacy" covers anyone deviating from a single "mainstream" view that you wrongly believe to exist. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Johnbod, I repeat my questions: Are you implying that the Lancet is stating that e-cigs are harmless? Or do you recognize that the Lancet is stating that there is a lack of hard evidence on which to make any determination of harm? Because those are two completely different concepts, one of which is a misleading and inaccurate reading of the source. Yobol (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved editor, I'd point out that *both* of those concepts are misleading and inaccurate readings of the source. And this is precisely why this article and its talk page are in the state they are in. 64.141.127.126 (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Paleking (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC) (forgot that I was not signed in when posting this originally)
 * Agreed, and I don't believe I said either. I just keep quoting from the actual editorial. To get back to my original point, a "reasonable description of the risks" is by no means the simple matter Jytdog seems to think it is. Nor is "regulation", which covers a huge range of different issues. Johnbod (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I want to comment on this proposed remedy myself. Dealing with advocacy editing is hard in Wikipedia, as it comes down to a close examination of edits and sources, and needs to be dealt with holistically.  It is very easy to cherry-pick diffs and it takes time and patience for someone outside to accurate assess what is going on.  I have worked a lot on controversial articles (genetically modified food) where I deal with a consistent flow of people with very strong feelings, and little grounding in the science and law.  Those advocates would surely love to try to nail me to the wall with something like this, so I raise it with some trepidation. I also worry about the burden this would place on Arbcom.  I am very open to other suggestions for how to address advocacy editing effectively. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2015‎  (UTC)
 * I'm mentioning him because you said the disruption stems from pro-vaping advocacy, and I've tried hard to show that since the discretionary sanctions were enacted, that's simply false. I've exhaustively challenged editors to show disruptive recent editing from vaping advocates and nobody has come close to showing any activity that's half as disruptive as QuackGuru's behaviour, or for that matter CFCF's.— S Marshall  T/C 10:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a very strong online culture of provaping advocacy that is not going away anytime soon. Spend some time and check it out, if you are not familiar with it.  There are three brand new pro-vaping SPA editors discussed above (one of them a well known pro-vaping activist from the UK editing here under her own name).  You are ignoring that background and the current/future realities that prov-vaping activist editors are going to keep coming and coming and coming  - this is the reason why we need editors like QG.  I do get it that you are frustrated with QG; I am dealing with the bigger picture now and going forward. Please do the same. Thanks  Jytdog (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll happily agree that these new editors are a problem when you provide a diff of one of them being disruptive. In the meantime, perhaps we can get back to talking about those concerns which are supported by evidence?— S Marshall  T/C 19:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Complete duck of the issue - if you don't see that the presence of a constant stream of inexperienced advocates all pushing one POV is not disruptive, I don't know what to say to you. . C'est la vie; the arbs will decide what they decide. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC) (striking, with apologies Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC) )
 * I disagree that it's been shown there is a constant stream of inexperienced advocates. I disagree that they're the core of the issue. I disagree with this one sided proposal worded such that when there are articles, such as say the PHE article, which do cover the current state of evidence on the health benefits of e-cigarettes coming to a positive conclusion there is more ammo for those opposed to any positive coverage of e-cigarettes to shoot down inclusion. Say by rebutting a review by a major medical body with an editorial opinion piece. SPACKlick (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Hopeless to restrict this to "anti-vaping advocates". The subject is highly controvesial, and fast-moving, among the experts - a high proportion of who would I think regard our articles as showing anti e-cig bias at various points, though many would no doubt think them just fine. I dare say most of the edits I have made recently could be regarded as "pro e-cig", a) because I have been adding points from the new Public Health England report, universally recognized as more "pro-e-cig" than most other major reviews and statements, and also b) because I think the articles were already tilted against e-cigs even using the previous sources.  I do see QK as an advocate, of one particular shade of the medical view. His summaries of sources are often not neutral, and sometimes not accurate. Note that PHE were highly critical of media coverage of some aspects of recent research, and our articles, until mid-August, exhibited what they were criticizing.  Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * please note that the proposal says " in a way that does not reflect the best source(s) (plural) available."  I added that specifically so that arguing for content based on the UK report and other sources would not count as advocacy; trying to assert the UK report as superior to all  others would, of course.  Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It will be hopeless to try to distinguish at the margins. Where the advocacy is crude, regular editors have no great difficulty uniting to overcome it. This is not what has kept the editing process stalled in recent months. Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Where the advocacy is crude, regular editors have no great difficulty uniting to overcome it." This is most definitely not true. For months, the article(s) were kept hostage to a dedicated core of pro-vaping SPAs that kept making improvements a tooth pulling process and ground things down to a halt. We cannot let this happen again. Yobol (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * When was this? I was talking about the current situation, when it is still "a tooth pulling process" but not because of "pro-vaping SPAs". See S. Marshall above. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * During the time I was active (end of 2014). No real idea what it is like now, since I largely gave up trying to improve the article due to the above mentioned tendentious behavior.  I would like to emphasize that there is a history of poor and tendentious behavior on this article, and while it may have occurred before certain commentators here paid attention to the article, this is still a relevant history that needs to be addressed. Yobol (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While going a bit far afield from relevance there, that is a complete and utter misrepresentation of the situation on that article toward the end of 2014. At that time, a single WP:MEDRS source was referenced multiple times, throughout the article, a group of editors aligned with WP:QuackGuru were edit-warring to prevent the introduction of contrary WP:MEDRS sources, and that same group was exhibiting severe WP:OWN behaviour to try to inappropriately apply WP:MEDRS standards to non-medical parts of the article (construction, history, society & culture). Paleking (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For an "uninvolved" editor with a grand total of 84 edits you have quite the specific opinion of the state of a dispute in this topic area from 10 months ago... Yobol (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good to see WP:AGF is alive and well. I have followed the discussions on this article for about a year and have not directly contributed due to the vitriol spewed by both sides of this discussion.  Shall I take from the fact that you chose to attack me rather than my characterization of the state of the article, that you are backing down from your misleading statements? Paleking (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, nothing misleading about my statement or anything to "back down" from. Certainly no "attack" either. I trust the arbs will give your commentary the due weight it deserves. Yobol (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On a related issue, to Jytdog. In S. Marshall's table of edits since April 2015, you have 1 edit (252 bytes) to the talk page, and none to the article. Have you been following them over this period? Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * They are not on my watchlist, but I drop in from to time to look at what is going on with the articles and their Talk discussions. The pro-vaping advocacy going on the Talk page of the main article right now is glaringly clear. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the discussion above and in the preceding section is an unfortunate example of why this remedy would be beneficial to the area. Yobol (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

AE for advocacy
1) Editors who exhibit a pattern of pro-vaping advocacy in edits or talk page discussions may be brought to AE, where a finding of advocacy will result in a one month topic ban on the first finding and an indefinite topic ban on the second finding.  Edit counts can only begin on the date this decision is made by Arbcom and is not retroactive.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree with Johnbod, absurd proposal given WP:NPOV.Levelledout (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also agree one sided. SPACKlick (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * As before - absurd to restrict this to one side, especially when our articles are probably imbalanced against that side. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments on contributors
2) All contributors to the electronic cigarette articles and its content forks are warned that per the talk page guidelines commenting on contributors, not content, is unacceptable behavior and "saying something negative about another person" will be subject to topic bans of 24 hours, then 1 week, then 1 month, then indefinite.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Naturally, editors will continue to complain about behaviour in the topic area until the problem behaviours stop. These discussions don't need to take place on Talk:Electronic cigarette; we can send them to AN/I or Arbitration Enforcement instead, if you like.— S Marshall  T/C 16:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly agree with this, the reason being that personal attacks are the least of the problems and sometimes people react to poor behaviour by commenting on it at the talk page when ideally they shouldn't. Personal attacks are already rightfully prohibited and I'm not sure that I see a need to extend that prohibition.Levelledout (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Quackguru
3) Quackguru is warned to edit less aggressively. Specifically, this means fewer trivial edits re-arranging content or small re-wordings, and waiting longer for consensus to become more clear on Talk pages before making major edits.  I am hopeful that if Arbcom takes clear action against advocacy, that QG would in any case settle.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Note - I am hopeful that if Arbcom takes clear action against advocacy, that QG would in any case settle. this did not come out in the evidence phase, but a large percentage of QG's edits are "nervous" small edits. Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC) (moved comment here, from recommendation Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC))
 * I would note that the small edits aren't always the problem the large edits have been just as bad. It would be better if there were a restriction on QG copyediting. Allowing him to still raise issues where copyediting has significantly changed meaning on the talk page. SPACKlick (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually would it be worth potentially limiting Quack to the Talk page of the article? He's great at finding sources. And like an oversensitive fire alarm at picking up misuse of sources (Always spots a misuse, sometimes flags a good use as OR). QG's detective work filtered through the community would make a cracking article. SPACKlick (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Since discretionary sanctions were enacted, QG has made 608 edits to the talk page (i.e. more than 100 a month), amounting to 192,563 bytes of changes which is more than the next two editors put together. The next two editors put together are me, and then you, SPACKlick, and most of our talk page contributions have been attempts at dialogue with QuackGuru.  Editors are complaining that they can't keep up with the talk page and I don't blame them.  During this time he's also made 897 edits to the article (well over 150 a month), amounting to 95,705 bytes of changes.  If we confine him to the talk page then I would expect his use of the talk page to increase, which means it'll become unusable to everyone else.  I would oppose this idea.— S Marshall  T/C 17:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * He needs to accept that there is such a thing as consensus, when it is against him - earlier episodes have shown he rarely does this, hence his topic bans. He does in fact tidy up references etc rather usefully, and many of his small changes are fine, but others aren't & the need to check everything he does contributes to his highly effective tactics of attrition. Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comment doesn't take into account that QG edits pretty much only on articles where there is fierce advocacy against the medical establishment, where consensus is difficult/impossible to find - it is not a valid description. Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * His record, going back years, shows that he is equally effective at pissing off and driving away scientific editors as fringe/non-scientific ones. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Exceedingly interesting that this case was brought up just now when the UK government released a report the 19th of August called E-cigarettes: an evidence update seemingly very much in favor of electronic cigarettes – (it also includes a policy statement). As the report is 111 pages and needs to be balanced into the articles against other strong statements (e.g. the 2014 WHO report) I can't think of a better time for this to come to ArbCom. I've made my thoughts clear at Talk:Electronic cigarette. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 11:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Or a worse time, given it was released the day after the evidence phase closed! Johnbod (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)