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

S Marshall
I've moved the content I previously wrote here to User:S Marshall/Sandbox because of the notes below. The reason I put it here was to attract discussion, but apparently that's not the done thing. Editors are invited/welcome to comment on it on its talk page if they wish.— S Marshall T/C 07:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A more final version is now on the main /Evidence page.— S Marshall T/C 22:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Why discretionary sanctions have failed

Euryalus asks why discretionary sanctions have failed. The answer is that no uninvolved admin will touch the subject with a barge pole, and I don't blame them. It's all very complicated and entrenched, and those who try are soon overwhelmed.— S Marshall T/C 07:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Johnbod

Johnbod is a very precious thing: a largely uninvolved editor respected, as far as I know, by both sides, who's got some useful knowledge to share. Could Johnbod's evidence please be considered despite its length?


 * Content dispute

I'm of the view that the content dispute is best settled by the Mediation Committee, and that we should proceed to that as soon as the conduct issues are under control.— S Marshall T/C 16:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 1,500 words

Personally, I have no objection to QuackGuru's request for 1,500 words and 150 diffs of evidence, and I will not need more than 1,000 words myself even if QG's request is granted.— S Marshall T/C 17:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Levelledout

I nearly made Levelledout a party to the case, and if he wishes to be a party then I think it's appropriate to make him one.— S Marshall T/C 21:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Advocates and shills

Our well is being poisoned by weasels. There are allegations that an unspecified editor or group of editors is acting as an advocate or industry shill. I often come across this in the topic area, as I said in my opening evidence. As always, this allegation has a great big wide yawning empty space where all the diffs ought to be. If you're going to talk about advocates and shills, then I do think you need to say who you mean and present your evidence.— S Marshall T/C 22:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Re discretionary sanctions, sadly I think you're right re discretionary sanctions. Will flag some suggestions in the workshop when we get to it. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * DS are only onerous until you get used to them, if you're rational and are "ACTUALLYHERE". They have a tendency to weed out nuts, unconstructive SPAs, trolls, and other disrupters fairly effectively. I don't like to see them imposed, but several years of combat is enough.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * DS haven't been onerous on the page at all, mate, because nobody's showed up to enforce them. They've only been onerous by their absence.  Bishonen took a quick look at the time of the last arbcom case and after making a remark about how vague my edit summaries were, she beat a hasty retreat.  No more uninvolved admins popped their heads around the door until I complained on AN/I that nobody was willing to intervene, at which time Georgewilliamherbert started to take a look.  He didn't do anything for three weeks, at which point I gave up and started an arbcom case.  I attach no blame to either of these admins, because I wouldn't be able to unravel it all either  but I will say that a lot of the bad-tempered editing and talking past each other that's been going on, has become deep-rooted and entrenched because the community hasn't followed through on the DS.  So we've got a dispute that's been inordinately long without resolution and un-policed through most of this time.— S Marshall  T/C 09:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish talk response to S Marshall
In reply to your Preliminary Evidence post in reply to my own Preliminary Evidence post: I did not single you out as a paid advocate of the e-cig industry. If you wish to pointedly associate yourself, at ArbCom, with such a perception of your editing patterns, well, that's a bed you're making on your own and probably don't want to climb into. My own comments did not actually have you personally in mind, and I don't recall your own posts in any detail, from the RFC/RM discussion that triggered my weighing in on this RFARB. My main concern was the tendentious denialism against the idea that WP:MEDRS could properly apply to biomedical (vs. societal, legal, etc.) material, e.g. Electronic cigarette aerosol, and the incessant troll-like WP:WIKILAWYERing going on to try to maintain such an anti-MEDRS position. A secondary one is sustained attempts, from the other side, at suppression of therapeutic benefits information to permit only negative health effects information, a debate I observed with perplexity but did not wade into. A tertiary one was disruptive noise-making, like pointless attempts to confuse e-cig aerosol with cigarette smoke.

Regarding QuackGuru: I'm skeptical that QG's behavior would get him site-banned, or even topic-banned except perhaps temporarily. Whether ArbCom wants to ever explicitly say so or not, we all actually know and operate under the more-than-assumption that editors fighting trolls, vandals, COI advocates, and other WP:NOTHERE PoV-warpers are given more leeway (basically per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR) by the community than those trolls, vandals, etc. – up to a point. Such leeway, in limited senses, can be found "codified" in various places, e.g. at WP:EDITWAR, at WP:VANDAL, at WP:DUCK, etc.; it's not all nudge-nudge-wink-wink. So, I think we're arguing for the same result, but I would clarify that the idea that "behaviour that would get some editors sanctioned is tolerated in others" is a mis-statement of the case; this doesn't have to do with individuals, personalities, or (as you suggest pointedly) entourages. Rather, behaviour that, when it is being used for anti-encyclopedic ends, and perhaps between different good-faith viewpoints, would get editors sanctioned, is tolerated when it is directed in particular against clearly anti-encyclopedic editing. That said, I'm not personally certain all of QG's edits (and edit summaries) fall within that leeway. That's among the things this case will determine, even if's not (or should not be) the main focus. I don't personally get a sense that QG is "obstruct[ing] genuine improvements", but I'm also not deeply involved in this topic area, so there's perhaps evidence I have not seen. [In a later Evidence post, I've attempted to refute some but not all of SPACKlick's claims against QG because they do not seem supported by the provided evidence.]

But QG is not really among the most problematic editors on this topic. Just see Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol/Archive 1 for one of the most mindboggling displays of WP:NOTGETTINGIT and failure of WP:COMPETENCE in WP memory. CFCF's apparent to understand WP:DAB and how disambiguation works on WP, to sustain an incomprehensible and WP:POINTy redirect demand (to confusingly tether e-cigarette aerosols to "cigarette smoke"), is patently disruptive nonsense. I'm hoping this case directly addresses that, since I can think of another place right now where the same pattern is being used. This "If I take enough meritless FUD and noise actions on the talk page, and just never shut up, I should win through attrition" tactic needs to be sealed in a sarcophagus. The same technique was used by a WP:TAGTEAM (not parties to the present dispute) to derail a WP:AT/WP:MOS discussion every time it came up, for over two years; and I can think of many other examples. It's detrimental to consensus formation on the project and it has to stop. CFCF's use of it on this article is as good a "test case" as any. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Clarified: 16:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)  Updated: 15:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk response to RexxS
Re: Also you'll have seen the immediate resort to ad hominem as I predicted: "dishonest" and "claims with little to no merit". – You're right about "dishonest", which actually qualifies as at least a WP:AGF violation, and borders on WP:NPA. But "claims with little to no merit" is a perfectly valid statement of appraisal of an argument (whether you or I agree with the appraisal or not). This is not an idle nitpick; complaints about incivility need to very clearly distinguish between "addressing the content vs. the contributor". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk response to Evidence presented by
As an on-WP behavioral matter, the conflicting views in the health sector map to the categories C and D that I outlined; D just needs to be reassessed as those sticking to what the medical search says instead of trying to advance, as a political position, the view that e-cig use must be suppressed (cat. C) on the theory of what might turn out to be medical problems developing from them down the road that could turn out to be worse than cigarettes. Given how unlikely this is, cat. C is still pushing a POV that borders on fringey or at least a "moral panic", while D is the better-sourced approach (except possibly with regard to youth uptake (a socio-legal, not medical issue, and being addressed by "no sales to minors" laws), no matter which off-WP regulatory establishments it happens to agree with. It's the same analysis we'd apply to any issue; our approach to articles on nanotechnology and artificial intelligence account for doomsayers' views, but do not (per WP:UNDUE) allow them to dominate the articles.  This is not an "us vs. them" exercise, but a "where are these problems coming from?" exercise. I haven't alleged bad faith on anyone's part, even COI e-cig industry people, who from their point of view may just be trying to ensure their interests are represented fairly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Done with evidence
I don't think I have any further input for the evidence page. If my material's too long, I guess a clerk can refactor some of it to the talk page or something. Any questions or issue people want to raise with what I posted I would cover on the talk page, other than I'm amenable to making corrections. I've tried to keep my material as on-point as possible (about behavior not content, and about the import of the underlying issue with external advocacy and COI), so I hope my section will be left as-is and will be useful. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Chat with
I understand that about "advocates", of course, but it's not the behavioral issue I'm getting at. Random hell-bent types are not a problem, they're weird little fireflies. The advocacy problem we need to concern ourselves with long-term is the organized kind, and it's where the problem with these particular articles are coming from, four spearheads at once: e-cig companies, the "vaper" fanbase, and two opposed camps in the health sector. I agree that here the lone, individually motivated hell-bent types (on any side) are not easily distinguishable from those working on group-organized goals. I just don't see the utility in singling out this editor or that with "see this diff; he's interested in this topic". Aren't we all unusually interested in certain topics? But I may have misunderstood the import of what you diffed. I did go look at it, and it just seemed to be comments about sources and their authors. How is that unusual or suspicious? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Response to Preliminary statement by SPACKlick
SPACKlick is making a argument about whether Electronic cigarette aerosol should be considered a strictly chemistry topic with no biomed material and thus be somehow immune to WP:MEDRS concerns (an invalid argument on its face, since chemistry facts about a device used by humans to produce a biochemical effect are not pure chemistry but applied, and which is biomedical by definition). But this ArbCom case is about behavior not content. The bare fact of the matter is that the article does contain biomed content. It's entirely reasonable to suppose that a future consensus may merge that article with other material focusing even more on health effects, or split them further so that it contains no health information of any kind. But the article is and for the forseeable future will remain a mixture of medical and non-medical content (very little of it strictly non-medical). I've proposed a wording tweak at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) that may help forestall future disputes of this nature; the guideline cannot (and was not intended to) literally prevent the use of reliable, peer-reviewed sources just because they did not come from something strictly defined as a "medical journal", and the wording can thus be clarified to indicate this better. Because MEDRS is a guideline and we have policies like WP:V and WP:NOR that govern the use of primary and secondary sources on Wikipedia, battlegrounding to "disprove" the scope of the MEDRS guideline could never be an appropriate course of action to begin with, and it is legitimate for ArbCom to examine such a matter. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Response to Evidence presented by SPACKlick
Several of SPACKlick's complaints about QuackGuru are not valid: I don't necessarily disagree with the other complaints, but a single diff relating to each is not evidence of problematic patterns (I have not examined these evidence points as aggregated with those of others (e.g. Johnbod); that's ArbCom's job. :-) QG's firm reliance on WP:CORE doesn't auto-forgive every possible transgression, but what are the transgression, really? Finally, every single editor on WP has a comprehension gaffe from time to time; this is not a WP behavioral issue except in the cases of continual problems parsing English correctly or behaving rationally (if any editor involved in this dispute has such a problem, it isn't QG). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Paraphrasal often  original research, and incorrect use of it is probably the #1 way in which OR is performed, even if proper use of it is something we have to do to avoid plagiarism. QG did not say that  paraphrasal is OR.  With regard to the second diff there, he simply went with what the source actually said (I agree that the two terms are not synonyms, BTW; "young people" means "under middle-aged").
 * 2) Tagging material that fails verification is a courtesy only, and is often done so that if the deletion is reverted, the material remains tagged as disputed (unless someone WP:POINTily reverts to the version before the tagging, too). WP:V policy permits its immediate deletion if it's potentially controversial and isn't likely to be sourceable (vs. already sourced). The WP:RS guideline encourages outright deletion if in doubt, and the WP:MEDRS outline especially encourages this with regard to biomed topics.
 * 3) Neither "evidence" diff provided for the WP:OWN claim supports it. The first is a simple argument for conciseness, and the second is a conciliatory post thanking for deletion of an inappropriate image, and requesting a different kind of image.  In a vague way, I too feel there's a bit of an possessiveness attitude issue with QG, but this is true of hundreds (at least) of editors about their favorite topics, and doesn't rise to OWNership problem levels or require ArbCom intervention in most cases.

Response to Preliminary statement by Bluerasberry
The very fact that this debate has been intractable for years and is getting more heated and disruptive is ArbCom needs to act upon it. If health organizations are relying on observation of fights over this article to determine what issues they need to address, that's highly dubious research, and it's not WP's job to provide it for them forever at the expense of our own goals; arguing to allow this disruption to continue on such a basis is WP:ITSUSEFUL. I strongly agree that "people affiliated with lobbyists appear in this space", and that this is something of a test case for how we deal with external "propaganda creep" (nice soundbyte! Good essay title ....) See top of my user page – I think. But effectively dealing with COI/SPA and meatpuppetry, sustained "civil POV" editing to warp neutrality, and possibly intentional disruption to prevent consensus forming in a direction that doesn't suit certain interests, are core parts of how we'll approach that, and ArbCom's main job is doing precisely that. Jytdog: You, BR, QG, me, and others are all concerned about the WP:NOT issues, but sustained editorial interest isn't activism; it's what we actually want for GA/FA development. Advocacy is an externally driven, organized pressure on WP, not some editor being "too" interested. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Response to CFCF
CFCF, at User talk:SMcCandlish, has clarified their intent and purpose with regard to the disambiguation RfC that I considered to be so disruptive (see SPACKlick's long string of diffs in this regard). While I think that these clarifications address faith/intent, they do not really get at the disruptive effect, so I think ArbCom has a legitimate interest in examining the matter. On the talk page of this evidence page I previously went into some detail on why doing so might be a good idea for WP, but it's not, really (and is about the tactic, not this specific editor), so I don't see any utility in dumping a copy of it into this page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Response to Evidence presented by User:Doc James
I agree that the overtagging by S Marshall was WP:POINTy, but it's hardly a "hangin' offense", and SM probably got the message. I realize other complaints about SM were raised, but none of them stuck out in my mind, so I have no comment on them. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for status upgrade
I request to be upgraded to Party status, and to have the 1,500-word limit, so I can re-supply some of the evidence I've already written, above. The 500-word limit is insufficient, and the 1,000 one would probably be as well. I've already written the material and can edit it down to 1,500, without the need to add more. I am party to the dispute, having been involved in trying to work on sourcing at some of those articles and effectively "chased off" by the level of tendentiousness in the topic area (i.e., I feel I have a valid grievance). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Time is fast running out.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging who seems most active in case management on this one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Quick clarification
Hi all,

It appears editors may be confused regarding the procedures of this evidence page. To clarify: If anyone has other questions, feel free to ask me or any other clerk or arbitrator. Thanks everyone for your participation in this case. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 00:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The archived sections of each evidence section are the preliminary statements posted originally at WP:ARC. They do not count towards the word limits, but they should not be changed in any way.
 * Editors should present their evidence on the evidence page proper, not this talk page. This page should be used solely to discuss meta-topics regarding evidence (e.g. requests for extensions of length limits, or requests to hat evidence, or requests to modify evidence after the evidence phase closes, for example). Replies and refutations should also go in evidence, analysis of evidence can go to the Workshop, and drafts of evidence should go in userspace.
 * This page does not currently require sectioned discussion; threaded discussion is fine, as long as it falls in the scope stated above.
 * OK, looks like has directed below that everything be sectioned. I'll post the necessary notices. L235 (t / c /  ping in reply ) 06:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, sorry it's been a busy day so was a little slow off the mark in passing this on. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Case management
A couple of quick things:


 * This is very much a case about editor conduct, and not content. Past e-cigarette dispute resolution seems to have got a bit lost in discussion of the validity of sources and the science or otherwise of opposing views. In order to keep this case effective it may be necessary to hat or remove contributions that stray into content dispute. If this occurs, then apologies for the inconvenience and please don't consider it a reflection on the WP value of your contribution or the validity of your views.
 * Talk page conversations should be sectioned, not threaded, please. This applies to all the case talk pages.
 * Private evidence (for example, evidence involving anyone's personal information) should be provided direct to the committee via email. If evidence is sent privately that didn't need to be, the committee is likely to suggest it be posted publicly instead in the interests of transparency. Where an actual allegation is made in private evidence, the committee will where feasible bring it to the attention of the accused in an anonymised way, and give them a chance to respond. This is subject to basic common sense, including whether the information can be credibly anonymised, and whether the allegation has sufficient credibility that a response is required.
 * Discretionary sanctions apply to e-cigarette articles, but consensus seems to be that they haven't worked. It would be worthwhile to discuss why not, and what if anything can be done to make them more effective. Views welcome in /Evidence or on this talk page. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , thanks for your evidence but it's almost entirely about content. The outcome of this case needs to be on editor misconduct (if any) that prevents the development of the article or otherwise interferes with the editing environment. For example, your point 2 mentions issues with "one editor" - for this to have substance in the case it would be great if you would say who, and why. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) I don't believe it is. I make two points: firstly that the medical/public health view is more diverse than some of those who think they are defending realize. The article(s) understate the excitement about the potential of e-cigs for reducing smoking in parts of the medical/public health establishment. Then I criticise the article and the difficulty of editing it. The main reason why the article is as it is these days is User:QuackGuru, who dominates the editing and talk. He spends an enormous amount of time on it, and while always appearing responsive, has a habit of never actually responding on the exact point raised, and pursuing long threads that shoot off at oblique angles, before making changes that rarely meet the points originally raised. I will be more explicit on the name. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , when you say that discussions are sectioned, not threaded, please try to not encourage threaded replies, such as by pinging a non-clerk/arb in a section that doesn't belong to them, unless you spell out specific exemptions to the sectioned discussion rule - it makes it generally easier on us . In this particular situation, what do you want to do with and 's comments, move them into individual sections, keep them there, or something else? L235 (t / c /  ping in reply ) 18:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * i wanted them to respond in their own sections. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Euryalus, I spent a few days looking at this earlier before the case was filed, and as a rule individual editor behavior on the micro did not jump out as policy violating and on the macro needed subtler tools than the typical Arbcom intervention. I know what you're asking for in the case being taken up and why, and how Arbcom usually works.  I don't think it's that simple or a good idea.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Status question
I am starting to gather evidence and have never been involved with an accepted arbitration before. I am a "party" or "other"? I believe I am "other". I'm asking so I can abide by the word/dif limits. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are going to add substantive evidence, you should be a party to the case. I'll add you to the list, and you can use the larger word limit. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur with above (and sorry it took me awhile to get to your question; unexpected reinstall of Windows required tonight). At the moment you're "other', but if you'd prefer to be a party you can either ask the drafting arbs, or a clerk (who will then ask the drafting arbs for you).  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC).
 * ✅. Happy to remove you if you decide not to add substantive evidence after all, and assuming theres no other reason to leave you in. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sock distruction
As a side note: Besides not having any merit whatsoever, This "evidence" was added by a sock of indef blocked and banned User:Vote (X) for Change. See recently blocked IP 87.81.147.76 who opened named RFC (and "lost"). Remove/collapse/block/etc.--TMCk (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've hatted the section pending further action by another clerk or arbitrator. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 23:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks L235. Usually I would've just removed it per policy but in this case I won't touch a thing.--TMCk (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree this evidence has no merit, or relevance. Leave it hatted or remove at your leisure - in my view it won't make any difference to the case either way. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tracy, this is unbelievable.  From what I know of this case, it's SPACKlick against everybody else.    You seem to be on his side - you've denounced everyone but him.   Either say why you think the IP's evidence is not credible or drop it.    It's not within a clerk's remit to remove evidence without giving a reasoned statement as to why this is being done.   I just looked at Special:Contributions/87.81.147.76 and the IP is not blocked.   An editor took them to SPI and they were cleared of sockpuppetry Sockpuppet investigations/156.61.250.250.   As for the registered editor mentioned, they were unbanned following a successful appeal some years ago. 86.150.166.18 (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no view either way on whether they are a sock. However, please see the header of the /Evidence page:"This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed." -- Euryalus (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to think that socking + trolling is not tolerated in an arbcom case. Can that please be confirmed by removing the sock's taunting. Thank you.--TMCk (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Who's trolling?  Tracy is repeating the "sock" allegation without a shred of evidence.   Replying to Euryalus, it is commonplace for evidence to consist in part of one party citing another party's posts to other talk pages to demonstrate a pattern of behaviour.   For example, in the first case I examined, No Gun Ri, WeldNeck cites a post by Charles Hanley to User talk:Oilyguy to illustrate a point. 86.150.166.11 (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru
For transparency sake I am making a formal request to go up to 1500 words with 150 diffs. This is a very complex issue involving multiple editors. QuackGuru ( talk ) 15:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No problems. Also available to any other case party, on request. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I would support this too. ArbCom cases are often mired not in too much material, but in confusion resulting from lack of sufficient material. I've seen this happen several times, and some decisions have been questionable in my view, as a result of removal of or prevention of the introduction of "too much" evidence and sufficiently detailed rationales (even if there is a legitimate interest in occasionally thwarting a disruptive desire to dump a zillion unorganized diffs or pages and pages of ranting).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

After I reach my word limit am I allowed to response to other comments in my own section or after I reach my word limit that is it. QuackGuru ( talk ) 23:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * once you're at the word limit that's it. However, experience suggests there's no need to respond to everyone else's comments - if what someone else says makes it through to the workshop you can respond to it there. If it doesn't make it through to the workshop, then it wasn't considered material to the case. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Yobol is another involved editor that can be upgraded as an involved party. Yobol, you can request to go up to 1500 words.
 * I agree with User:SMcCandlish that he can be granted an upgrade. See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor_conduct_in_e-cigs_articles/Evidence. Since July 2015 he is involved.
 * User:Euryalus, there is a late surge of comments. While I have reached my word limit, others may want to response to this complex case. I recommend the evidence phase remains open a bit longer. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

SPACKlick
I have no objection to QG's request for more words and diffs. I doubt anyone will actually need that many but I don't see the harm of more evidence. SPACKlick (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Word and diff limit
I'm not sure that I see an adequate reason for QuackGuru's request to extend the word and diff limit. The limits obviously exist for good reason and I suspect that many ArbCom cases are complex, so I don't see that as a justification in itself. I'll leave this for the arbs to decide, who will have to read through longer submissions but whatever the case I would request that if an extension is granted, then it be granted to all parties.Levelledout (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair point, though extensions are reasonably common. The one granted here is available to all parties on request. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for status upgrade
As of Jytdog's Status Question, I plan to submit a fair amount of evidence, would it please be possible for my status to be upgraded to "party" of the case?Levelledout (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging clerks and drafting arbs since I've had no reply on this @User:Lankiveil, @User:L235, @User:Euryalus, @User:DGG, @User:Thryduulf Levelledout (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you asking only to get a greater evidence length limit, or do you consider yourself involved? Thryduulf (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I consider myself as involved as any regular contributor to the topic area, don't know if that makes me involved per se. As stated above I've submitted a previous ArbCom case request on QuackGuru specifically on the topic of e-cigs.Levelledout (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Added you as a party. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Clarification
When I write my evidence statement, is it sufficient to simply provide a link to my previous ArbCom case request (which contains a considerable amount of evidence) in order for it to be considered as evidence in this one? Or will I need to repost all the diffs separately?Levelledout (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't got time right now to read that link, so I'll respond when I do (if none of my colleagues do so before then). Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to write it out again alas. This is to maintain the principle against people simply linking to subpages (and thereby avoiding the evidence word limits altogether). Apologies that this is so. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, can understand why that's the case, thanks for clarifying.Levelledout (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)