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

S Marshall
I'm sorry, I'm unfamiliar with Arbcom. Is this long silence normal?— S Marshall T/C 21:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, and I apologise for it. I had a couple of unexpected periods of inactivity recently which means I haven't had the time to read everything I need to read (the best part of a week with only very limited (and only insecure) internet access means I'm backlogged with many things), Euryalus is officially inactive (I can't remember whether the reason is public or not) and DGG has also been less active than usual recently - as have most of us actually. Realistically I'm not going to have the necessary time to progress this case until next week at the earliest. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. I see that QuackGuru has resumed his very active editing of the article in the meantime.  Perhaps some kind of temporary injunction might be in order while we wait?— S Marshall  T/C 22:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please?— S Marshall T/C 13:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll flag the request up to my colleagues. As for progressing this case, I will remind all my colleagues that we need to get on with it - hopefully some of them will have more time than I do at present. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, his current editing is primarily technical, and totally uncontroversial.  DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Then why is the talk page as full as ever of complaints about it? Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Virtually all of QuackGuru's editing is primarily technical, extremely well-sourced and closely matching the source material. His only editing technique is (1) find a factlet, snippet or statistic from a reliable source, (2) cite it carefully and precisely, (3) insert it into the article and (4) relentlessly guard it against all change.  The problem is the detrimental effect he's having on the article's reability and the way he's obscuring the key points with repetitive, trivial factlets.  It would be good if he could be stopped while Arbcom reads and considers, please.— S Marshall  T/C 11:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your time and attention. Would you please now close this case so I can take it back to AN/I without violating WP:FORUMSHOP.— S Marshall  T/C 19:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Very well, I intend to close this case myself if there are no objections in the next few hours.— S Marshall T/C 16:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there very much is an objection. I know we are significantly behind on this, but that does not mean it has been forgotten about. Thryduulf (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , this is really unfair. Arbcom won't allow the case to be closed so I can't take it elsewhere, and it isn't dealing with it, and it isn't communicating with the parties.  Will you please close the case.— S Marshall  T/C 17:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm at a loss. Arbcom is supposed to be the last resort when all else fails.  What do we do when Arbcom fails?  All we've had from any of them for the last month is missed deadlines, broken promises and complete silence.  They've completely ceased communicating with the parties and there's no evidence of activity on this case from any of them. Hello, Arbcom!  Post something here.  Post abuse if you like; direct insult would be preferable to this because then at least we'd know where we stand.  Speak to us! Please do not assign someone else to start reading the case from scratch.  In that event a rushed, ill-considered or half-assed ruling would be much too likely.  Unless there's been activity that we can't see, then I feel that the correct course for you now would be to admit that you've failed and close the case.— S Marshall  T/C 17:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The last resort has always traditionally been a post on User talk:Jimbo Wales, and I suppose that's where I take it once Arbcom have admitted defeat.— S Marshall T/C 17:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Cloudjpk: I haven't edited the disputed article during the Arbcom case, and would be happy to accept such an injunction for the time being. I'm not able to make head nor tail of QuackGuru's evidence --- it seems to consist of lots of diffs with no thesis and reach no conclusions --- but you seem to be able to, so maybe you could clarify that for me (not necessarily on the talk page for these proceedings though). What I'd like is for some way to stop QuackGuru making even more of an incoherent mess of the article before the case ends.  The task of cleaning up after him will be colossal enough as it is.— S Marshall  T/C 09:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @Cloudjpk: Consensus isn't something that decides in favour of one particular thing and then crystallises forever. It will be permissible for me to re-open the "known unknowns" discussion in future with a changed population of editors on the talk page, and I intend to do exactly that.  I also intend to embark on building consensus for a sweeping programme of other changes to the article, if the outcome of this case is to make the talk page usable again.  I have no idea why this is something you or QG are raising with Arbcom, as I have not edit-warred or engaged in any other problem behaviour to try to enforce my views against consensus.— S Marshall  T/C 17:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

(More back and forth with Cloudjpk): Yes; it's true that I would like to change the way the article reads. This is "advancing a content agenda", if you like. The "content agenda" that I'm "advancing" would be to tell readers the things we know in plain and simple language, and I don't understand your objection to this change at all. Yes, it's true that I disagree with QuackGuru, and it's also true that I would like him to be restricted. That's a normal situation in an Arbcom case. Yes, you can produce diffs in which I try to improve the article by removing useless crap from it. That's not the same as producing diffs of me edit-warring, is it? Trying to make an improvement is normal Wikipedia behaviour. I may have tried two or three times over the course of the six months I've been working on the article. So what? QuackGuru's evidence goes nowhere and neither does yours.— S Marshall T/C 18:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Characteristics of a decent solution to the QuackGuru problem
Well, I'm pleased to see Arbcom is, at long last, doing something about this, even if it's the wrong thing. is so completely wrong when he says (of QG's between-protections sandbox-merging) that But its only disruptive if done in bad faith, that I wonder whether that's what he really meant to say. ArbCom must surely be familiar with editors who're well-meaning, trying to comply with policy, and in perfectly good faith, and yet despite this their strong personal convictions and self-confidence in the face of opposition makes them disruptive to other editors. QuackGuru is the poster child for this group. As one of the people who has complained most strongly about QG's editing, I would urge and  who are deciding whether to vote for a topic ban not to do so. It is the wrong solution. And given remedy #5 it will inevitably happen. If your remedy leaves QuackGuru in a position to control the article content at a fine detail level, then he will continue to do so until an administrator despairs of warning him and issues a topic ban. We need QuackGuru's zeal for accurate sourcing in this topic area, and remedy #5 is just a topic ban with a three month delay on it. A glance at QG's block log ought to tell you he does not listen to admonishments or warnings. With QuackGuru the correct answer has the following facets: (1) It prevents him from monopolising the talk page; (2) It prevents him from monopolising edits to the article; (3) It removes his control of the article at the fine detail level; but (4) It enables him to find sources; and (5) It enables him to identify single-purpose accounts for us. You may, quite rightly, wonder what kind of remedy might achieve this, and I would suggest that you consider preventing him from editing the article but allowing him to make a limited number of edits to the talk page, so that he can make suggestions but others can evaluate what he's trying to do. Finally, at the moment the proposed solution is more draconian towards CFCF than it is towards QG and this is poorly thought out.— S Marshall T/C 10:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * says this has already been tried. I haven't checked but I presume this is accurate; it may still be worth trying again.  The editing environment at Electronic cigarette is quite different from the one at Acupuncture.— S Marshall  T/C 12:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ... and I'm grateful to for that post, in which he makes good points.  Yes, QG will adhere exactly to the letter of whatever solution you apply, while trying to retain as much control as possible.  Yes, he will try to get other editors to make his edits by proxy.  We need a QuackPuppetry clause that stops him from asking other editors to intervene for him  perhaps that the only place he can make e-cig related edits are on the article talk page and in one place of his choice in his own userspace ("QG's e-cig sandbox"); and he's allowed to add pointers to his e-cig sandbox on the article talk page but not anywhere else; and he's allowed to make one edit per day to the article talk page, not exceeding 100 words or 1,000 bytes (whichever is the lower); and that this edit may contain a link to his sandbox, which is where he can propose larger changes.— S Marshall  T/C 18:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish

 * I think that you're in a similar place as Jytdog, in that you participated in trying to edit the article in, apparently, 2014. (I'm getting this from the fact that you're talking about the "vapour or aerosol" RfC, which I personally closed in 2014 before I started editing in the topic area.)  But what was going on in 2014 is not what's been going on recently.  In 2014, I've often been told, the article was under siege from these pro-e-cig editors you're talking about.  What's happened now is that the pro-e-cig editors have gone  or, if there has been any pro-e-cig advocacy going on recently, then nobody has supplied any evidence of that to Arbcom.  I repeatedly and emphatically asked editors to produce diffs during the evidence phase, and none were forthcoming.  What has happened, as evidenced by diffs, is the article has been incredibly actively managed by a medical student and a bloke who thinks he's Ben Goldacre.  This duo have combined to prevent the article being taken over by the shills you mention, but there are no shills left, and what they've actually done is prevented experienced editors from fixing the article's problems.  What we need to assess is how the article would read if we let people like Johnbod do what they do best, and we can't do it because right now, the whole thing is written in impenetrable Quackguru-speak and only the tiniest, least conspicuous changes to his wording ever seem to last.— S Marshall  T/C 20:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I've never edited any of those forks of the main e-cigarette article, and I don't know what's gone on there. I think that all we can realistically expect of Arbcom is for them to produce a solution based on the evidence we show them, and that's what they're doing (albeit with glacial slowness). You're saying things like: The disruption I personally observed, if you lump it all together, came seemingly from both sides, and none of it was QG's doing; that editor was at that point thwarting much of the disruption. But you've named no editors, you've supplied no diffs, and you've proposed no specific solutions, so I don't know what kind of response you can expect.— S Marshall T/C 18:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Cloudjpk
I too am unfamiliar with Arbcom. I did not know there were temporary injunctions. If that's the case, we could start with you, S Marshall: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor_conduct_in_e-cigs_articles/Evidence Or we could wait a little longer, accept that there are sometimes delays for good reasons, and let the process continue. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The evidence shows QuackGuru greatly improved the article.

Now: without question there are further improvements that could be made, including cleanup. But most editors disagreed with you, S Marshall, when your idea of cleanup included removing material outlining what's currently unknown about e-cigarettes. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 25.

It is my perception, S Marshall, that you are simply waiting for this Arbcom case to be over to make radical changes to the article including deleting all the known unknowns, rather than accepting consensus and moving on. Cloudjpk (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Getting a "new consensus" from "a changed population of editors" S Marshall, could be confused with advancing a content agenda by means of restricting editors who disagree with you.

I understand you believe have not engaged in any problem behaviour such as pushing your views against consensus. But the evidence says otherwise. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "This page is for discussion of the proposed decision, not arguing with other editors. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)" I will be respecting that. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

CFCF: Sadly, I must agree with you. Especially On the basis of this judgement we are effectively surrendering the articles to advocacy, and it makes me strongly question the long-term viability of Wikipedia if our highest decision-making body can't see this. None of the health professionals I know takes WP seriously. Increasingly I'm seeing why. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret
I orignally asked about the possibility of adding evidence on Thryduulf's talk page here. I was unable to add evidence because of a 6 month self ban from the topic that has ended. While some of the evidence is on topics that have already been brought up such as ownership, and competency. I have evidence they are not just isolated instances but patterns that go back into the past. I also have evidence of long term NPOV violations that have not been addressed. As well as some evidence about tag teaming. AlbinoFerret 19:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I will bring this to the attention of the arbs, but generally speaking once the evidence phase is closed, new evidence is not permitted. Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC).
 * has there been any determination on this request? AlbinoFerret  12:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

While I would like the case to progress. I dont think closing it as S.Marshell has requested is a good idea. History has shown that little is accomplished at AN/I when dealing with this set of pages. AlbinoFerret 23:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

While the arbitrators are working on the PD, QuackGuru is engaged in Ownership and arguing against consensus. AlbinoFerret 04:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Cloudjpk, an SPA who shows up when QuackGuru cant do something has just reverted against consensus. A look at his editing history shows he pops in and then disappears. All while the arbitrators talk about the PD. Had I been able to provide evidence I was prepared to provide multiple examples of this tagteaming. AlbinoFerret  21:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * do the arbs look at this talk page? AlbinoFerret  21:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's 's response (sent via email): "Arbs are aware of this page and im specifically keeping up with it. I understand your frusturation with not being able to provide evidence. It is not all in vain though, so hold on to it and file an ARCA after the case closure if you feel there is need for further sanctions. I would be happy to review and encourage my fellow arbs to review at the time of that filing." Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 22:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, what does ARCA stand for? AlbinoFerret  22:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "ARCA" is Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment - AKA WP:ARCA. Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation and link Thryduulf. Would one of the clerks be so kind as to move the comment from Cloudjpk to his own section? I understand from the header that only the clerks and arbs can engage in threaded discussion with the editors here. I would have moved it myself, but I am unsure if I am allowed to do that. AlbinoFerret  23:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears from 's comment that there is some confusion on what is presented. From what I see of the writing it could be clarified. It doesnt appear to me to be a case of medical vs non medical, but what kind of claims, positive or negative, and how the requirements change depending on if the claim is positive or negative. . The first example is from this sectionThe examples should be switched because the second points out that QuackGuru requires the highest standards in some cases. This example is that he wants to add The Daily Mail, a notoriously unreliable source. This claim in the "Motivation for use" section, in a paragraph on kids and teens is that girls find them appealing. Calling the edits "mundane claims"? It is far from mundane to point out kids are using an adult product that few believe they should have. But he wants to sources it to a notoriously unreliable source. The second example is from | This talk page section. The discussion is about adding information from a primary source to counter a negative claim. During the discussion QuackGuru is against using a primary source for the positive source, but its pointed out that he has already done the same thing a couple of times to add negative claims to the article. These appear to be more than just sourcing standards, but point to a POV problem that appear to be negative advocacy related. AlbinoFerret 17:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I will add, QG's main good point is there ability to find sources that are high quality as pointed out throughout this case. That he chose to use The Daily Mail speaks volumes. AlbinoFerret 12:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Having posted on the talk page around the time that QuackGuru's diff's of notification were posted I went and looked at the talk page at the time of those diffs. The diffs show that QG did link to his sandbox in discussions of small edits to be done to the page. What isnt shown is a link in a section stating that he had planned on adding 10,058kb and 17,183kb to a controversial article. There was no discussion of the overall changes and asking other editors opinions on the changes. Per WP:CAUTIOUS, on the Editing policy page, such large changes should have been discussed. AlbinoFerret 00:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC) I will add, my search of the archives from around that time found no such section to link to. AlbinoFerret 13:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out to that the restrictions to the talk page idea has already been tried with QG on acupuncture. He was then topic banned for gaming the system. AlbinoFerret 12:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

, I agree that something needs to be done, and that clause is very interesting. I would also add a clause that the sandbox can not be deleted. QG has his sandbox deleted after each massive edit. This gives little history to look back on as to where and when the editing was done. AlbinoFerret 18:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk regarding closure
Whilst the slow progress is frustrasting, a lot of evidence has been collected and submitted by various users, it wouldn't be right to simply close the case without a conclusion.Levelledout (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Response to QuackGuru
Indeed "sourcing is irrelevant" was taken out of context, DGG's assessment is basically correct. QuackGuru says that I "conceded that it was unnecessary to make the wholesale revert". Well yes that's true. It's also true that in the same discussion I said soon after that "If I am perfectly honest, in spite of what I originally said, I did consider the edit necessary as I felt that the user in question was attempting to force through large-scale changes without consensus almost immediately after that user single-handedly managed to have full-page protection removed." Regarding QG's claim that "I did link to my sandbox during the protection": Notice that the diff provided (within the quote) is not actually a diff of QG linking to his sandbox during protection but rather a diff of somebody else saying that he linked to his sandbox at some point in time. The diff is from a discussion on my talk page. I replied by clarifying that so far as I was aware, he had not done so from 19-30 March 2015 when the page was protected. I am yet to see the diff[s] that prove otherwise.Levelledout (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: QG's post has been edited since I made my response above.Levelledout (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the diffs that QG has edited into his post, 3 of them are irrelevant since they are dated 17 March. The other one is relevant but I would agree with AlbinoFerret's assessment that nowhere do we see relevant prior discussion or notification of the vast amounts of material from many citations of multiple sources that was subsequently added. The one diff that is relevant consists of a few words and relates to one citation of a single source.Levelledout (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed decision
Due to the inactivity of other Arbitrators on this case, I will be picking it up and hope to have a PD on or before the 3rd. Apologizes for the delay. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 23:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Another deadline missed! Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ANy hope of further action on this case? It is getting to be a little silly. BMK (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Enough is Enough
It's clear from this case that ArbCom has run its course and is no longer relevant. Everyone go play somewhere else. 207.38.156.219 (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, don't be silly. Clearly 5 weeks after the deadline for a proposed decision everyone should be pleased with a lack of updates. 71.11.1.204 (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * To expand, I know that the case has dragged on and on, and trust me, I want to see a proposed decision and resolution as much as the rest of you. L235 and I have both privately raised this delay on the clerks list, but we're in the dark as much as the rest of you on the reasons for the hold up and when we can expect an update.  This talk page however, is not the place to complain about that, or about the process generally; it is solely for discussion of the proposal itself, and further off-topic remarks will be removed without comment.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC).

Inactive arbitrators
Per Arbitration_Committee/Procedures,, , and are inactive through absence from Wikipedia. In addition, appears to be inactive through lack of Arbcom participation since Sep 28, although they have made other edits during that period. --Amble (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And with that we are now down to less than half of the sitting committee available for this case. Job abandonment? Yet another structural hole for ArbCom; what to do when ArbCom members abandon their responsibilities. Related; there are no quorum requirements for cases (just emergency motions). So, a case could theoretically be closed with just one arbitrator voting on remedies. Yes, this is a volunteer project. But if you stand for ArbCom, it is an implicit expectation that if elected you will serve. If you're not going to serve, resign. Temporary absence is one thing, but long term low activity or outright inactivity? The community needs better than this. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * is right, which is why I've resigned from the Committee. I'm still contributing to some of the mailing list issues (like BASC cases) but have otherwise decided my more useful contribution is via content creation. There's no immediate value in formally quitting prior to the next elections (ie there's no "reserve list" to replace early departees), but my seat will be vacant from then. I urge anyone with an interest in the job to put their names forward when the elections roll around. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Noren
The last bullet point of FoF 3 concerning QG does not accurately summarize the edits cited. The events: How is making a change to a point partway between the status quo and partway to the proposal you disagreed with a POINT violation? This particular exchange appears to be an attempt at compromise, maintaining the nuance of 'contents of' while addressing the stated complaint that the original was 'clumsy and redundant'. --Noren (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The text "due to the lack of regulation of the contents of the numerous different brands of electronic cigarettes" is criticized, the stated complaint is that it is 'clumsy and redundant'.
 * An edit to "due to the lack of regulation of e-cigarettes" is proposed.
 * QG disagrees with that specific verbiage.
 * QG edits to "due to the lack of regulation of the contents of e-cigarettes" (bolding mine), a change to a midpoint between the proposal he'd disagreed with and the original.
 * I have fixed this issue and notified arbs who have already voted. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that upon examination of that exchange you would find QuackGuru to be the source of the problem. The proposed change was far from neutrally worded ("It's further evidence of the poor editorial judgment that plagues this page that a user would revert this.") ( It's yet further evidence of poor editorial judgment that a user would revert this. I am growing increasingly unhappy about poor editorial standards and I'm starting to wonder whether an administrator will be prepared to intervene.") Given the attacking tone of the proposed change I wouldn't fault QuackGuru for being terse in reply.  Are we judging civility only by use of naughty words?--Noren (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm also a bit confused by the first bullet point of FoF 3. It appears that different sourcing standards were applied to a claim about trends in popular culture ("Girls who use e-cigarettes consider them to be very appealing.") than to claims about medical facts. I do believe that it is wikipedia policy to apply stricter requirements to medical claims than to claims about what the current trends are in what girls find appealing. Why is the loaded phrase 'double standard' used here to describe applying WP:MEDRS to medical topics and not to non-medical topics, as required by policy?--Noren (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not the point I am trying to get at here. The comment was that the Daily Mail is a reliable source, but a Harvard study is considered a primary source and unreliable. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Müdigkeit
Now, I see three findings of fact that seem to suggest that there is a long term problem with the general behaviour of QuackGuru, and that such unwanted general behaviour continued after getting a topic ban, as well as that QuackGuru behaved in a way that cannot be explained by assuming good faith. I am surprised that there is not even a proposal to siteban QuackGuru here. --Müdigkeit (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Many editors, as presented in evidence expressed their thoughts on the positives of QuackGuru, and didn't want to see him sanctioned by ban. While I did do what I thought was best for the project and propose a topic ban, I did consider that the community feels they can work through this. That is why there is a warning in the remedies that further issues will lead to more/heavier sanctions. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 03:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

ancient issues
When a decision has to reach back over five years for evidence of ill-behaviour, I tend to see such a long time difference as indicating that the problem s not properly seen as a current problem, and would suggest that diffs which are sufficiently aged be left in their cask - that the committee remove those diffs which are past the five year mark in age, and now able to be sold as fine Scotch. Collect (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

IrishCowboy's section
''In response to. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 23:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)''
 * I must say I agree. The weight of block log evidence is clearly skewed toward the distant past. Cited are 3 blocks (18 percent) for disruptive editing in the past 1.5 years. Also cited are 14 blocks (82 percent) for various reasons, the most recent of which was from 2009. Including that many blocks from that long ago with so few recent blocks does little to prove a pattern of recent behavior and gives the impression of there being an axe to grind. IrishCowboy (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no axe to grind here. If you notice, there was no site ban proposed at all in here, even given the long block log. Also the percentage of blocks doesn't matter, because that number doesn't quantify the amount of disruption that any given user has caused. As for the actual numbers, I do see that they are from a long time ago, but I still feel they are part of the story. Someone can "go good" for a few years, or they could do as Johnbod states below, i'll leave which one it is up to your interpretation of the story. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 03:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Johnbod

 * @User:Collect & User:IrishCowboy, the absence of recent blocks may well show that QG is getting better at avoiding blocks, but a look at the evidence in this case, and the relevant article talk pages over the last 18 months, will dispel any notion that the "problem" has gone away. You ignore the much more recent topic bans - to quote from the proposed decision:

5) QuackGuru was restricted to 0RR in the acupuncture topic area and 1RR in alternative medicine topic area on May 24, 2015. On October 6th, 2015, QuackGuru's 0RR in the acupuncture topic area was increased to a topic ban.

See the next section also, 2 2011 topic bans in different areas. You have to do a lot more (worse) to get a topic ban/revert restriction than a block. QG's long term pattern seems to be to concentrate on a single article or small topic, and remain there until he has driven everyone else involved nuts, or away, at which point he usually gets topic banned. The first of his 1777 edits to EC was in April 2014, when his 1488 edits to talk also began. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @User:SMcCandlish: Your A,B,C summary might be considered broadly accurate, but is wrong in the detail. On B, I've never seen the claim or suggestion advanced that e-cigs "may pose the greater risk " than smoking. Their proposition is that the potential risks are unclear (true) and though very probably far less than those of smoking (now usually accepted) are probably greater than cutting nicotine out entirely, which is therefore what people should do. This line is popular in the many articles written essentially for general doctors who want to know what to tell their patients. It is less popular with public health specialists who know how slow the success of this line, and of the (now declining) other forms of NRT, has been. On C, I don't know that anyone involved in the page has quite suggested this (perhaps they have) - I'd imagine restricting sales to over-18s and child-proof bottles are supported by all. After that things can get complicated; the PHE report rather supports the widely-held view that many of the antis are in fact "useful idiots" for big baccy in pushing for full and compulsory medicalization, so forcing small manufacturers out of business etc. A realistic version of C actually does have some support from experts, at least in that e-cigs are accepted by many or most as contributing to the further falls in smoking over recent years, and having done so as a consumer-led force, against a general background of medical disapproval, and out of the control of the medical profession.


 * The geographical divide does exist, though there is also one between clinicians and public health people on both sides of the Atlantic. In fact on key points (other than usage) it is not true that "the amount of material is huge" - the important stuff is actually rather limited, with only 2 RCTs, both with obvious limitations. These tend to support A, but weakly. Other ones are in progress, and other gaps being filled. But for example, there is still no evidence on the question of how long most people who have successfully ceased smoking with e-cigs will go on vaping - certainly over 1 yr, but over 5, or over 20? Nobody knows, though clearly this may be very important if there are real risks. In general I see the gap between A and B narrowing, and personally I think new evidence will continue to narrow it in favour of A, as has been the trend for the last couple of years. Particularly important will be the results of RCTs comparing modern types of e-cigs (plus counselling) directly against the current "best supported" smoking cessation route of prescription drugs like Champix plus counselling.  Having done my own trial on that (n=1), I know what I expect the results to show.  At the moment it remains true to say that the existing RCT evidence does not show that e-cigs are the best smoking cessation method; if that ceased to be the case much of the anti case is removed.  How much fear of litigation down the road is factor in US attitudes I don't know; but the medical profession is still smarting from its slowness in accepting the harm of tobacco decades ago, and a determination that they "won't get fooled again" is certainly a factor.


 * As far as the article is concerned, it was long a bastion of B, and the efforts of editors to produce a balance of A and B, with coverage of C, are therefore almost impossible to distinguish from partisan efforts to impose A and C on it. QG's bias can be seen most clearly in the edits where he "summarizes" sources sympathetic to A. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @User:SMcCandlish again: If you look at the history you will see that everybody except QG has already walked away for over a month, and some of us never really walked in properly, seeing how things are. He completely dominates the last many hundred edits, and I wonder how many of the changes by others have survived. Re:"rather that they're uncertain they're not (due to a combination of effects we're not sure about, and the attractiveness of e-cigs to nonsmokers, plus their curious continued availability to so many minors" - it's not even that, they are just uncertain they are safe absolutely, which is enough for them. The "attractiveness of e-cigs to nonsmokers" is becoming revealed to all as a myth I think (it never appeared at all significant in the extensive UK research, which makes one wonder...). Teenagers everywhere have little difficulty in getting hold of alcohol, tobacco and much else besides when they want to badly, whatever the legislation in force. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @User:SMcCandlish again: I think you'll find just the same was true before the Arbcom case, which doesn't seem to have changed much. The publication of the PHE Report in mid-August rightly led to a rise in editing (and my first edits to the article) but the sheer volume of QG's edits, and his reverting of most changes by others has led to stasis for several months, despite everyone except QG agreeing about the inadequacy and unreadability of the article. As for the ALA, the search function on their appalling designed website doesn't seem to work, so the first page I found my way to was this, where the comments don't suggest they are getting their message through very well. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In fairness I should add that QG has, with skirmishing, not objected to several key points from the PHE Report being added to the article. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Puhlaa
With regard to bans and blocks of Quack Guru, I am not sure why, but no one ever seems to notice that Quack Guru was also banned from Pseudoscience and Chiropractic for 1 year in 2011. See this diff on his talk page that details his ban. I am not sure why there is not way to trace this topic ban like the others? I think it should be included in the list of sanctions against Quack Guru on the project page that was prepared by DeltaQuad. Also, it would be nice to know why this topic ban does not seem to be recorded anywhere. Puhlaa (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the topic ban is not relevant? I have just noted that DQs list is all of blocks, not topic bans. Sorry if the info regarding previous bans is not relevant.Puhlaa (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, it did not come up when I looked at the discretionary sanctions log, and i'll dig a little more tomorrow and update the finding. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks DQ. Here is the Arbitration enforcement discussion . The diff of QuackGuru being notified of his ban by User:EdJohnston is here. It seems that the result (banned for 1 year from pseudoscience and chiropractic) was not recorded anywhere. Puhlaa (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru

 * 1) Wikipedia does have a double standard for sources. For non-medical claims WP:SECONDARY sources can be used. However, I did not restore DailyMail when editors opposed DailyMail. For medical claims we typically don't use primary sources according to WP:MEDRS. It is not about whether it was from Harvard. A study is still a primary source. User:Doc James said it is Not sufficient for health claims."
 * 2) I thought a 3 month protection was too long. User:Kevin Gorman reduced the duration of the protection.
 * 3) The editor who made this revert said "Sourcing is irrelevant" and conceded that it was unnecessary to make the wholesale revert. User:Bishonen stated I followed WP:CAUTIOUS for the change. See Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Evidence for more details.
 * 4) According to this edit to the "Proposed decision" there was no further discussion but there was further discussion. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 25. The previous wording was "Opposed a change, and made the same change the next day". The edit was very similar but it was not the same change. I said on the talk page "This edit like others edits you have made did oversimplify the content which made it too vague. This change to the harm reduction section was very similar to your change. I thought it was a good compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)" I disagreed with the specific wording, but I did compromise. See Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Evidence for more details., please review my comments. Thanks. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 06:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The "sourcing is irrelevant" comment was quoted out of context. As I read it, it meant "I didn't remove the section because he sources were bad; i removed them because it was too big a change to make without discussion"  DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the complete quote. "The edits were reverted because they violated WP:CAUTIOUS, exactly the same as this time. Sourcing is irrelevant." He did acknowledge that "Whilst I didn't consider it edit-warring I do accept that it was not completely necessary to perform a wholesale revert." On March 19, 2015 User:Mr. Stradivarius warned Levelledout not to make another wholesale revert, but on March 31, 2015 he made another wholesale revert. I did link to my sandbox during the protection and User:Levelledout supported some changes to the lede which I included in my edit to the page. I did provide links to my sandbox.
 * I started another discussion about the specific change on the talk page and I did improve the wording based on what others said. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish
I don't think it's going to help the encyclopedia, as a work or as a community, to long-term topic-ban someone who is trying to uphold core content policies, and our just-short-of-policy guidelines like RS and MEDRS, as they apply to a FRINGE topic, when there are few other editors doing so, and the topic in question is seeing devoted, organized campaigning to shift coverage toward the FRINGEy side. It's essentially, necessarily going to be true that any editor taking a principled stand for proper sourcing in such a topic area is going to piss off some people, that some debates will get heated, and that some editwarring will occur. What should have been an examination of "what is going on in this topic area and how can we calm it down to tolerable levels?" has turned into a "how can we make an example of one editor, and throw the baby out with the bath water?" exercise. QG's approach to this has been imperfect, but I think it beats the alternative, of e-cig promotionalism having freer rein and a sword of Damocles hanging over anyone else who might think of stepping up. The overall effect of such a TBan, being on one side of the debate only, is liable to be a sense that if you mess with e-cig promoters, you're going to get railroaded. My purpose for ever contributing to this RfArb, and asking ArbCom to take it, was an expectation that the justice meted out would be balanced and about establishing some even order, not about singling out one anti-fringe editor. Very disappointed. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So my question to you is how do we handle calming the topic area down? I'm no expert in the topic area, for sure you have got me there. Specifically on how to deal with e-cig promoters as you state, that is possible to be done within policies and the reach of ArbCom, in a way that can be enforced? I tried to propose an extension of DS to help with that, but that doesn't seem to be the all in one solution. ArbCom is not able to make magical solutions out of thin air, and I would absolutely prefer to hear from the people providing evidence what they think would work in this instance. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Discretionary sanctions, and proper WP:AC/DS notices delivered to all involved parties, plus a more balanced set of findings and warnings that address some of the behavior of other parties (whom I mean is obvious from what I submitted). What we have here are:
 * A) The view, well-evidenced in medical literature, that e-cigs helping people quit smoking does (overall) more good than the harm caused by people breathing in e-cig aerosols, including those who might never have taken up any form of "smoking" if not for e-cigs;
 * B) The exact opposite view, that e-cigs (long-term) may pose the greater risk than the well-studied and declining practice of tobacco smoking (this is also supported well in the literature; one can see a big divide between these two medical camps, largely coinciding with the Atlantic Ocean and the differing approaches to heath regulations on either side of it).
 * C) The view that e-cigs pose virtually no risks of any kind except in wretched excess, and is simply a recreational activity or preference, like drinking coffee or eating chocolate (a view which seems to be supported by nothing at all but pop culture articles and promotional materials).
 * Unfortunately, the goals of both view A and view C are served in the short term by ganging up, in a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" temporary coalition, against view B (after which A would try to crowd out C, naturally). That's what we're seeing in this case.  The encyclopedic result should be that A and B are moderated (administratively if necessary), and C is crowded out simply by virtue of having practically no reliable sources.  What we  out of this is a commitment to present both of the competing medical views (and middle-ground positions) in a balanced manner (I myself have no opinion either way on one being more correct; the amount of material is huge, and the US vs. European regulatory politics influencing the two sides is strong enough that any given journal piece cannot be taken at face value on that question). ArbCom can't address the underlying content question, but it can address things like applicability of policies and guidelines, and the unclean-hands petulance of complaints that so-and-so is pushing a PoV when the complainants are doing likewise, and trying to spin every irritation and thing that didn't go their way as evidence of some kind of bad faith on the part of one editor.  (QG can in fact be abrasive and frustrating, but so can several others, some of whom have been engaging in WP:POINT exercises.)  What's more important, that we have actually encyclopedic material, or that someone who isn't perfectly nice all the time be punished for this foible, in a way that seems to reward "civil-PoV pushing"? The pursuit of "civil PoV" social engineering of WP to slowly warp its coverage and get rid of more sensible but less implacably patient and strategic WP:GAME-playing editors, is probably Wikipedia's #1 long-term threat to its mission.  ArbCom really should be focusing on this. Quite a number of the cases it takes raise this issue in one form or another (when they're not "ethnic/religious/political Group X hates e/r/p Group Y" matters, e.g. Israel–Palestine). But most of these cases seem to go along the lines of "ah HA, editor So-and-so was rude here, and did some other bad thing over there, so make an example of that editor, ignore everyone else's bad actions, case closed", without addressing the underlying civil-PoV problems that drive some frustrated, good editors to lose their cool.  That said, AC/DS does seem to work in cases like this.  I was even able to use WP:ARBAA2 to shut down anti-Armenian and anti-Kurd PoV pushing at a domestic animal article, Van cat, for example. (AC/DS can also be wrongfully applied, to silence legitimate debate in favor of whoever was more obsequious or quiet, even if they are falsifying source material, engaging in OR, or otherwise violating policies and encyclopedia principles; this happened to me recently by way of one admin's overbroad interpretation of WP:ARBATC as meaning that just being argumentative about a title or style matter could be sanctioned, leading to a temporary topic ban that was overturned at WP:AN.  AC/DS is really an overreach of ArbCom's authority when applied to internal policy-making procedures: It's a failure of separation of powers, with our "judicial branch" interfering with our "legislative branch" and using the "executive branch" admins to serve as the muscle to do it.)  The discretionary sanctions seem to work very well when applied in the way they were actually intended to be used, throwing a wet blanket on flaming content disputes in mainspace.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Demurrer [with regard to your initial post in your section, below]: I don't really buy all the complaints about QG. While I do agree that some of his user-targeting activities should be suppressed, the 0RR was just a 0RR, a restriction against reverting, enacted specifically, as you said yourself, such that it "still allowed [QG] to participate" but "prevented QG from edit warring and controlling the article".  Ergo, drafting proposed changes in a sandbox and asking on the talk page if other editors wanted to use any of it appears to be a perfectly valid approach, even a desirable one, since it's based on discussion, consideration, consensus building, and others taking action. It's not really fair to characterize anyone who might agree with one of QG's suggested edits as being "partisan". On any polarized article, every editor is going to be labeled a "partisan" bad-guy by anyone else with a generally opposing viewpoint; everyone, probably, who was willing to accept any proposal from anyone would be apt to be called "partisan" by anyone not equally agreeable to the proposal.  Taking the slow, consensus-building route when blocked from the just-do-it route is normal practice. For example, if someone is topic-banned from making article moves directly themselves ("move-banned"), it's normal and reasonable that they'd use standard WP:RM process to propose moves for discussion; if consensus is reached to make the move, then someone else will perform it.  I can't see any practical difference between the two scenarios. What would be the point of a 0RR that "still allowed [QG] to participate in discussions" if the real agenda of it is to not allow him to participate in discussions for the reason that people usually do so, namely to effectuate changes to the article's content?  If your real goal with regard to QG is basically to topic-ban him from doing anything at all other than providing sources, without suggestions or proposals of any kind, then explicitly make  be the actual restriction (given previous TBans, QG doesn't even seem to one who would resign over such a restriction, though it's not one I would actually advocate, for reasons already given earlier).  A basic principle of democratic governance is "that which is not forbidden is permitted". It's not some fault of QG, like "loophole exploitation", if he adheres to the 0RR while continuing to propose changes; it's just standard operating procedure. Lots of editors who care about a particular topic take multiple approaches to influencing how articles about it are written. Sandboxing isn't a problematic one, even if editor witch-hunting is.  On a separate note: Random editors handing out sanctions "alerts" is not really a problem (even if most of them do it in a snide way).  They're just notices.  The fact that WP:AC/DS requires this silly notice-delivery bureaucracy in the first place is the real problem.  It should instead be scrapped, with the assumption that anyone who participates with X number of posts or over Y amount of time at a page with a DS banner on its talk page is considered "aware" of the DS that apply to that topic area.  Unless and until that happens, the more editors who can deliver these silly "alerts" the better, since it means fewer involved editors will be able to escape sanctions on a technicality. I recently had that happen in a failed dispute resolution; the other side was "immune" to DS, despite being in the top-5 editors in the topic in question, because their last formal DS notice had been more than 1 year ago.  If we're going to keep this notice system, we should have a bot that identifies all posters who qualify under X posts and/or Y time span of participation, and auto-delivers them all the DS alert for the topic in question, and re-delivers it a year later if they're still participating within either of the thresholds.  A sanctions system that anyone can loophole their way out of simply by being  civil enough to not trigger someone into delivering an alert to them on time is a pointless system, tailor made for WP:GAMING.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * [In reply to your reply] OK, I read that whole thing (I don't believe in "tl;dr" if the material's all pertinent). I don't really see the gnoming edits QG made while others were editwarring as being problematic, but the kinda-canvassing posts to FT/N do seem to be.  But QG isn't doing this sort of thing everywhere.  It appears to be a desperation move, born of certainty that the material is being manipulated and a reduced toolset to address it. Maybe just a side point: The accusation (made by someone else you quoted) that a third party's edit in support of QG's material was just a proxy edit for an essentially topic-banned user, however, denies the alleged proxy any individual  in the philosophical and sociological senses, and amounts to assuming poor faith at best, judgementally equating their "I agree with this content/change" decision-making with robotic agency in the  sense. If I were that proxying-accused user, I'd be very insulted.  This gets to the heart of what I was saying about restricted users still having some influence through consensus-building channels. To return to the move-ban / RM example:  If user X is move-banned from articles about Korean topics because they keep doing disruptive, undiscussed moves, it's not problematic for them to propose the moves through RM channels, and there's no evidence anyone is being a robotic proxy for that editor just because they !vote in favor of one of their proposed move, or close the discussion with consensus in favor of that move.  Rather, the problem here seems to be emotional over-involvement, that looks like a desire to WP:WIN and to use whatever avenues are available to do so, seemingly out of a sense that the other side is not playing fair, and that fire must be fought with fire.  I agree with your timeline's conclusion that it's "borderline-walking".  But the borderline exists independently of QG in a sense. There's a blurry line between WP:TRUTH and WP:ENC, between WP:NOT / WP:SOAPBOX / WP:GREATWRONGS and WP:V / WP:RS / WP:NOR.  It can be very difficult to step back from "I have done the research and have the proof of what the real facts are, and this is an important objective topic, not some subjective 'faith' topic, so our readers need the correct information, despite the efforts of all these misleading PoV-pushers" position.  In practical terms, the difference between entirely constructively writing encyclopedic content, and treating WP as (I think you called it) a platform for exposing quackery – is probably mostly a matter of tone.  We have thousands of topics where people really feel, internally, this strongly about which take on the material is correct, they're just better at playing the socio-political game and hiding how much they're editing from a position of utter conviction.  In my own section up there (so I quit tl;dr'ing yours!) I'll try to re-address more clearly what I think the problem is at the root of this RfArb (it's not just "that QG guy").  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC) D'oh. I just noticed the message at the top of this page that it's supposed to be "sectioned not threaded" like the evidence pages are.  So, I shouldn't have been replying inline in the first place.  I guess a clerk can let me know if it's mandatory to refactor this sectionally.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that voluntary TBans are the best approach; it's something WP should use more often. I also agree that some reasonable conflict is good for our articles and for our editing processes in general (my own history on WP demonstrates I'm no stranger to vociferous debate).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * A balanced approach: In this case, it might be more practical to use short-term topic bans [voluntary ones would be best, as AWilley suggests, below], that are not applied one-sidedly. I've learned through some experience that walking away from a topic – voluntarily or otherwise – for 1-3 months (sometimes longer, voluntarily) can have a salutary effect on one's ability to reprioritize what one hopes to bring to an article or entire topic area, removes the sense of battlegrounding urgency, gives time for tempers to cool, and encourages one to think about how to reapproach the editing community surrounding a particular topic (and can even foster some truce-building).  I do not believe that indef TBans, like QG has with regard to acupuncture or whatever it was, are effective for intelligent, research-performing editors, only for WP:COI agenda pushers and for nutty types who are here for sport debate and the adrenalin rush they get from it.  Long-term bans on well-meaning editors simply tend to convert them into critics of WP and its administration. That said, short-term TBans that only target one side of debate when multiple sides of it have exhibited a WP:WINNING pattern tends to simply have a punitive and skewing effect, and will always be gamed by opponents ("I see you were TBanned for this last year, so if you don't stop opposing me, I'll take you to ANI..."; the presumption is almost always that anyone previously restricted from a topic in any way is an incurable troublemaker, regardless of the actual facts at hand; we all know this). Several other editors have been just as disruptive as QG if not more so, in their own ways, as well as inimical to the factuality and balance of the content, and should also be temporarily TBanned if QG is (or otherwise subject to proportionate restrictions).  There's very little that's worse for the encyclopedia than blockading the participation of content producers on one side of an issue because of an alleged attitude problem (especially one they've been carefully steered into), and handing the keys to the whole topic area to the opposing side simply because they're more skilled at playing the long game as "civil-pov" pushers and "slow editwar" agents.  Admins need to be increasingly on the lookout for  kind of gaming, the exploitation of the ease with which some editors can be manipulated temperamentally to "lose their cool" by implacable agenda pushers who are good at NLP.  Administrative focus on just shutting up people who are loud and frustrated is slowing turning WP into the PR vehicle of those who are the most skilled at pushing nonsense but doing it quietly and by goading their opposition into appearing to be the more disruptive.  There is no value to a serene editing environment the output of which is bollocks.  I participated in this RfArb primarily because of this effect.  I do not agree with QG on everything, but I recognized instantly what's been going on in this topic area, since the same "push the editors with the reasoned position until they become unreasonable and we win" tactic is playing out across many other subjects.  As I indicated in my opening statement on this case, the problem with this topic is that it's a battleground that chases off incoming editors who have no agenda to push and who just want to do neutral source research.  That battleground is not one disruptive editor against the world, it's a bunch of editors all treating this topic like they own it, and sometimes engaging in really out-there WP:POINT nonsense. That insipid, time-wasting RfC, to use hatnotes to confuse readers into mentally equating e-cigarette aerosol with tobacco cigarette smoke, was seriously one of the lamest things I've ever seen happen on WP. So was the wikilawyering campaign to prevent the application of WP:MEDRS to the clearly medical topic of e-cig aerosols and their health effects. So was the RM-turned-foodfight to prevent the use of "aerosol" in that article's title and instead use the misleading "vapor", as if "aerosol" were some unused term being pushed by weirdos (cf. this American Lung Association billboard  which is going up all over the US; I saw one last weekend, about 100 ft high, on the way to Sacramento).  Just three examples, none of which were QG's fault.  Balance and calm will be attained by putting all the playground fighters in detention in the same way for the same time – giving others some room to engage more peacefully, while the fighters cool their heels – not by singling out one of them and helping the others beat him up.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * : On the first point, I see what you mean, and I was overgeneralizing. I don't mean to imply that camp B are certain that e-cigs are worse in the long run, but rather that they're uncertain they're not (due to a combination of effects we're not sure about, and the attractiveness of e-cigs to nonsmokers, plus their curious continued availability to so many minors, which disproves the notion that everyone in camp C is against their availability to minors).  I'll just take your word for it on the rest of that. As I said before, I'm on the fence about what the medical truth is, and the reason I'm here in this case to begin with is that the battleground surrounding this topic is so excessive that me and various other parties who might be interested in helping ensure that WP's articles on the topic accurately reflect the evolving medical consensus, its political biases, and the views of its critics, in a balanced manner, can't get a word in edgewise.  I basically just walked away from the substantial source research I was doing, because the whole topic is a boiling pot of "my side will win at all costs" behavior, from at least three different directions (maybe four, given your identification of a split between medical regulatory bodies vs. clinicians which does not entirely map to the US vs. Europe ideological divide on this).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: "everybody except QG has already walked away for over a month, and some of us never really walked in properly, seeing how things are." I'm clearly among the latter group, and obviously concerned about it, but honestly QG was not who made me want to run away from that topic area.  Regardless, QG being more active right now than his opponents seems to be a matter of correlation not causation.  That others who were formally embroiled in the dispute are more reticent than QG is to edit while this case is open tells us something about people's temperament toward risk-taking; it doesn't demonstrate that QG is being a bad-actor, much less the only bad-actor.  'I'm staying away from this topic because it's a flamewar' is not equivalent to 'I'm backing away from this topic for a while because of the ArbCom case'.  'QG was [allegedly] dominating these articles by disruptive means' is not equivalent to 'QG seems to be dominating these articles presently simply by being the one who still shows up'. I don't mean to lecture you on causation vs. correlation, and am sure you understand this already, it just wasn't clear that you were drawing the distinction in that instance, and I think this whole case smacks of scapegoating due to the discussion overall not drawing the distinction very clearly.  When editors X and Y complain that editor Z has more influence over an article than they do, that is not necessarily evidence of wrongdoing, and is often an indication simply of activity level, interest, source quality, copyediting skill, and other factors. And in this case, some of the X and Y editors have themselves been transgressing, so their hands are not clean in the complaint to begin with.  As for your source analysis of the ground truth about the off-WP e-cig debates, I'll again take your word for it, and your summary of where the conclusions are shifting does not surprise me. I do note, however, that the American Lung Association is really up in arms about e-cigs; the topic is generating more activity out of that organization than I've seen since 1980s anti-smoking ads. So, not all "health authorities" are backing down from the ecigs-must-go position.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My view of the situation is surely colored by who was seeming to be most problematic during the time I spent on the articles (and it wasn't QG). I honestly can't speak as to what was going on there 8 months ago or whenever, without digging through way more page history than I have time for.  As for ALA, I don't have a position on the veracity of their message or the effectiveness of its campaign; was just observing that it exists publicly in a very visible manner, and is at odds with the "e-cigs aren't so bad" view. It's also noteworthy, in the context of one of the disputes that led to the RfArb, that it focuses on the term "aerosol" being accurate and how "vapor" is inaccurate, a view that some were approaching as if unsourceable OR. That terminological accuracy was one of the points I did care about, and about which I found the denialist invective appalling, because it really is a MEDRS matter, the "vapor" fudge really is misleading marketspeak, and these facts are true whether e-cigs are harmless or the worst thing since mustard gas.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * : I didn't participate, that I recall, in any 2014 discussions on the topic, but was speaking of more recent aerosol vs. vapo[u]r disputation that arose at Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol (for which I did a big pile of sourcing), and several disruptive verbal fistfights that broke out in its wake, on multiple pages. I take your word for it that outright promoters of e-cigs as just a lifestyle thing have wandered off.  I also don't dispute that the current situation has been off-putting to incoming editors – that's why I'm here in the first place.  However, my direct experience was that one set of editors, with the more relaxed view of the medical research, included (exclusively) some who were pushing an aggressive hard-sell for WP:MEDRS being inapplicable to that and various related articles, against the well-reasoned position that this interpretation doesn't hold any water.  The pro-MEDRS approach may have also been a bit hard-sell, but at least it's defensible.  I don't have to agree with the "e-cigs are the devil" crowd to agree, as a neutral editor looking for balance and proper sourcing in the article, that MEDRS applies, and that the argument it doesn't borders on disingenuous wikilawyering/gaming.  In the same short span, I also observed someone launching a POINTy RfC the sole rationale for which appeared to be confusing readers about the difference between e-cig aerosol and cigarette smoke (presumably this was motivated by an anti-ecig stance; I'm not really sure, because the entire thing was a bunch of irrational, WP:NOTGETTINGIT noise). So, the complaint I'm bringing here is essentially severable from that of the "is there too much editorial influence from the 'e-cigs are the devil' crowd?" concern.  Whatever complaints about QG may arise from that concern, my own concern is primarily directed at some of QG's opponents (incidentally and for observed behavior, not because they're QG's opponents), but maybe not even entirely; I'm not sure where CFCF's ideology in the matter is.  The disruption I personally observed, if you lump it all together, came seemingly from both sides, and none of it was QG's doing; that editor was at that point thwarting much of the disruption.  There's more than one problem happening in that articlespace, and they're not all coming from the same side. Ergo, a focus here on "make an example of QG for this one problem some respondents have identified" will not resolve the "this topic area is a minefield" issue, but simply one-sidedly put someone in stocks, and hand the keys to the kingdom to the other side, equally disruptive in different ways.  By way of analogy, one wouldn't fire one's staff attorney because the people in marketing are angry that she won't let them say in print everything they want to. Especially if some of the tension in the situation looks like it may be the fault of someone else, an intern in the legal department.  People don't have to be chummy to collaborate, they have to remember what the job is and set aside their personalized squabbling.  I think the personalization happening on both sides is a major part of this, and, e.g., it's likely that QG resists JB's edits to an extent simply because there's some ire between them.  We're all basically apes with clothes on, however much we like to forget what territorial animals we are.  Everyone involved in the long-term fighting just taking some steps back and some time away from the pages would be a Good Thing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Not enough time
I will comment nothing beyond expressing my profound disappointment with this entire process. None of the points brought forth address the issues with the editing environment of the articles even in the leastest. I understand the will to show a strong hand and making examples of individuals, but this a major loss to the encyclopaedia.

I personally regret focusing on actual issues and not trying to find specific examples of questionable behavior by the advocacy groups, of which there are many more than those few pointed to in the decision.

On the basis of this judgement we are effectively surrendering the articles to advocacy, and it makes me strongly question the long-term viability of Wikipedia if our highest decision-making body can't see this.

The only result of these actions is loss of interest on my part. One can defend against stubborn advocacy only for so long, but when the underlying framework is bent against evidence I find little purpose in spending my time here. I'm very sorry to have wasted time trying to adhere to evidence, and you will not be seeing me around. CFCF  💌 📧 11:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Awilley
This is a response to SMarshall's and indirectly AlbinoFerret's statement that this had already been tried at Acupuncture. Details of the acupuncture restrictions and rationale are available in the diffs on the final decision page (Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor_conduct_in_e-cigs_articles/Proposed_decision) so I won't rehash those. I will say that the 0RR restriction was meant to be a creative alternative to a topic ban like the one suggested by SMarshall: one that prevented QG from edit warring and controlling the article, but still allowed them to participate in discussions and update sources and the like. The result was that QG continued to monopolize talk page discussions, still managed to push large scale changes into the article, still managed to participate in edit wars caused by the large scale changes, canvassed for other users to participate in those edit wars, and annoyed a lot of people in the process. And they did all of this without technically breaking the restrictions. That said, I do encourage Arbcom to follow SMarshall's advice and look for a creative solution that will work. Specifically I support points 1-4 (preventing QG from monopolizing/controlling talk page and article while allowing to find sources) but oppose #5 (allow identification of SPA accounts). In fact I think it would be a good thing to prevent QG from focusing on other editors altogether. For instance, the list of notifications at General_sanctions/Electronic_cigarettes seems inappropriate to me. In my mind it should be uninvolved administrators handing out the template notifications to involved problematic users, not involved users handing out the notifications to everyone who has ever made an edit to an e-cig related topic, including admins (notified by User:SPACKlick) and new users with 1-2 edits (for instance Special:Contributions/Samnater, notified by QuackGuru). Other examples of QG going a bit crazy with other users is Sockpuppet_investigations/Klocek/Archive (accusing everybody of being a sock of Klocek), and   (notifying a retired user who had not edited the acupuncture article in weeks, and whose edits were a vast improvement from the status quo wiki-war between proponents and critics). In addition to SMarshall's points, I think the "creative alternative" must be framed carefully enough to prevent QG from getting around it, for instance, by making large scale changes in a sandbox and soliciting partisan editors to implement them in the article. Assume that any loopholes will be exploited. If you do find a solution, and if it works well, I will likely reduce QG's topic ban at Acupuncture to match your restrictions, because it would be nice to be able to benefit from their knowledge of sources without having to deal with the advocacy. ~Awilley (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be obvious at this point that nobody at arbcom has been able to find a truly satisfactory solution, or we would have posted the PD long ago.  DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, didn't mean to imply that, though I'll admit I am quite ignorant of the process behind proposed decisions. (I thought they were the work of the drafting arbitrator(s), though now I think about it it makes sense that there would be deliberation with others.) ~Awilley (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to chat with my fellow arbitrators, at least those that are willing with the amount of stuff going on right now to see if we can find an inventive solution before we bring this to a close. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on the fundamentals here, but differ on a few of the details. Using the sandbox to propose changes was not the problem. I actually think using the sandbox during disputes is a great idea, and I've done it myself on occasion. The problem according to me was described (at length, sorry) in this diff. (Readers digest version: there was an edit war over implementing QG's sandbox version that contained many large scale changes, in which QG participated by making strings of inconsequential edits (like removing spaces and swapping order of fields in ref templates) each time their preferred revision was reverted to; and by canvassing—twice—on the WP:Fringe theories/noticeboard, asking others to revert in their favor.) I completely favor using normal Wikipedia processes like proposing changes on talk or using the sandbox to suggest changes, but going beyond normal process (eg. Gaming) to get one's own way is where I drew the line, and I tried to make that clear in the language of the 0RR restriction. ~Awilley (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mind you posting down here, and I don't think this is the kind of discussion the sectioned rule is meant to prevent, but if they want to separate or hat this I'm fine. Also, to be clear, I'm certain that Johnuniq (the one who first implemented the sandbox edit) was acting in good faith under their own agency. The only one that raised my eyebrows was when CFCF jumped in and made 3 reverts, having never before edited the article or the talk page. (They explained later how they came by the page here.) Your idea of short-term topic bans is interesting. I don't know much about the environment at E-cig articles, but I can definitely understand the desire to make room for "incoming editors" without agendas. (CorporateM, the editor I mentioned QG was badgering at the end of my long post, was just such an editor.) There is also the problem of identifying which editors to T-ban, and how to do it without scaring off the "neutral" editors who are less motivated to stick around in the first place. I can cite an example at Talk:Ayurveda where broadly applied harsh DS drove away the middle-of-the-road editors, leaving just the heavily invested. I could see some potential if the t-bans were somewhat voluntary (not logged officially, the user agrees to it) which might help prevent them being used in ad-hominem attacks. AlbinoFerret just came off of one of those, and I think it might have been healthy for them in the long run. Don't quote me on this, but I think a little conflict is good for articles. It makes people think, motivates them to edit, and prevents a lot of errors. A lot of conflict damages articles, as different factions try to "stack" the article in their favor, loading it up with pro- and anti- sources, expanding the controversial sections, and for the most part ignoring the "encyclopedic" stuff that should make up most of the article. Anyway, I need to stop rambling and get back to my RL responsibilities. ~Awilley (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mind you posting down here, and I don't think this is the kind of discussion the sectioned rule is meant to prevent, but if they want to separate or hat this I'm fine. Also, to be clear, I'm certain that Johnuniq (the one who first implemented the sandbox edit) was acting in good faith under their own agency. The only one that raised my eyebrows was when CFCF jumped in and made 3 reverts, having never before edited the article or the talk page. (They explained later how they came by the page here.) Your idea of short-term topic bans is interesting. I don't know much about the environment at E-cig articles, but I can definitely understand the desire to make room for "incoming editors" without agendas. (CorporateM, the editor I mentioned QG was badgering at the end of my long post, was just such an editor.) There is also the problem of identifying which editors to T-ban, and how to do it without scaring off the "neutral" editors who are less motivated to stick around in the first place. I can cite an example at Talk:Ayurveda where broadly applied harsh DS drove away the middle-of-the-road editors, leaving just the heavily invested. I could see some potential if the t-bans were somewhat voluntary (not logged officially, the user agrees to it) which might help prevent them being used in ad-hominem attacks. AlbinoFerret just came off of one of those, and I think it might have been healthy for them in the long run. Don't quote me on this, but I think a little conflict is good for articles. It makes people think, motivates them to edit, and prevents a lot of errors. A lot of conflict damages articles, as different factions try to "stack" the article in their favor, loading it up with pro- and anti- sources, expanding the controversial sections, and for the most part ignoring the "encyclopedic" stuff that should make up most of the article. Anyway, I need to stop rambling and get back to my RL responsibilities. ~Awilley (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)