Revision as of 17:49, 12 April 2015

Requests for arbitration

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Request for an I-ban

Initiated by Catflap08 (talk) at 20:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Catflap08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Hijiri88

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Close
• https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Kokuch%C5%ABkai4
• https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Kenji_Miyazawa
• https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Daisaku_Ikeda
• https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Hijiri88

Statement by Catflap08

I would like an interaction ban to be imposed between myself and User: Hijiri88. The conflict erupted on the article on Kenji Miyazawa carried on at Kokuchūkai and sites like Daisaku Ikeda. The user in question decided to delete threads of the discussion on his own talk page. I then decided for retirement (which is something I should think twice about now) and the user in question decided again to show up in the discussion here . In my books escpecially the latter incident qualifies for WP:Hound. I therefore would like to think that an i-ban between me and the user in question would for the time being be the best solution. I am aware that such a step would be mutual, but at this point I fear no constructive interaction is possible. May I add that the proposed i-ban should also include IP-addresses and alternative user names used by the editor in question?

Since personal attacks and name callings have been involved and since I was engaged in a discussion in which the editor's name did not pop up once and since other means (Including ANI) to end the dispute failed no other option seems feasible. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry guys, but if one looks through the help page on banning, one is directed to the Arbitration Committee. I do not ask for a ban on a regular basis and used the formal steps and landed here. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the last statement that I should post on the issue. From my point of view the issue escalated on separate incidents. Back in June 2014 my edit on calling Kenji a nationalist was challenged. I adhered to that per consensus. After that in the lede it read that Kenji was a devout Buddhist. Even though I regard the term “devout” close to a peacock term I inserted that he was a member of Kokuchūkai. This then was challenged. To my knowledge the lede should sum up what is stated in the article. In the literature I am aware of Kenji’s Buddhist influence is being mentioned. The Lotus Sutra is mentioned and his affiliation to Nichiren Buddhism. The only affiliation documented to Nichiren Buddhism, which is based on the Lotus Sutra is the one with Kokuchūkai. Historically his family was affiliated with Pure Land Buddhism – not based on Nichiren Buddhism nor the Lotus Sutra. This sums up what the conflict was about. In my books the editor in question did not want this affiliation being mentioned in the lede – fine – but then the devout Buddhist issue is nonsense too if one is not allowed to mention in the lede what this affiliation was about. Due to circumstances I do not want to be made public just now I can and will not comment on issues being brought up by user:Sturmgewehr88.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hijiri88

Catflap08 posted OR on the Kenji Miyazawa article, and linked to another article he had written based on a handful of cherry-picked sources. Last February-June he was involved in a slow-motion edit war with me and a few others on the Kenji Miyazawa article that resulted in an RFC where 9/10 participants agreed that Catflap's proposed edits were not appropriate. When he continued to violate the consensus, I requested on ANI that he be TBANned, and User:Dennis Brown said that it wasn't necessary since consensus was clearly established and he would need to go to DRN or somewhere if he wanted to keep it in. He withdrew for about six months before coming back and making virtually the same edit to the article. More recently, when I checked his sources on the Kokuchūkai article, I found that they actually contradicted virtually everything the article said. When I asked him about this he said that the sources were for the article itself, not the specific claims of the article. When I told him this was not how Misplaced Pages sourcing worked he started an RFC to undermine me. This was concerning, so I requested on ANI that he be blocked per WP:CIR or at least TBANned from the area in which he was editing disruptively. When I did so User:John Carter came along and made a bizarre claim that I was forum-shopping an open DRN content dispute. When I tried to figure out what on earth he was talking about, I found that Catflap (but not myself) was involved in a dispute on the Daisaku Ikeda article. When I went there, I found that he was doing exactly the same thing on that article (adding refs that did not say the same thing he wanted the article to say). I pointed out on the talk page that this was a recurring problem with Catflap's edits. Catflap has since claimed that I "followed" him there, even though Catflap and John Carter's repeatedly claiming that I was involved in that dispute had already managed to derail my ANI thread.

Catflap has spent the last two months complaining about me on forum after forum, oftentimes openly lying about me (seriously, ask him where I "attacked his nationality"). All I have done is try to prevent him from disrupting articles in an area in which I have been editing since I created this account ten years ago. His reference to "name-calling" above is amusing, since he has been applying a double-standard to me on this point: in frustration, I once called him a "jackass", before quickly withdrawing it and replacing the less-aggressive "jerk"; he has since been casually saying things to the effect "if Hijiri is allowed call me a jackass, then I must be allowed call him a jackass; he's a jackass, and a jerk". (My initial use of the word "jackass" was defended by User:JzG, who pointed out that if Catflap stopped acting like one I would stop calling him one.)

I'm getting pretty tired of providing all the diffs for this dispute over and over again, but I did a pretty good job of it here.

I have done absolutely nothing wrong here, but rather been the victim of a months-long bitching campaign by Catflap. I reverted his insertion of OR into one article I regularly edit, and two more articles he and his friends invited me to edit. I have not been "following" him, and I see no reason why I should be sanctioned. If an IBAN were to be imposed, would it mean I can't ask someone else to revert him when he inserts more patently-ridiculous OR/misrepresentation of sources in another article? Because so far every single third-party editor other than John Carter has agreed with me on this issue.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: ANI (and Catflap's regular substitute for ANI, namely AN) has already been tried numerous times, but the result has never come out the way Catflap wanted it. My only guess is he has brought it to ArbCom this time to keep broader community input to a minimum (his actions over the past year or so haven't made him a lot of friends) and because he's afraid of an even harsher boomerang coming his way next time he posts on ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: I agree it was inappropriate for me to comment on the ER thread. But I think it was necessary since both Catflap08 and John Carter had posted ridiculous personal attacks against me before I even noticed it, John Carter quite obviously doing so in an attempt to get at least one thread where "consensus" had been on Catflap's side. Their posts included extensive commentary about how Catflap had been "driven off" by some sort of malicious cabal of POV-pushers, which very clearly was not the case; your comment about Catflap regularly violating V would, on an article talk page, have caused you to be branded as one of said POV-pushers. Their comments were inappropriate, and other good-faith third-parties naturally inclined to sympathize with an apparently-retired user were being misled into saying, essentially, "aw, the poor thing ... look what those bad men did to you ..." without knowing the background from the so-called "cabal"'s point of view. Additionally, Catflap's actions both in mid-March, when he last "retired" and since his current "retirement" are a pretty clear indication that for Catflap08 "retirement" is a stunt one pulls every once in a while to get the upper hand in a content dispute, which is not a serious issue in the way you seem to mean it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

I have some information I would like to present, but probably won't be able to get it together until some time tomorrow. I hope the request stays open that long.

arbs: Also, in response to the arb comment below, I think that what is being asked here is not only an i-ban regarding Hijiri and Catflap, but also an i-ban regarding Hijiri and me, and, if possible, based on at least some of the evidence which has been and will be presented below, maybe, if such is possible, some sort ruling which would allow the quick implementation of a limited-term i-ban the next time this sort of thing happens. However, if Hijiri does not receive some sort of "quick-trigger" i-ban, I would prefer that at least a two-way i-ban not be implemented, in the event his future actions of a similar nature against other editors lead to similar concerns to those here, in which case I think it might be useful for me to be able to discuss such matters.

Re: Hijiri: The obvious paranoia in some of Hijiri's last comment above about my motivations in this matter probably doesn't deserve much more mention than noting that a tendency toward paranoia is something he has seemingly displayed rather regularly lately, including at SilkTork's talk page.

One of my concerns is the matter of what seems to me to be obvious stalking and harassment of Hijiri88 of other editors, both Catflap and myself, at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Retirement of User:Catflap08. It is worth noting that as indicated there I have no memory of Hijiri88 ever showing any prior interest in the group, and believe his recent interest may well have been started by basically stalking of either me or Catflap08. On the basis of Hijiri88's comments about me there and elsewhere recently, I would have no objections to an i-ban regarding him and me either. And I hope to maybe tomorrow present a bit more information indicating that this is far from being the first time that Hijiri88 has belabored personal attacks of others. After presenting additional evidence, I would be interested in perhaps finding out if there might be an option, somehow, of a quick-trigger i-ban of maybe limited length, say 30 or 60 days, to prevent any further incidents of this kind involving this editor. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Additional information promised yesterday now being presented, possibly in sections. First, I acknowledge up front that one of my reasons for significant involvement has been some off-wiki e-mail I have received regarding Hijiri, basically warning me that everyone who argues with him gets sanctioned, because, as that person said, "Sooner or later he usually manages to find a friendly admin who will issue a ban." I already acknowledged this at User talk:SilkTork. Hijiri's tendency to raise multiple discussions at multiple locations when he is not winning an argument has recently been referenced by User:Mmeijeri at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive858#Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive858, where he specifically references Hijiri's tendency to raise discussions repetitively here, in a discussion in which Mmeijeri himself was being proposed for sanctions for, basically, as it turns out, being on the right side, but against Hijiri. This edit, by an editor who, basically retired from wikipedia apparently due to Hijiri's harasmment and misconduct. It is also worth noting that in that thread Hijiri mentions his use/abuse of multiple accounts, after being subjected to purported off-wiki harassment. He still seems rather paranoid about that sort of thing, given his accusation of others being sockpuppets in the discussion at SilkTork's talk page, still visible at User talk:SilkTork#Re: Ad hominem. It is also worth noting that the conduct which led to the ANI discussion related to in part some of Hijiri's own dubious conduct. In another ANI discusison, regarding an article in which Hijiri was unilaterally changing the title of an article, it was indicated to Hijiri that he was actively assuming bad faith of another here. Hijiri's out-of-control responses included at least this edit to that editor's user talk page, which starts with "What the fuck is your problem you goddamn idiot!?". The highlighted comment , as well as the comment immediately above it by the same editor, indicate yet another instance in which Hijiri, then known as elvenscout742, engaged in hounding and harassment of another user, when the individual in question may have, based on the highlighted comment, maybe have been using derogatory terms in a more humorous way than Hijiri perceived it. The thread in which this comment, in which Hijiri, under one of his numerous names, accuses another editor of Sabotage, seems to have led to that other editor ultimately beginning to perhaps respond in kind to some of Hijiri's own conduct, which led to that other editor being blocked. Other problems can be found regarding Emperor Jimmu here, Hijiri88 editing as an IP, and here, where Sturmgewehr88 had to warn him about his conduct. Additional obvious problems regarding AGF and, well, paranoia, can be found at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture. Based on that discussion, his sandbox page, at User:Hijiri88/sandbox, now 2-1/2 years old, seems nothing but a way of accumulating evidence against enemies. ANd a more recent example of Hijiri's attacks on others is highlighted by this comment here.

All this, mind you, is independent of his recent badgering and stalking and possible harassment of me, including a rather ignorant comment he left on my user page, not my user talk page, and the attempt he made to divert attention to his own dubious condut here and here, among others. John Carter (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

And https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard&curid=5149102&diff=655746168&oldid=655744410 his recent comment] at the AN thread regarding an i-ban between Catflap08 and himself is also very inreresting, particularly his phrase, and I quote, "I have done nothing wrong here." John Carter (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sturmgewehr88

As someone who has worked coöperatively with Hijiri88 and has watched this dispute with Catflap08 for almost a month now, I'd like to give my 2¢. When Catflap08 violated a number of policies/guidlines with his edits to the above-linked three articles, it was completely acceptable for Hijiri88 to revert and dispute those edits and to look at Catflap08's edit history for other violations, especially because consensus agreed with him on all three article talk pages. That said, I do believe it was inappropriate for Hijiri88 to comment at the Editor Retention WP section for Catflap08's (then serious) retirement. At this point, an interaction ban would be mutually beneficial for both of them. I'd also like to warn User:Catflap08 not to cite statements with sources that don't say what they're citing in the future to avoid more conflict. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

I have no opinion as to the merits in this case but please note that I have started an interaction ban discussion at WP:AN. In my opinion, this is not ripe for Arbitration at this time, as all other avenues of relief have not been exhausted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

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

Request for an I-ban: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/9/0/1>-Request_for_an_I-ban-2015-04-08T21:09:00.000Z">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• I'd like to know why AN/I has not been tried here? Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)"> ">
  • I can see there are issues here that need to be dealt with, but I'm still not seeing any reasons why a long and disruptive arbitration case is required to do that? Thryduulf (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline per Yunshui and others. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements, but leaning decline. I'm not clear on why this couldn't be settled by a request to the community. Seraphimblade 21:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline as it seems the community discussion is quite capable of resolving this. Seraphimblade 00:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
• Even the accusation of wikistalking appears low level. Minded to decline, but awaiting John Carter's statement. AGK 22:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Decline. Arbitration is not required here. AGK 22:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Unless a compelling reason why this can't be done through the usual community processes is given, I'll be declining. Dougweller (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline. Dougweller (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
• Leaning strongly towards decline - can any of the participants explain why ArbCom is needed to make a decision on a (seemingly fairly straightforward) IBAN request? Yunshui _水 09:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Now that there is a (fairly well-supported) discussion at AN underway, I'm definitely disposed to decline this case and defer it to the community. Yunshui _水 07:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Decline per Yunshui. The community seems to be handling this at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Interaction ban between Catflap08 and Hijiri88. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Decline. This can be and is being handled by the community. Salvio 09:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
• Decline per Yunshui. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
• Decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
• Decline NativeForeigner 17:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru

Initiated by Levelledout (talk) at 12:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Levelledout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification QuackGuru

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Two most recent ANIs (many more here):

• link1
• link2

Statement by Levelledout

QuackGuru has a long block log and an even longer section history at ANI. I don't know his full history of ArbCom cases but he has been sanctioned and banned at least twice previously diff1 diff2.

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

• Abuse of the page (un)protection process and thus WP:GAMING. Also forcing through large-scale changes without consensus and edit-warring, thus violating WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CAUTIOUS. Sequence of events as follows:
  1. Single handedly getting page protection removed, no notification of discussion on article talk page.
  2. Immediately dumping massive (9k) amounts of error-ridden material into article, no notification/discussion on article talk page.
  3. After article was consequently reprotected, immediately running straight back to requests for page protection without notifying article talk page and getting expiry date reduced.
  4. Intensely editing article in sandbox for next ten days until protection expired again, no notification or discussion to article talk page.
  5. Dumping vast (17k) error-ridden sandbox edits into article as soon as protection expired again, no prior discussion, in direct violation of instructions given by admin.
  6. Edit-warring the changes back into the article after they were reverted.
• Removing a POV tag 5 times within a few days thus edit-warring - diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5. On at least two occasions (diff2/talkpagediff and diff3/talkpagediff) doing so purely due to a personal fued, thus disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a WP:POINT.
• Breaching WP:NPOV, likely in order to try and prove a WP:POINT in a personal feud with the insertion of the following into the article, sourced from an editorial:

"They (e-cigarette users) also undertake in uncivil online attacks on any person who implies that e-cigarettes are not an innovation, with at least one person associated to an organization that receives donations from the tobacco industry."

• WP:COMPETENCE issues regarding language and grammar, error-ridden edits (see above) and failing to understand the concepts of WP:OR and paraphrasing - diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5
• WP:FILIBUSTERING, often to the extreme, stating one objection, then when that is shown to be redundant, coming up with a different one, then when all else fails simply telling all other editors that their objections are invalid and inadmissible - diff1 diff2 diff3 also diff1 diff2 diff3
• Personal attacks and incivility diff1 diff2.

QuackGuru obviously has a good deal of adversaries but some editors support him, some of whom are well respected and/or admins. ANI has proved ineffective in dealing with him and no firm action has been taken against him for any of the above by admins, even in consideration that there are discretionary sanctions in place on electronic cigarette articles. Therefore I think that this is the right place to raise this matter.

@ Softlavender The SPA accusation is brought up against practically everybody that opposes QuackGuru, whether they actually are an SPA or not. In my case, I'm still a relatively new editor with relatively few edits. I have a relatively high number of edits to the main e-cig article talk page but the large majority of my main wiki editing is not on e-cig related articles diff. Overall so far most of my edits have gone on e-cigs because it's a topic that interests me and because there have been long protracted debates on the talk page. But I do not advocate for e-cigarettes, I recognise that there are both potential risks and benefits in line with the majority of sources. I also try to implement the NPOV that QuackGuru is intent on preventing. QuackGuru edits mainly what he would consider pseudo-science topics, does that make him an SPA? Your claim that QuackGuru is not the real problem and that he is causing less disruption than other editors is categorically wrong. Take a look at this page and this page and you will realise nobody is adding more material than QuackGuru and no active editor (Fergus M1970 is blocked and AlbinoFerret is on a voluntary ban) is contributing more to the talk page. Combined with the fact that QuackGuru violates many important policies and guidelines as demonstrated above, this means that QuackGuru is the most disruptive editor on the whole article at the moment. I do not believe that FergusM1970 was shown to be a paid e-cig advocate, although I could be wrong I think he was shown to be paid to be editing the Derwick Associates article. In any case, you seem to be arbitrarily accusing me of being a paid advocate simply because one other editor was at some point in the past, even though you have no evidence to suggest that I am.Levelledout (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Softlavender It is difficult to respond to a re-assertion that I am an SPA except for to re-assert that I am a relatively new editor and am here to improve the encyclopedia. I am not sure why you have provided a link to an old copy of my sandbox but it was a result of this discussion on the talk page. I later decided to abandon the copy-edit since there was no point in attempting it all the time that QuackGuru was editing the article.Levelledout (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Zad68 Since this is the only place I have raised the issue then by definition it is not forum shopping. There are several reasons I believe that ArbCom is the appropriate place:

1. QuackGuru's conduct issues are multiple, serious, protracted and therefore somewhat complex.
2. A substantial amount of the diffs presented are dated before discretionary sanctions were enforced and therefore would not be actionable under discretionary sanctions.
3. A substantial amount of the diffs presented are also dated after discretionary sanctioned were enforced, i.e. most of the POV tag removals and competence diffs, all of the filibustering diffs. The diffs show that QuackGuru's conduct has not improved since April 1st but despite admins patrolling pages no action has been forthcoming under discretionary sanctions.
4. QuackGuru has at least some amount of admin support
5. The allegations presented are serious and discretionary sanctions only allows for blocks of up to one year for instance.
6. QuackGuru has a long history of ANI cases as recent as March 2015, blocks and bans, ArbCom sanctions clearly demonstrating that the community has struggled to deal with his conduct previously.Levelledout (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@QuackGuru I'm not sure why QuackGuru states that it wasn't entirely accurate to suggest that he dumped 17k of information into the article with this edit. The revision history clearly shows +17,183 bytes of data. He remarks that I received a final warning. I have in fact received two warnings. The first was for reverting QuackGuru's 9k of edits referenced above on the basis of WP:CAUTIOUS. This was in fact the first wholesale revert I have ever made on Misplaced Pages. It certainly was not edit-warring since it was only one revert and I'm still slightly at a miss as to what I did wrong. The admin that made the warning appeared to concede that I was not edit-warring and that the warning was for informational purposes to prevent the situation descending into an edit-war. The second warning was for again reverting QuackGuru on his 17k of edits two weeks later. Once again I only reverted the once. I assumed that since I was not edit-warring the first time round and that QuackGuru was in direct violation of instructions received by an admin and also WP:CAUTIOUS, that reverting would be OK and the right thing to do. In all honesty it feels like I have received two warnings simply for trying to implement WP:BRD and to stop QuackGuru from forcing through large-scale changes without consensus.Levelledout (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by QuackGuru

I did explain my significant changes on the talk page. I spotted original research in the article and I did rewrite the text closer to the source. I cited the sources that confirmed the wording was original research or at least a bit misleading. I also made follow up edits that improved the wording to my original significant changes. User:Levelledout has been given a final warning. I added numerous high-quality sources, including MEDRS compliant reviews. Levelledout says I added about 17k. That's not entirely accurate because the edit history shows I added a total of about 25k. I added a more information recently. The page was 90,260 bytes. Now it is 115,982 bytes. I started a new discussion on the talk page for the 3 tags. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#No_evidence_has_been_presented_that_this_article_has_multiple_issues. More later if this case is accepted. QuackGuru (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender (uninvolved party)

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

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

Statement by Zad68

Compared to many at that article, I'm relatively lightly involved, holding the #8 position for Talk-page commenters by edit count but not even ranking in the top 20 by article edits.

This request is premature and the specific complaint against QG should be rejected because Community Sanctions were just authorized 11 days ago pursuant to a request at ANI, and the article has just picked up active monitoring from an uninvolved admin Bishonen. Bish has made warnings to other editors in the topic area, but not QG. Not a single AE request has yet been made regarding the topic area. Why not let the community-authorized DS have a chance to work first? A case can be made that this request is a bit of forum-shopping. Zad68 14:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Mr. Stradivarius

I closed the ANI discussion authorising the community sanctions on April 1. (And no, that wasn't an April Fool's joke.) I think 11 days is a little too soon to say whether the sanctions have worked or not. — Mr. Stradivarius 15:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by S Marshall

We'll end up here, but QG hasn't had enough rope yet.—S Marshall T/C 17:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

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

QuackGuru: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/2>-QuackGuru-2015-04-12T14:21:00.000Z">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Awaiting more statements, but my initial thoughts are that something needs to change regarding the e-cigarettes topic area, and if the community sanctions aren't working then it's probably up to us to usher that in - but I want more opinions about whether they truly have failed, and if so what might work? @Softlavender: (and anyone else) whether someone is being paid is irrelevant to resolving this dispute - either they are editing in a manner that is improving the article(s) (directly, or indirectly) or they are not, and it is possible for someone who is being paid to edit to fall into either of those groups. Please also bear in mind WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:OUTING when making allegations against editors. Thryduulf (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)"> ">
• At the moment inclined to decline. I think it's too early to say that community sanctions aren't working. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)