This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) at 07:32, 2 August 2015 (→Statement by mostly uninvolved SMcCandlish: peep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Electronic cigarette

Initiated by —S Marshall T/C at 17:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• S Marshall (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)
• CFCF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SPACKlick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Previous declined Arbcom case.
• Most recent AN/I.

Statement by S Marshall

Going to arbcom over this is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but the other avenues open to me have failed and I can't bring myself to drop it. Which makes me, I accept, part of the problem.

The instructions for this page tell me to use diffs and links to convince Arbcom to take the case. I think the two diffs I've already provided are sufficient: Previous declined Arbcom case, closed on the grounds that arbitrators wished to give the (then newly-imposed) community sanctions the chance to work; and Most recent AN/I, in which there is a consensus that community sanctions have failed.

I've named four editors. I could have named two or a dozen ---- the actual case I ask you to take is to look in general at behaviour on the topic area.—S Marshall T/C 17:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Response to Georgewilliamherbert

Contrary to Georgewilliamherbert I don't see why it would be necessary for Arbcom to go deeply into the history here. Yes, there's a colossal content dispute to solve but that can only be done via mediation, to which this Arbcom case is a necessary prelude. Yes, editors have got a little overexcited in the content dispute and there are conduct issues to address, but in fact what's going on here, as I see it, is about poor judgment rather than bad faith. I can't produce the kind of diffs that are likely to lead to drastic action on Arbcom's part. I hope and expect this case will lead to nothing more than a number of targeted, focused interventions of limited scope and some guidance on how it is and isn't appropriate to behave.—S Marshall T/C 20:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by QuackGuru

User:SMcCandlish stated that "There's a much more meaningful problem here, a campaign to keep genuinely reliable sources out of these articles, to push a POV against scientific coverage and treat this solely as a "lifestyle and culture" topic." The issues are far more complicated than one administrator can handle. It involves taking a look at far more than merely behaviour. QuackGuru (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by CFCF

This topic has been subject of a great number of WP:SPAs as well as the odd WP:Undisclosed paid editor. The last dispute I got involved in was upon seeing a number of edits which removed relevant information . I tried to point to the concept of "known unknowns" and how it is treated in medicine. I also explained that the exact same discussion on including such unknowns had occurred just a month or so previously (of which some of very same editors had taken part in). My reluctance to take part in another circuitous discussion resulted in having an ANI-report filed against me. I do not know how to keep SPAs or paid editors away from this topic, so I welcome any ArbCom decision. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by SPACKlick

I'm aware of the case. I do believe some intervention is needed in this area there has been a long history of tendentious, battleground, ownership, socking, IDHT and it's not gotten better since the discretionary sanctions began. SPACKlick (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by content-uninvolved Georgewilliamherbert

I was attempting to intervene as an uninvolved administrator but the scope and breadth of the disputes, the historical depth etc. has proved more complicated than I could absorb in my available time. This is a deep complicated one. I recommend the committee use an extended schedule on processing this one, as it will take far more digging and evidence production to adequately address it than average current cases. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by involved editor Levelledout

Personally speaking I have taken a hiatus from the topic area due to the fact that it is an impossible environment for any editor that prefers consensus over edit-warring/ownership. So yes I certainly think an ArbCom case is required, particularly as all other routes have been exhausted, repeatedly. I would hope that it would be possible to perhaps re-examine my previous request as part of this one.Levelledout (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by mostly uninvolved Gigs

I have only participated sparsely on talk pages for these affected articles that I can recall. I will say that QuackGuru initially struck me as a highly motivated editor in this topic area, but the more I lurked, the more it became clear that they were using subtle and not-so-subtle tactics to subvert the content, steamrolling many other editors in the process. I steered clear from the entire topic area because of this toxicity. I suspect I'm not the only one. Gigs (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by mostly uninvolved SMcCandlish

I responded to a WP:RM, and did several hours of source research (specifically on use of the term "aerosol" in relation to the topic), at Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol, and probably made a few tweaks at that and related articles, but have no particular involvement beyond that in the entire topic area, and am totally neutral on the "issue of e-cigs". I don't smoke, and IRL I know people who love and hate e-cigs. I have no particular connection to any editor here (other than one left me a barnstar a while back, but I ended up being critical of him/her not long after, over disputes in this topic area). From one subthread to the next, even in just an RM discussion, I find myself nodding in agreement with several of the editors named here, and then moments later flabbergasted by their bullheadedness on a related side issue on the same page. Reason is not prevailing.

The problem as I see it is two-fold, but multilayered:

1. There are external PoVs (different ones) pushing very, very hard on this topic. I see a lot of accusations of sock/meat puppetry, and SPA editing.
2. Some of the regular editors are being blinded by their own anger and just adding to the chaos.

The combination of the two factors has made the entire topic area, across all the related articles, essentially intolerable. I "ran away screaming" after being initially interested in doing a bunch more sourcing work. The layers I see are in point #1 above. There are at least four "camps" of editors involved, to my eyes (based on editing patterns, not just explicit statements):

1. "Vaping" lifestylers who are pushing very hard to prevent WP:MEDRS from applying in any way to any articles on this topic, even ones that are clearly about biomedical topics like the vapor/aerosol emitted by electronic nicotine-delivery devices, and it's alleged health effects. Their view seems to be that this must be treated solely as a commercial-product, cultural/subculture, and legal/regulatory topic. We've seen this kind of perhaps innocent PoV pushing before on various topics that my granddad would have called "vice" subjects – marijuana and other recreational drugs, porn, prostitution, etc. The motivation behind the mindset comes from works like Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Society by Peter McWilliams, and decades of lifestyle magazines. It's a valid viewpoint to have, but not to force in every possible way.
2. Undisclosed representatives of e-cigarette manufacturers. These are often difficult or impossible to distinguish from the above group, because the effective result on the content is the same – suppression of critical scientific literature on the topic – as are many of the stated arguments in this direction.
3. E-cig prohibitionists, who are doing something like the opposite, seeking to fill all the relevant articles with negative (and only negative) material from the scientific and medical literature, and pushing a PoV that a more balanced viewpoint is WP:FRINGE, when even a few minutes on JSTOR or Google Scholar or PubMed shows that it is not (just as it also shows that concerns about personal and public health are not fringey either, but well represented in peer-reviewed literature).
4. Regular ol' editors without any stake in these "sides", interested in a balanced set of articles that, neutrally and without novel WP:AEIS (analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis), reflect what the sources are telling us, e.g. about the alleged benefits of e-cigs in "harm reduction" and tobacco cessation programs, vs. the alleged risks of what's in "e-cig juice" and the appeal of e-cigs to young people who might never take up smoking otherwise. I have not read beyond a few abstracts on these topics, and have no axe to grind, but as a reader I'm curious what a proper encyclopedic article would say about these things, especially if it were based properly and primarily on high-quality secondary sources like current books from academic publishers and literature reviews in journals. As an editor, there's no way I'd wade into this topic area again at present, due to the tides of WP:Tendentious editing.

I think ArbCom should take the case, to "lay down the law" about core content policies, and to also address the WP:BATTLEGROUND nature of the dispute. A third aspect, of course, is the external, probably paid, COI interests manipulating these articles. It might not even just be from e-cig manufacturers – it's not like advocacy groups don't also try to manipulate WP content; they're doing so more and more every day. I have no idea how to prove such concerns are valid, but I'm not the only one who has them about this topic, and others have been paying much closer attention to who is making what kinds of edits. For me the main issue is that the sheer intensity of the battling suggest there's more going on here than just some personality conflicts, and it's fierce enough that editors who might be able to "patrol" these articles for balance are going to need blood-pressure prescriptions to go along with their hazmat suits at this rate.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  07:32, 2 August 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).

Electronic cigarette: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <11/0/0/0>-Electronic_cigarette-2015-07-29T12:45:00.000Z">

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

• Accept Clearly we're going to end up dealing with this sooner or later. Yunshui _水 12:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)"> ">
• Accept per Yunshui --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 22:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Accept. Last time this was raised at arbcom I had hopes that the community sanctions would work, but time has proven they have not. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Accept Doug Weller (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Accept I think it is time we finally deal with this issue, it just is not being resolved. Courcelles (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Accept NativeForeigner 06:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Accept DGG ( talk ) 14:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Accept. Salvio 14:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Accept, the community resolutions have clearly not been sufficient here. Seraphimblade 16:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• As I said last time, Accept. AGK 19:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Accept LFaraone 15:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)