This is an old revision of this page, as edited by S Marshall (talk | contribs) at 23:50, 28 August 2015 (Partly done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:50, 28 August 2015 by S Marshall (talk | contribs) (Partly done)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Motions and requests by the parties
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed temporary injunctions
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Questions to the parties
- Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.
Proposed final decision
Proposals by User:S Marshall
Proposed principles
I hold these truths to be self-evident.
Purpose of Misplaced Pages
1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopaedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promoting original research is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Making allegations against other editors
2) An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making it at all. A claim of misconduct should be raised directly with the other user himself or herself in the first instance, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. If direct discussion does not resolve the issue, it should be raised in the appropriate forum for reporting or discussing such conduct, and should not generally be spread across multiple forums. Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Neutral point of view
3) All Misplaced Pages articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. Use of a Misplaced Pages article for advocacy or promotion, either in favour of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Conduct during arbitration cases
4) Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- The day after the evidence phase closed, controlling behaviour on the talk page: 1, 2, 3. "Let me know what you would like summarised for a specific section. I need to know the page number." QuackGuru continues to feel that all edits made to the article should be made by him.—S Marshall T/C 20:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Recidivism
5) Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behaviour may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviour.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Role of the Arbitration Committee
6) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
History 1
1) The dispute on electronic cigarettes has been long and involved, with a number of incidents of sockpuppetry, inappropriate edits for pay, and other disruptive behaviour. Editors have been subject to attacks which have spread off-wiki. During this time, editors adopted assertive article management techniques intended to maintain a NPOV article in the face of a large number of inappropriate edits. As a result of the disruptive behaviour, the community decided to impose discretionary sanctions on 1 April 2015.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- "number of incidents of.. inappropriate edits for pay". User:FergusM1970 was blocked for being paid to edit Derwick Associates, see .FergusM1970 did frequently edit e-cig articles but denied being paid to edit them. Whilst this denial may not be true, we have no evidence to the contrary that I'm aware of. So we don't actually have any evidence of paid editing to e-cig articles.Levelledout (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- "assertive article management techniques" often translated to ownership, edit-warring, filibustering and other plain rule-braking - two wrongs don't make a right. Not clear that some of the editors using the "assertive article management techniques" were trying to implement NPOV.Levelledout (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
History 2
2) Although discretionary sanctions were enacted, they have not hardly been enforced.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- User:SPACKlick was "prohibited from adding images to or removing images from articles related to electronic cigarettes, broadly construed" by uninvolved admin Darkwind. , so yes they have been enforced. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- I see that there has been one occasion. Corrected.—S Marshall T/C 19:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
History 3
3) No Very little evidence of sockpuppetry or COI editing that post-dates the imposition of discretionary sanctions has been presented to the Committee.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Possibly so, though the absence of SPI's doesn't always mean the absence of sockpuppets. Interested however in the point of this as a proposed Finding - there doesn't seem much evidence the discretionary sanctions have achieved much, how have they helped in reducing sockpuppetry?
- Comment by parties:
- Arbitrary example: User:OutOfCheeseError was banned for sockpuppeting (SPI). Last e-cig edit July 7th – this was detailed. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment moved, answer to Arbitrator
- I really don't know. It's possible that the threat of discretionary sanctions was sufficient deterrent?
What I do know is that those who would like to excuse QuackGuru's behaviour on the basis that he was dealing with sockpuppetry, haven't produced much recent evidence to support that. Yobol's intervention, for example, was surprising to me because in upwards of six months editing the article I've never noticed him participating there.—S Marshall T/C 15:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think discretionary sanctions have deterred sockpuppets whatsoever, there have been at least 3 new SPAs (with under 50 edits, mainly if not only active on ecigs) who started editing after I filed evidence here (Aug 18). I did not anticipate being challenged on the grounds of insufficient recent examples (4 banned sockpuppet accounts these last months), but I can apply for an addendum with evidence of post discretionary sanction cases if need be. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'd have no objection to submitting further evidence on this score. I do want to query CFCF, who seems to be going off on a tangent. I'm talking about evidence of sockpuppetry and/or COI editing. CFCF seems to be talking about new editors, people with less than 50 edits, who he characterises as SPAs. How do we know someone's a SPA if they have fewer than 50 edits, and what does that have to do with sockpuppetry and/or COI editing?—S Marshall T/C 18:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- @S Marshall: My evidence was to provide context to the dispute, and clearly that evidence applies to conduct that occurred before your involvement in the article. I think context, including the disruption caused by multiple SPAs, etc. was important in this case, since it is in regards to editor conduct in e-cig articles in general (which seems to be the proposed scope of the arbitration case according to the title), and not just a dispute about only the last 6 months or only about Quackguru's conduct. Yobol (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- I concur and would also like to add I never meant to be exhaustive in my evidence. To your point S Marshall, new editors with ~20 edits on this topic with few elsewhere are highly likely to be sockpuppets. An SPA is indication of sockpuppeting, though not conclusive – which is why WP:Checkuser exists.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 06:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'm trying to show Arbcom some of the reasons why this is a really fraught environment, and I'm sure that comment will help them see. I'm also sure that Quackguru would strongly agree with you on this point if he was participating here.—S Marshall T/C 18:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- S Marshall, I'm not throwing baseless allegations around here – I beg of you to look at the editing patterns of these new accounts since the 20th: Jim bexley speed (talk · contribs), JoLincoln (talk · contribs), MorphRv (talk · contribs) and say that their editing conduct is not suspicious. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- CFCF, I'm unfairly singling you out and this is happening because you're choosing to engage with the process and talk to me. There are others who are not. I don't want to give Arbcom the wrong impression based on that.
I must say that I'm unaccustomed to dealing with bad faith users. I'm a rather experienced editor but up to now I've been active in the less contentious areas of the encyclopaedia; I've translated biographies of Europeans and written articles about rural England and its local history. I don't have to deal with sockpuppets or SPAs on agriculture in the United Kingdom or forestry in the United Kingdom. And I genuinely can't see anything suspicious about the contributions of those new accounts, so you'll have to explain to me what I'm looking at.
Incidentally, if you read those two articles I linked, they're ones where I've been able to work unobstructed and get to a stage where I'm reasonably happy with the language, style and structure. I beg you to compare and contrast them with electronic cigarette, which might help you see why I think the latter article is so horribly defective.—S Marshall T/C 07:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- @S Marshall: My evidence was to provide context to the dispute, and clearly that evidence applies to conduct that occurred before your involvement in the article. I think context, including the disruption caused by multiple SPAs, etc. was important in this case, since it is in regards to editor conduct in e-cig articles in general (which seems to be the proposed scope of the arbitration case according to the title), and not just a dispute about only the last 6 months or only about Quackguru's conduct. Yobol (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Johnbod The editing patterns are not suspicious in and of themselves (and maybe Jim bexley speed is the odd one out) – but in light of the proven excessive sock-puppeting they become suspicious. As I detailed in my evidence it is very difficult to see which editors are good faith editors and which are socks – when both clearly exist. I would like to point out that this entire discussion surrounds a supposed lack of evidence of sock-puppeting, which is simply not true. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Arbitrary example: User:OutOfCheeseError was banned for sockpuppeting (SPI). Last e-cig edit July 7th – this was detailed. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think everyone's good faith has been warn down by this past process. Causing some to see boogeymen in every corner. There has been very limited COI or puppetry. There are some SPA's but that's less of an issue. I generally agree with the point that COI and Sockputtry are oft brought up in relation to this dispute but are of limited effect in causing this dispute. SPACKlick (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- There is a significant degree of socking here and even discounting specific cases – SPAs are very problematic. Many of the users ignore relevant sourcing policies and only edit on these articles – making it impossible for any general editor to keep up. I don't think I need to remind anyone that WP:NOTADVOCATE is a central policy.
- Without pointing fingers – AlbinoFerret (talk · contribs) was neither a sockpuppet nor a COI-editor – but was very passionate and under two months created an insurmountable degree of talk-page discussion (see talk page link at 570,000kB) – it just simply isn't possible to keep up for an average editor. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that highly passionate and active editors make the page impossible to keep up with, although AlbinoFerret is far from the worst offender. Shall we make a table of who has edited the page and the talk page most frequently since discretionary sanctions were imposed? The data would be easily extracted and would I think shed some light on this aspect.—S Marshall T/C 07:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Doing..., since Johnbod asked for it. My parameters will be 1 April 2015 to this timestamp.—S Marshall T/C 18:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Done for the page, results in my sandbox. I haven't done the talk page yet but will see if I can get it done tomorrow.—S Marshall T/C 23:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that highly passionate and active editors make the page impossible to keep up with, although AlbinoFerret is far from the worst offender. Shall we make a table of who has edited the page and the talk page most frequently since discretionary sanctions were imposed? The data would be easily extracted and would I think shed some light on this aspect.—S Marshall T/C 07:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think everyone's good faith has been warn down by this past process. Causing some to see boogeymen in every corner. There has been very limited COI or puppetry. There are some SPA's but that's less of an issue. I generally agree with the point that COI and Sockputtry are oft brought up in relation to this dispute but are of limited effect in causing this dispute. SPACKlick (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Yes, I've looked "at the editing patterns of these new accounts since the 20th: Jim bexley speed (talk · contribs), JoLincoln (talk · contribs), MorphRv (talk · contribs)" and I do "say that their editing conduct is not suspicious." Not at all. The first has been editing since 2011 btw. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- WP:AGF is a core policy. I'm not pursuaded. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- I have repeatedly assumed that e-cigarette advocates were not socks or COI, and I have repeatedly been proven wrong. I have been surprised; perhaps I have been naive. At this point the evidence of socks is perfectly clear. As is the resulting damage. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- "repeatedly" as in twice?
- User:InfiniteBratwurst was a sock of User:FergusM1970
- User:OutofCheeseError was a fairly obvious sock of User:CheesyAppleFlake
- Those are the only two incidents that I am aware of.Levelledout (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- "repeatedly" as in twice?
- I have repeatedly assumed that e-cigarette advocates were not socks or COI, and I have repeatedly been proven wrong. I have been surprised; perhaps I have been naive. At this point the evidence of socks is perfectly clear. As is the resulting damage. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- WP:AGF is a core policy. I'm not pursuaded. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I've looked "at the editing patterns of these new accounts since the 20th: Jim bexley speed (talk · contribs), JoLincoln (talk · contribs), MorphRv (talk · contribs)" and I do "say that their editing conduct is not suspicious." Not at all. The first has been editing since 2011 btw. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- "Shall we make a table of who has edited the page and the talk page most frequently since discretionary sanctions were imposed?" - yes, this would be useful I think. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
History 4
4) However, the assertive article management techniques have continued, and these have inappropriately affected good faith editors with legitimate concerns about the article's content. The talk page has become fraught and difficult to use, and the editing environment has become hostile.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- I think this presentation is a little one sided. There has been some backlash against the "assertive article management techniques" however it perfectly encapsulates my understanding of the problems to that point. To be more explicit with it. People stopped displaying assumptions of good faith. Others responded by stopping displaying assumptions of good faith. SPACKlick (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Casting aspersions to the point of harassment without linking to evidence or policy or making any type of supplementary comments whatsoever. This IP user is asked not to edit this case's case pages and email all pertinent info to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l lists.wikimedia.org. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed by an arbitration clerk. Please do not modify or continue it. |
|
Proposed principles
Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) SPACKlick claims consensus when there is none
2) SPACKlick invents policy which he puts forward as fact
3) SPACKlick misrepresents sources to bolster his argument
4) SPACKlick fails to understand that it is inadmissible to add a picture of an apple captioned as a picture of an orange using the spurious argument that the artist is representing an orange by an apple
5) When challenged SPACKlick descends into incoherence
6) SPACKlick cannot control his use of bad language
7) Bishonen got so fed up of being sworn at by SPACKlick that she removed him from her watchlist
8) SPACKlick tag teams with AstroLynx, CambridgeBayWeather and NeilN to remove the sources added by other editors confirming that a picture is not Muhammad prohibiting intercalation and to revert editors removing it as irrelevant
9) Despite warnings, SPACKlick disregards General Sanctions to needle other editors and disrupt the project
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated. SPACKlick1) SPACKlick Site/Community banned with appeal after 1 year
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
|
Proposals by User:Müdigkeit
I have been involved with this user here
Proposed principles
Discussion after reverts
1) After something has been reverted, and is disputed, someone may propose another solution or simply present arguments. Sufficient time should be given to respond.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- I agree but I'm also aware others feel swamped on the sometimes fast moving talk pages. Would some sort of limit to one comment per contributor per discussion per 24 hours or something help slow discussion down and so make edits to the article, while slower, more reasoned when they get there?SPACKlick (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Reverting without reasoning
2) Reverting good faith edits without evident reasoning is disruptive editing.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- I would clarify this as "without given reasoning" or "without evident reasoning" most of the infuriating reverts will have a reason, however reasonable it is. However they're infuritating when the reason isn't given to be discussed if disputed. SPACKlick (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Good suggestion by User:SPACKlick. Implemented.--Müdigkeit (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
History of disruptive editing for User:Quackguru
1) User:QuackGuru has previously partipiciated in disruptive editing multiple times, and has been blocked for it again and again, as evident from his block log
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Disruptive reverts
2) User:Quackguru reverts too fast, as evident here
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Quackguru:0RR
1) User:Quackguru is subject to 0RR restrictions, for a period of...
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Too strong.—S Marshall T/C 20:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Not too strong given the evidence presented against QuackGuru. I'm not sure exactly what else QuackGuru could actually do in order to have some firm action taken against them. As demonstrated on the evidence page they have already partaken in ownership, edit-warring, gaming the system, abuse of process, honesty issues, disrupting to prove a point, using Misplaced Pages as a platform for fighting quackery, etc, etc.Levelledout (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Quackguru:1RR
2) User:Quackguru is subject to 1RR restrictions, for a period of...
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Too strong.—S Marshall T/C 20:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Could a more general 1RR restriction calm things down a bit? With standard exclusions for obvious vandalism? Making it so edits only remain when there's consensus would be a big help. SPACKlick (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Quackguru:Siteban
3) User:Quackguru is sitebanned, for a period of...
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Far too strong.—S Marshall T/C 20:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Don't particularly want to see any editor site-banned unnecessarily. With respect to QG, something does need to be done with regard to their disruption to talk pages and that will not come about via plain editing restrictions (e.g 0RR). The evidence presented in this case is restricted only to electronic cigarettes and therefore I am not sure a site-ban can be justified in any case, a topic ban possibly, but not a site-ban. What I do know is that QG has a very long block log and has been sanctioned and banned by ArbCom at least twice previously. Some type of action is needed on QG that will mean we don't keep going round in circles and ending up back at ANI and ArbCom.Levelledout (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
General sanctions:Standard discretionary sanctions
4)The topic Electronic Cigarette is subject to standard discretionary sanctions, broadly construed. This replaces any community authorized discretionary sanctions regarding electronic cigarettes.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
General sanctions:1RR
5)All reverts in the Electronic Cigarette article and its content forks are restricted to one revert in 48 hours, subject to the standard exceptions
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
QuackGuru:Violations
1) If QuackGuru violates any restrictions placed on him, he should be blocked for at least one month for the first violation, and indefinitely if he violates them again or tries to evade a block.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
General discussion
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Exceedingly interesting that this case was brought up just now when the UK government released a report the 19th of August called E-cigarettes: an evidence update seemingly very much in favor of electronic cigarettes – (it also includes a policy statement). As the report is 111 pages and needs to be balanced into the articles against other strong statements (e.g. the 2014 WHO report) I can't think of a better time for this to come to ArbCom. I've made my thoughts clear at Talk:Electronic cigarette. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Or a worse time, given it was released the day after the evidence phase closed! Johnbod (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)