Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Workshop

< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration | Requests | Case | Editor conduct in e-cigs articles

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SPACKlick (talk | contribs) at 09:03, 8 September 2015 (→Proposal to close: Request for Clerk Comment.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:03, 8 September 2015 by SPACKlick (talk | contribs) (→Proposal to close: Request for Clerk Comment.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

A drafting arbitrator has directed that all discussion on all talk pages of this case be sectioned, not threaded. Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section. Thank you.

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration

About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)

Track related changes
v t e

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. 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. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

SPACKlick's section

I'm slightly lost on this case and some real life disruption has gotten in the way of serious contribution. I think I'm seeing some balanced solutions that would help with both the advocacy concerns and the weighting issues, where is the appropriate venue to pose solutions arbcom could enforce? SPACKlick (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed solutions go on the workshop page under the "Remedies" subheader in any editor's section. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm very lost as to how this step of the process is meant to work. What sorts of remedies we can propose etc. Can I be pointed to a guidance essay or similar? SPACKlick (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@SPACKlick: Best way to see how this is supposed to work is to look at some recent cases. For example this one. Essentially, /Evidence is where people outline the who and what of the issue; the /Workshop is where people propose ideas for how to fix it, the /Proposed Decision (PD) is where Arbitrators propose a binding outcome and then vote on it.

Ideally the Workshop provides some interchange of ideas and chance for comment and rebuttal from all sides, but focused on possible outcomes of the dispute rather than simple recounting of events. Contributions to the Workshop can be suggestions of policy Principles relevant to the case, suggested Findings based on the evidence, and/or suggested Remedies about what can be done to fix the issue.

Once the Workshop has run awhile and ideas have been discussed, the Arbitration Committee will cherrypick parts of the Workshop, and/or add their own ideas, and these form the PD.

So what sort of remedies can you propose? Anything really, from new forms of dispute resolution, to bans on other editors, to suggesting that nothing at all be done as the dispute will resolve itself. Whatever you feel is useful to propose, noting as always that this is about editor conduct and not content (eg. don't propose content outcomes, only ones related to addressing poor editor interaction). If you propose something that is somehow misplaced or inappropriate (like introducing entirely new evidence, or proposing sanctions on someone who hasn't even been mentioned so far), our friendly clerk team will be in touch to either remove it or ask that it be changed. So feel free to contribute what you like, provided it's in good faith.-- Euryalus (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

EllenCT's section

"confirming that a picture is not Muhammad"?!?

Almost a year ago I stopped editing the article, but I've occasionally participated on the talk page up until about half a year ago. I just today learned about this case, and stopped by to say I endorse Bluerasberry's initial statement saying that editing should generally be allowed to continue as it has been without topic bans, because from what I saw there was quite a bit of actual progress on improving the articles even when people were bickering. I have a feeling Britannica editors used to bicker behind the scenes too.

But anyway, then I saw stuff like "confirming that a picture is not Muhammad" from an IP here on the Workshop, and I don't know what to think. EllenCT (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected workshop page

Clerk note: The workshop page of this case is now semi-protected due to persistent disruption of the workshop and evidence pages of this case. Non-autoconfirmed users who have workshop proposals may send them by email to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

92.31.93.163's section

Off-topic. This case concerns editor conduct in e-cigs articles, not the conduct of parties in unrelated topic areas. Furthermore, comparing a party to someone defrauding elderly people out of their homes is not appropriate decorum for ArbCom. Please keep discussion on topic and avoid the rhetorical flourishes, please. Lankiveil 12:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
This unfortunate situation has arisen because the evidence upon which the workshop proposals are based has been removed. However, it can still be viewed. The preliminary statement is at . The evidence statement is at . Per Liz, the requested supplementary information follows. Point 1 This is covered in the preliminary statement ("PS") in the portion beginning "He misrepresents other editors" and ending "15:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)". Point 2 This is covered in the evidence statement ("ES") in the portion beginning "he makes the dangerous assertion" and ending "(14:07, 2 April)." Point 3 This is covered in the ES in the portion beginning "He says (14:21, 30 March)" and ending "Muhammad prohibiting intercalation." It is further covered in the following exchange: Dispute the close at ANI (there may be a more apt venue but if there is I'm not aware of it) if you think the closer acted wrongly but until it's overturned the RFC close represents the consensus of wikipedia and your arguments are not overturning it with those engaging here. - SPACKlick 11:04, 2 April 2015. You make a lot of noise about following the guidelines, and how you're the white knight around here who reverts everyone else who doesn't (in your opinion). Consider this - do we need an RfC every time an editor adds a sourced fact to an article? Of course not. The sourced facts added were: Hillenbrand says the depiction of Muhammad preaching in a mosque is a fiction for which his suggested explanation is that it is designed to make a theological point. T W Arnold's view is that this is not a picture of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation. Yvette and Marie - Genevieve do not explain how a picture of a man preaching in a mosque can be attributed to the prohibition of intercalation when we know that this was done in the open, on camelback in front of thousands. The picture shows shiites cosying up to the Prophet and is intended for propaganda purposes, rather than to illustrate an abstruse theological point. - 87.81.147.76 13:59, 2 April 2015. The RFC shows that the content is not disputed consensus was reached, as assed by the closer that the image should remain. - SPACKlick 14:07, 2 April 2015. The caption says the picture is of prohibition of intercalation. The reader will infer (not synthesise) that the Farewell Pilgrimage consisted of six shiites gathered in a mosque listening to Muhammad preach. - 87.81.147.76 15:44, 2 April 2015. Points 4 and 5 These can be taken together. SPACKlick believes that a picture of an apple can be an illustration of an orange: My position hasn't changed in the slightest but you seem to be missing the distinction being drawn between an image IS a thing and an image is an ILLUSTRATION of a thing. Here we have an illustration intended to illustrate an event. Even if the facts of the illustration and the facts of the event wildly differ it can still be an illustration of that event. - SPACKlick 15:23, 10 April 2015. In the example you give we have a picture of a man slaying a dragon. Where in this picture are the thousands of pilgrims, Mount Ararat and the camel which would enable you to make this logical leap. And how do you explain away the presence of mosque furniture? - 87.81.147.76 - 12:05, 14 April 2015. If we're going to divorce what is in the picture from our interpretation of it then you can equally logically caption it "Muhammad hailing a taxi in Oxford Street". - 87.81.147.76 12:26, 14 April 2015. Then the argument becomes incomprehensible: 1) A photo taken of PersonA in the market between stalls before they bought item x 2) A drawing of PersonA in the market between stalls created across the time where they bought x but showing what was seen before they bought x 3) A drawing created without visual reference to the market at all at a later date showing PersonA in the market between stalls. In all three situations even though the contents of the images could be identical the third one is different for captioning purposes. It could very reasonably be called "PersonA buying x in the market" Because it is an image illustrating that event. - SPACKlick 12:24, 15 April 2015. And that demonstrates exactly why you are wrong. The third picture shows the woman after she has bought y in the market from a stall, moving down the street in the direction of another stall from which she intends to buy z. The caption "PersonA buying x in the market is simply wrong. - 87.81.147.76 12:33, 15 April 2015. Hang on, how can you claim "The third picture shows the woman after she has bought y in the market from a stall, moving down the street in the direction of another stall from which she intends to buy z." when the three pictures show the same scene and differ only in how and when they were created. In all 3 PersonA (who I note you choose to assume is a woman) is standing between stalls in a market. The Difference is that 3) is not trying to depict a realistic moment seen by the artist but trying to illustrate a later description of that event. 3) is an illustration of PersonA in the market. 3) is an Illustration of PersonA in the market buying x. 3) is not an illustration of the transaction where PersonA bought x I'd agree. – SPACKlick 12:40, 15 April 2015. Points 6 and 7 These can be taken together. They are covered in the ES in the portion beginning "An editor comments" and ending "removed him from her watchlist." Point 8 Here is a list of the edits adding the picture to Islamic calendar by AstroLynx (A), CambridgeBayWeather (C), NeilN (N) and SPACKlick (S). Where a sourced image caption is removed and replaced by an unsourced image caption the entry is in bold. Although the picture was used from February 2008 the claim that it was Muhammad prohibiting intercalation was not added until April 2009. 2008 - April 17A, June 9A, November 12 (Euryalus - possible conflict of interest here). 2009 - July 20A, Oct. 30N, Dec. 7A, Dec. 18N. 2010 - Mar. 22N, Apr. 4N, Apr. 14A, Apr. 21N, Apr. 24N, May 21N, June 14A, Aug. 14A, Aug. 15 (Doug Weller, who not only added the picture but also semi - protected the page - possible conflict of interest here), Nov. 16A, Dec. 13A. 2011 - Jan. 25A, Apr. 24N, May 1N, May 13N, May 27N, June 19C, June 30A (2 reversions), July 25C, July 27A, July 28A, Aug. 25A, Aug. 29C, Sept. 5A, Sept. 9A (3 reversions). AstroLynx couldn't revert any more because of 3RR so it was left to CambridgeBayWeather to do the fourth reversion on 11 Sept. Oct. 11A, Oct. 14A (2 reversions), Oct. 15C, Oct. 17A, Oct. 18A (2 reversions), Oct. 31A, Dec. 9A. 2012 - Jan. 9A, Jan. 23A, Jan. 25C, Mar. 12A, July 9N. On 10 July Wiqi55 amended the caption under edit summary most commonly accepted theory does not link it to intercalation. NeilN reverted the same day. July 24A, Aug. 20A, Sept. 12A, Sept. 17C, Oct. 19A, Oct. 30A, Nov. 12A, Nov. 17C, Nov. 24C, Nov. 30A, Dec. 17A. 2013 - Jan. 5C, Jan. 22A, Feb. 3C, Mar. 4C, Apr. 28C, May 2C, May 28C, Nov. 9N (2 reversions). 2014 - Jan. 11N, Mar. 6C, Mar. 17N, July 28A, Aug. 20N, Sept. 26N, Oct. 15N, Oct. 15A, Oct. 15N, Oct. 24N, Nov. 19N. 2015 - Jan. 21N, Mar. 22A, Mar. 23A, Mar. 23N, Mar. 23N (describing the addition of sources as "pointy"). On 24 March CambridgeBayWeather semi - protected the page. Apr. 9N, Apr. 9S, Apr. 13A, Apr. 13S, July 16A (2 reverts). Point 9 The warning was delivered by 87.81.147.76 at 18:10, 12 April 2015 and repeated at 10:47, 13 April. SPACKlick acknowledged at 18:12, 12 April. The cover - up AstroLynx claimed (Talk:Islamic calendar 15:09, 31 January 2015) that the Farewell Sermon was unique among Muhammad's homilies in that nobody knows how and where it was delivered. This lie was exposed by 86.145.48.124 at 10:29, 23 July. The post was removed four minutes later by Future Perfect at Sunrise, who went on to block half a million people for Long - term abuse although no LTA report has been filed. Nineteen minutes later Mr. Stradivarius semi - protected the page. Both the article and the talk page remain semi - protected. Third party observation There seems to be a polarisation into two camps - QuackGuru and his supporters and SPACKlick and his supporters. It's not difficult to see which camp S Marshall falls into. SPACKlick's camp don't want his dirty linen to be washed in public but that would appear to be unfair to QuackGuru. I'm impressed by the industrious way Quack works, and I think sanctioning him would be a mistake. Within the past few days we've had the 2015 ASH survey and the government report saying e - cigarettes are 95% less harmful than combustible ones. We need Quack on hand at this time. Addendum to proposed finding of fact 10. SPACKlick is not here to build an encyclopaedia in a collegial manner. He is here to trick other editors into saying they agree with him. He behaves like the confidence trickster who posed as a delivery man to get an elderly householder to sign a "receipt" which was actually a folded over Land Registry transfer document. Supplementary information: To try and bring this back to the issue. The agreed points as far as I can see are; This image we show is a copy created in or about the 17th century of an original illustration from Al-Biruni's The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries (a.k.a. Chronology of Ancient Nations). The section of the manuscript illustrated by this image is the section where Biruni discusses Mohammed's abolition of intercalary months in the local Arabian calendar during the Farewell Speech given at his last pilgrimage. are either of the above in dispute? - SPACKlick 15:38, 13 April 2015. So why don't you craft a caption building on the above? - 87.81.147.76 16:56, 13 April 2015. Before I move on I want to confirm, you agree neither of the above are in dispute? - SPACKlick 18:11, 13 April 2015. It's not me. You have to get a consensus of the editors who participate in the discussion. - 87.81.147.76 18:48, 13 April 2015. Thing is, I'm pretty confident everyone agrees on those two points except you, given the pre-existing consensus but why not state clearly whether you agree with those two points? - SPACKlick 18:51, 13 April 2015. If you're confident go ahead and do it. End of story. - 87.81.147.76 19:04, 13 April 2015. This is my point, given the above 2 points, the current caption is satisfactory. - SPACKlick 19:07, 13 April 2015.

Off-topic. This case concerns editor conduct in e-cigs articles, not the conduct of parties in unrelated topic areas. Furthermore, comparing a party to someone defrauding elderly people out of their homes is not appropriate decorum for ArbCom. Please keep discussion on topic and avoid the rhetorical flourishes, please. Lankiveil 12:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This unfortunate situation has arisen because the evidence upon which the workshop proposals are based has been removed. However, it can still be viewed. The preliminary statement is at . The evidence statement is at . Per Liz, the requested supplementary information follows.

Point 1

This is covered in the preliminary statement ("PS") in the portion beginning "He misrepresents other editors" and ending "15:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)".

Point 2

This is covered in the evidence statement ("ES") in the portion beginning "he makes the dangerous assertion" and ending "(14:07, 2 April)."

Point 3

This is covered in the ES in the portion beginning "He says (14:21, 30 March)" and ending "Muhammad prohibiting intercalation." It is further covered in the following exchange:

Dispute the close at ANI (there may be a more apt venue but if there is I'm not aware of it) if you think the closer acted wrongly but until it's overturned the RFC close represents the consensus of wikipedia and your arguments are not overturning it with those engaging here.

- SPACKlick 11:04, 2 April 2015.

You make a lot of noise about following the guidelines, and how you're the white knight around here who reverts everyone else who doesn't (in your opinion). Consider this - do we need an RfC every time an editor adds a sourced fact to an article? Of course not. The sourced facts added were:
Hillenbrand says the depiction of Muhammad preaching in a mosque is a fiction for which his suggested explanation is that it is designed to make a theological point.

T W Arnold's view is that this is not a picture of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation.

Yvette and Marie - Genevieve do not explain how a picture of a man preaching in a mosque can be attributed to the prohibition of intercalation when we know that this was done in the open, on camelback in front of thousands.

The picture shows shiites cosying up to the Prophet and is intended for propaganda purposes, rather than to illustrate an abstruse theological point.

- 87.81.147.76 13:59, 2 April 2015.

The RFC shows that the content is not disputed consensus was reached, as assed by the closer that the image should remain.

- SPACKlick 14:07, 2 April 2015.

The caption says the picture is of prohibition of intercalation. The reader will infer (not synthesise) that the Farewell Pilgrimage consisted of six shiites gathered in a mosque listening to Muhammad preach.

- 87.81.147.76 15:44, 2 April 2015.

Points 4 and 5

These can be taken together.

SPACKlick believes that a picture of an apple can be an illustration of an orange:

My position hasn't changed in the slightest but you seem to be missing the distinction being drawn between an image IS a thing and an image is an ILLUSTRATION of a thing. Here we have an illustration intended to illustrate an event. Even if the facts of the illustration and the facts of the event wildly differ it can still be an illustration of that event.

- SPACKlick 15:23, 10 April 2015.

In the example you give we have a picture of a man slaying a dragon. Where in this picture are the thousands of pilgrims, Mount Ararat and the camel which would enable you to make this logical leap. And how do you explain away the presence of mosque furniture?

- 87.81.147.76 - 12:05, 14 April 2015.

If we're going to divorce what is in the picture from our interpretation of it then you can equally logically caption it "Muhammad hailing a taxi in Oxford Street".

- 87.81.147.76 12:26, 14 April 2015.

Then the argument becomes incomprehensible:

1) A photo taken of PersonA in the market between stalls before they bought item x
2) A drawing of PersonA in the market between stalls created across the time where they bought x but showing what was seen before they bought x 3) A drawing created without visual reference to the market at all at a later date showing PersonA in the market between stalls.

In all three situations even though the contents of the images could be identical the third one is different for captioning purposes. It could very reasonably be called "PersonA buying x in the market" Because it is an image illustrating that event.

- SPACKlick 12:24, 15 April 2015.

And that demonstrates exactly why you are wrong. The third picture shows the woman after she has bought y in the market from a stall, moving down the street in the direction of another stall from which she intends to buy z. The caption "PersonA buying x in the market is simply wrong.

- 87.81.147.76 12:33, 15 April 2015.

Hang on, how can you claim "The third picture shows the woman after she has bought y in the market from a stall, moving down the street in the direction of another stall from which she intends to buy z." when the three pictures show the same scene and differ only in how and when they were created. In all 3 PersonA (who I note you choose to assume is a woman) is standing between stalls in a market. The Difference is that 3) is not trying to depict a realistic moment seen by the artist but trying to illustrate a later description of that event. 3) is an illustration of PersonA in the market. 3) is an Illustration of PersonA in the market buying x. 3) is not an illustration of the transaction where PersonA bought x I'd agree.

– SPACKlick 12:40, 15 April 2015.

Points 6 and 7

These can be taken together. They are covered in the ES in the portion beginning "An editor comments" and ending "removed him from her watchlist."

Point 8

Here is a list of the edits adding the picture to Islamic calendar by AstroLynx (A), CambridgeBayWeather (C), NeilN (N) and SPACKlick (S). Where a sourced image caption is removed and replaced by an unsourced image caption the entry is in bold. Although the picture was used from February 2008 the claim that it was Muhammad prohibiting intercalation was not added until April 2009.

2008 - April 17A, June 9A, November 12 (Euryalus - possible conflict of interest here).

2009 - July 20A, Oct. 30N, Dec. 7A, Dec. 18N.

2010 - Mar. 22N, Apr. 4N, Apr. 14A, Apr. 21N, Apr. 24N, May 21N, June 14A, Aug. 14A, Aug. 15 (Doug Weller, who not only added the picture but also semi - protected the page - possible conflict of interest here), Nov. 16A, Dec. 13A.

2011 - Jan. 25A, Apr. 24N, May 1N, May 13N, May 27N, June 19C, June 30A (2 reversions), July 25C, July 27A, July 28A, Aug. 25A, Aug. 29C, Sept. 5A, Sept. 9A (3 reversions). AstroLynx couldn't revert any more because of 3RR so it was left to CambridgeBayWeather to do the fourth reversion on 11 Sept. Oct. 11A, Oct. 14A (2 reversions), Oct. 15C, Oct. 17A, Oct. 18A (2 reversions), Oct. 31A, Dec. 9A.

2012 - Jan. 9A, Jan. 23A, Jan. 25C, Mar. 12A, July 9N. On 10 July Wiqi55 amended the caption under edit summary most commonly accepted theory does not link it to intercalation. NeilN reverted the same day. July 24A, Aug. 20A, Sept. 12A, Sept. 17C, Oct. 19A, Oct. 30A, Nov. 12A, Nov. 17C, Nov. 24C, Nov. 30A, Dec. 17A.

2013 - Jan. 5C, Jan. 22A, Feb. 3C, Mar. 4C, Apr. 28C, May 2C, May 28C, Nov. 9N (2 reversions).

2014 - Jan. 11N, Mar. 6C, Mar. 17N, July 28A, Aug. 20N, Sept. 26N, Oct. 15N, Oct. 15A, Oct. 15N, Oct. 24N, Nov. 19N.

2015 - Jan. 21N, Mar. 22A, Mar. 23A, Mar. 23N, Mar. 23N (describing the addition of sources as "pointy"). On 24 March CambridgeBayWeather semi - protected the page. Apr. 9N, Apr. 9S, Apr. 13A, Apr. 13S, July 16A (2 reverts).

Point 9

The warning was delivered by 87.81.147.76 at 18:10, 12 April 2015 and repeated at 10:47, 13 April. SPACKlick acknowledged at 18:12, 12 April.

The cover - up

AstroLynx claimed (Talk:Islamic calendar 15:09, 31 January 2015) that the Farewell Sermon was unique among Muhammad's homilies in that nobody knows how and where it was delivered. This lie was exposed by 86.145.48.124 at 10:29, 23 July. The post was removed four minutes later by Future Perfect at Sunrise, who went on to block half a million people for Long - term abuse although no LTA report has been filed. Nineteen minutes later Mr. Stradivarius semi - protected the page. Both the article and the talk page remain semi - protected.

Third party observation

There seems to be a polarisation into two camps - QuackGuru and his supporters and SPACKlick and his supporters. It's not difficult to see which camp S Marshall falls into. SPACKlick's camp don't want his dirty linen to be washed in public but that would appear to be unfair to QuackGuru. I'm impressed by the industrious way Quack works, and I think sanctioning him would be a mistake. Within the past few days we've had the 2015 ASH survey and the government report saying e - cigarettes are 95% less harmful than combustible ones. We need Quack on hand at this time.

Addendum to proposed finding of fact

10. SPACKlick is not here to build an encyclopaedia in a collegial manner. He is here to trick other editors into saying they agree with him.

He behaves like the confidence trickster who posed as a delivery man to get an elderly householder to sign a "receipt" which was actually a folded over Land Registry transfer document.

Supplementary information:

To try and bring this back to the issue. The agreed points as far as I can see are;
This image we show is a copy created in or about the 17th century of an original illustration from Al-Biruni's The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries (a.k.a. Chronology of Ancient Nations).

The section of the manuscript illustrated by this image is the section where Biruni discusses Mohammed's abolition of intercalary months in the local Arabian calendar during the Farewell Speech given at his last pilgrimage.
are either of the above in dispute?

- SPACKlick 15:38, 13 April 2015.

So why don't you craft a caption building on the above?

- 87.81.147.76 16:56, 13 April 2015.

Before I move on I want to confirm, you agree neither of the above are in dispute?

- SPACKlick 18:11, 13 April 2015.

It's not me. You have to get a consensus of the editors who participate in the discussion.

- 87.81.147.76 18:48, 13 April 2015.

Thing is, I'm pretty confident everyone agrees on those two points except you, given the pre-existing consensus but why not state clearly whether you agree with those two points?

- SPACKlick 18:51, 13 April 2015.

If you're confident go ahead and do it. End of story.

- 87.81.147.76 19:04, 13 April 2015.

This is my point, given the above 2 points, the current caption is satisfactory.

- SPACKlick 19:07, 13 April 2015.

S Marshall

Irrelevant material

Can the irrelevant material from SPACKlick's fan club be removed please? It's got nothing to do with electronic cigarettes. The page should also be semi-protected.—S Marshall T/C 16:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Timetable

I would like to ask if we can extend the deadline for sitting arbs but not for case parties or onlookers. With the evidence phase, about half the evidence by wordcount was submitted in the last few hours, which I found frustrating ---- my experience was that others had the chance to respond to me, but I had no chance to respond to them. It also mildly screwed up the material I had prepared for the workshop phase. (Somewhere in all that mass of text, someone did produce a relevant diff from after the discretionary sanctions were enacted, but I missed this diff in my anxiousness to get my workshop material onto the table with plenty of discussion time in hand. I've had to partly retract one of my proposals as a result.)

So for this phase, I would be grateful for some discussion time after the other participants have made their submissions, and an extra week works well for me.—S Marshall T/C 15:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

General frustrations with this process

I'm frustrated by who's come here to discuss, and what issues they're bringing up. Yobol and Jytdog have been almost completely inactive on electronic cigarette for at least six months. ~~I'd tend to connect Jytdog's presence here with his long history of showing up on AN/I and other places to protect QuackGuru, rather than with any concern about what's happening in the topic area.~~

My basic point in this workshop phase is the one I made right at the start: I agree that it's now been well-shown that there were historic problems with COI editors, advocacy including advocacy for pay, and off-wiki attacks. It's not been shown that any of these are recent (i.e. post-dating the imposition of general sanctions on 1 April 2015). I feel that what's needed is a solution to the problems the article has now, but I'm constantly countered by allegations and evidence about what happened last year.

What I don't know is whether Arbcom agrees with me. Arbcom members may feel that the historic problems are just as concerning as the current ones, in which case I need to accept this and move on to other topics. In this whole protracted "evidence" period there's been little commentary from Arbcom (on this point which is of interest to me personally, or anything else, actually). So what we're getting is a massive sprawl of largely unstructured discussion where each side repeats what it feels are its best points again and again, with no referee to decide who's right and progress to the next stage. And most of the named parties in the case (as opposed to the self-selected ones) are not participating here; if they show up in the last few hours to produce reams of text again, would that be considered a normal and fair way to behave? I'm concerned that I may have made a tactical mistake by showing my hand early.—S Marshall T/C 09:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not have a long history of showing up to protect Quackguru. I often criticize him, as I have here. Please strike or support with a boatload (that is a very strong claim) of diffs. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you finding it frustrating to have to deal with innuendo without diffs? Because so am I.—S Marshall T/C 10:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I've now struck my claim that isn't supported by diffs, @Jytdog:, and I invite you to go through the whole workshop page striking all of yours.—S Marshall T/C 19:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

What in particular are you concerned about, that I have written? thx Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

1 ("Underlying disease of advocacy editing"); 2 (QuackGuru is a white blood corpuscle, apparently); 3 ("advocates ... are downplaying the mainstream medical/scientific view in a sustained way"); 4 (I'm "ducking the issue" by asking you to provide a diff showing this "constant stream of inexperienced advocates all pushing one POV"). I could go on and on.

In fact, I think I will. 5 (One-true-wayism, one single mainstream point of view). 6 ("the current/future realities that prov-vaping activist editors are going to keep coming and coming and coming"). All this, and not a single diff from you anywhere in sight. You're building this whole edifice on diffs from before the discretionary sanctions were enacted provided by CFCF. An edifice of special pleading that would affect the editors who disagree with you, but not the ones who agree with you.—S Marshall T/C 21:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

My goodness, this topic really is toxic. I'll strike the "ducking" statement that I made about you, which is the parallel to what I requested of you. Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you're sticking by all the other things you've said today? That bit where you accused Johnbod of misrepresenting the sources and called him an advocate, in bold text, in the middle of an arbcom proceeding: you're happy to leave that un-struck?—S Marshall T/C 23:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

yep. that is a tendentious reading of that source. i gave him a chance to back off it and acknowledge that he is pushing the surface meaning of that text very hard, and he didn't. That is what advocates do. ( i was looking for him to say something reasonable that acknowledged the difficulty of his reading, and he didn't/couldn't). Please note that I am not calling for any action against him, but that is the kind of behavior that would "count" if my recommendations go through, and I think it is clear to any dispassionate observer. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to close

Nobody from Arbcom is showing any interest in this case and all the suggested deadlines for the end of the workshop phase have passed without comment. This is clearly too trivial, too boring or too hard to deal with. Let's close it and move on.—S Marshall T/C 07:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Could one of the clerks confirm whether arbs are looking/have looked/will be looking at this case? I've sort of been assuming they're busy with another case but it has been a long time with no comment.SPACKlick (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Workshop timetable

Subject to other drafter's views, I'd like to post some PD options in the workshop and collect opinions on them. However this would take a few days to put together.

How does everyone feel about keeping the workshop open an extra week? -- Euryalus (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

We seem to be doing this. What is the new closing date? Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The drafting arbs have advised us clerks not to close the workshop at this point. I can't give you a definitive date right now as to when it'll close. Lankiveil 23:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC).

Sorry for delayed response, am seeking views on a new closing date now. I think the extension was worthwhile, but coming close to calling time. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this might close soon, however, there have been very few comments by arbitrators.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I reckon members of Arbcom & Clerks have been busy with orangemoody. Jytdog (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

We clerks are just as eager as anyone for this case to move forward, but we don't really have the ability to hurry stuff up on our own; that's down to the arbitrators. Paging User:Euryalus to see if there's any update on a possible closing date. Lankiveil 23:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC).

Levelledout

Workshop timetable

Personally I am a bit confused by this part of the process and would welcome extra time to be able to comment and possibly actively contribute.Levelledout (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

(Belatedly) Done. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru

I think the Workshop can remain open until September 5, 2015 for this complicated case. Keeping the workshop open an extra week is not long enough IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)