Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Levelledout (talk | contribs) at 23:53, 31 October 2015 (→Response to QuackGuru). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page is for statements regarding the proposed decision, not discussion. Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section.

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
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 ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk 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.

S Marshall

I'm sorry, I'm unfamiliar with Arbcom. Is this long silence normal?—S Marshall T/C 21:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No, and I apologise for it. I had a couple of unexpected periods of inactivity recently which means I haven't had the time to read everything I need to read (the best part of a week with only very limited (and only insecure) internet access means I'm backlogged with many things), Euryalus is officially inactive (I can't remember whether the reason is public or not) and DGG has also been less active than usual recently - as have most of us actually. Realistically I'm not going to have the necessary time to progress this case until next week at the earliest. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I see that QuackGuru has resumed his very active editing of the article in the meantime. Perhaps some kind of temporary injunction might be in order while we wait?—S Marshall T/C 22:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Please?—S Marshall T/C 13:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll flag the request up to my colleagues. As for progressing this case, I will remind all my colleagues that we need to get on with it - hopefully some of them will have more time than I do at present. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, his current editing is primarily technical, and totally uncontroversial. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Then why is the talk page as full as ever of complaints about it? Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Virtually all of QuackGuru's editing is primarily technical, extremely well-sourced and closely matching the source material. His only editing technique is (1) find a factlet, snippet or statistic from a reliable source, (2) cite it carefully and precisely, (3) insert it into the article and (4) relentlessly guard it against all change. The problem is the detrimental effect he's having on the article's reability and the way he's obscuring the key points with repetitive, trivial factlets. It would be good if he could be stopped while Arbcom reads and considers, please.—S Marshall T/C 11:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

• Well, I'm at a loss. Arbcom is supposed to be the last resort when all else fails. What do we do when Arbcom fails? All we've had from any of them for the last month is missed deadlines, broken promises and complete silence. They've completely ceased communicating with the parties and there's no evidence of activity on this case from any of them.

  Hello, Arbcom! Post something here. Post abuse if you like; direct insult would be preferable to this because then at least we'd know where we stand. Speak to us!

  Please do not assign someone else to start reading the case from scratch. In that event a rushed, ill-considered or half-assed ruling would be much too likely. Unless there's been activity that we can't see, then I feel that the correct course for you now would be to admit that you've failed and close the case.—S Marshall T/C 17:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Cloudjpk: I haven't edited the disputed article during the Arbcom case, and would be happy to accept such an injunction for the time being. I'm not able to make head nor tail of QuackGuru's evidence --- it seems to consist of lots of diffs with no thesis and reach no conclusions --- but you seem to be able to, so maybe you could clarify that for me (not necessarily on the talk page for these proceedings though).

What I'd like is for some way to stop QuackGuru making even more of an incoherent mess of the article before the case ends. The task of cleaning up after him will be colossal enough as it is.—S Marshall T/C 09:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cloudjpk: Consensus isn't something that decides in favour of one particular thing and then crystallises forever. It will be permissible for me to re-open the "known unknowns" discussion in future with a changed population of editors on the talk page, and I intend to do exactly that. I also intend to embark on building consensus for a sweeping programme of other changes to the article, if the outcome of this case is to make the talk page usable again. I have no idea why this is something you or QG are raising with Arbcom, as I have not edit-warred or engaged in any other problem behaviour to try to enforce my views against consensus.—S Marshall T/C 17:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru's evidence goes nowhere and neither does yours.—S Marshall T/C 18:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Cloudjpk

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The evidence shows QuackGuru greatly improved the article.

Now: without question there are further improvements that could be made, including cleanup. But most editors disagreed with you, S Marshall, when your idea of cleanup included removing material outlining what's currently unknown about e-cigarettes. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 25#Known unknowns 2.

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

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

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

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

AlbinoFerret

I orignally asked about the possibility of adding evidence on Thryduulf's talk page here. I was unable to add evidence because of a 6 month self ban from the topic that has ended. While some of the evidence is on topics that have already been brought up such as ownership, and competency. I have evidence they are not just isolated instances but patterns that go back into the past. I also have evidence of long term NPOV violations that have not been addressed. As well as some evidence about tag teaming. AlbinoFerret 19:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I will bring this to the attention of the arbs, but generally speaking once the evidence phase is closed, new evidence is not permitted. Lankiveil 14:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC).

Lankiveil has there been any determination on this request? AlbinoFerret 12:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

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

While the arbitrators are working on the PD, QuackGuru is engaged in Ownership and arguing against consensus. AlbinoFerret 04:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Lankiveil do the arbs look at this talk page? AlbinoFerret 21:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• @AlbinoFerret: Here's DeltaQuad's response (sent via email): "Arbs are aware of this page and im specifically keeping up with it. I understand your frusturation with not being able to provide evidence. It is not all in vain though, so hold on to it and file an ARCA after the case closure if you feel there is need for further sanctions. I would be happy to review and encourage my fellow arbs to review at the time of that filing." Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response L235, what does ARCA stand for? AlbinoFerret 22:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"ARCA" is Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment - AKA WP:ARCA. Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and link Thryduulf. Would one of the clerks be so kind as to move the comment from Cloudjpk to his own section? I understand from the header that only the clerks and arbs can engage in threaded discussion with the editors here. I would have moved it myself, but I am unsure if I am allowed to do that. AlbinoFerret 23:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Levelledout

Talk regarding closure

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

Response to QuackGuru

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

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

Proposed decision

Due to the inactivity of other Arbitrators on this case, I will be picking it up and hope to have a PD on or before the 3rd. Apologizes for the delay. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Another deadline missed! Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

ANy hope of further action on this case? It is getting to be a little silly. BMK (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Enough is Enough

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

Inactive arbitrators

Per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Unannounced_arbitrator_absence, AGK (talk · contribs), DeltaQuad (talk · contribs), and Yunshui (talk · contribs) are inactive through absence from Misplaced Pages. In addition, Euryalus (talk · contribs) appears to be inactive through lack of Arbcom participation since Sep 28, although they have made other edits during that period. --Amble (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• And with that we are now down to less than half of the sitting committee available for this case. Job abandonment? Yet another structural hole for ArbCom; what to do when ArbCom members abandon their responsibilities. Related; there are no quorum requirements for cases (just emergency motions). So, a case could theoretically be closed with just one arbitrator voting on remedies. Yes, this is a volunteer project. But if you stand for ArbCom, it is an implicit expectation that if elected you will serve. If you're not going to serve, resign. Temporary absence is one thing, but long term low activity or outright inactivity? The community needs better than this. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Noren

The last bullet point of FoF 3 concerning QG does not accurately summarize the edits cited. The events:

• The text "due to the lack of regulation of the contents of the numerous different brands of electronic cigarettes" is criticized, the stated complaint is that it is 'clumsy and redundant'.
• An edit to "due to the lack of regulation of e-cigarettes" is proposed.
• QG disagrees with that specific verbiage.
• QG edits to "due to the lack of regulation of the contents of e-cigarettes" (bolding mine), a change to a midpoint between the proposal he'd disagreed with and the original.

How is making a change to a point partway between the status quo and partway to the proposal you disagreed with a POINT violation? This particular exchange appears to be an attempt at compromise, maintaining the nuance of 'contents of' while addressing the stated complaint that the original was 'clumsy and redundant'. --Noren (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I have fixed this issue and notified arbs who have already voted. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm also a bit confused by the first bullet point of FoF 3. It appears that different sourcing standards were applied to a claim about trends in popular culture ("Girls who use e-cigarettes consider them to be very appealing.") than to claims about medical facts. I do believe that it is wikipedia policy to apply stricter requirements to medical claims than to claims about what the current trends are in what girls find appealing. Why is the loaded phrase 'double standard' used here to describe applying WP:MEDRS to medical topics and not to non-medical topics, as required by policy?--Noren (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not the point I am trying to get at here. The comment was that the Daily Mail is a reliable source, but a Harvard study is considered a primary source and unreliable. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Müdigkeit

Now, I see three findings of fact that seem to suggest that there is a long term problem with the general behaviour of QuackGuru, and that such unwanted general behaviour continued after getting a topic ban, as well as that QuackGuru behaved in a way that cannot be explained by assuming good faith. I am surprised that there is not even a proposal to siteban QuackGuru here. --Müdigkeit (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Many editors, as presented in evidence expressed their thoughts on the positives of QuackGuru, and didn't want to see him sanctioned by ban. While I did do what I thought was best for the project and propose a topic ban, I did consider that the community feels they can work through this. That is why there is a warning in the remedies that further issues will lead to more/heavier sanctions. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

ancient issues

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

IrishCowboy's section

In response to #ancient issues. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I must say I agree. The weight of block log evidence is clearly skewed toward the distant past. Cited are 3 blocks (18 percent) for disruptive editing in the past 1.5 years. Also cited are 14 blocks (82 percent) for various reasons, the most recent of which was from 2009. Including that many blocks from that long ago with so few recent blocks does little to prove a pattern of recent behavior and gives the impression of there being an axe to grind. IrishCowboy (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no axe to grind here. If you notice, there was no site ban proposed at all in here, even given the long block log. Also the percentage of blocks doesn't matter, because that number doesn't quantify the amount of disruption that any given user has caused. As for the actual numbers, I do see that they are from a long time ago, but I still feel they are part of the story. Someone can "go good" for a few years, or they could do as Johnbod states below, i'll leave which one it is up to your interpretation of the story. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Johnbod

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

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

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

Puhlaa

With regard to bans and blocks of Quack Guru, I am not sure why, but no one ever seems to notice that Quack Guru was also banned from Pseudoscience and Chiropractic for 1 year in 2011. See this diff on his talk page that details his ban. I am not sure why there is not way to trace this topic ban like the others? I think it should be included in the list of sanctions against Quack Guru on the project page that was prepared by DeltaQuad. Also, it would be nice to know why this topic ban does not seem to be recorded anywhere. Puhlaa (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the topic ban is not relevant? I have just noted that DQs list is all of blocks, not topic bans. Sorry if the info regarding previous bans is not relevant.Puhlaa (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, it did not come up when I looked at the discretionary sanctions log, and i'll dig a little more tomorrow and update the finding. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, thanks DQ. Here is the Arbitration enforcement discussion . The diff of QuackGuru being notified of his ban by User:EdJohnston is here. It seems that the result (banned for 1 year from pseudoscience and chiropractic) was not recorded anywhere. Puhlaa (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru

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

The "sourcing is irrelevant" comment was quoted out of context. As I read it, it meant "I didn't remove the section because he sources were bad; i removed them because it was too big a change to make without discussion" DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the complete quote. "The edits were reverted because they violated WP:CAUTIOUS, exactly the same as this time. Sourcing is irrelevant." He did acknowledge that "Whilst I didn't consider it edit-warring I do accept that it was not completely necessary to perform a wholesale revert." On March 19, 2015 User:Mr. Stradivarius warned Levelledout not to make another wholesale revert, but on March 31, 2015 he made another wholesale revert. I did link to my sandbox during the protection and User:Levelledout supported some changes to the lede which I included in my edit to the page. I did provide links to my sandbox.

I started another discussion about the specific change on the talk page and I did improve the wording based on what others said. QuackGuru (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)