Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles

< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Case
(Redirected from Wikipedia:ARBEC)
Shortcut
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Lankiveil (Talk) & L235 (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: DeltaQuad (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case opened on 10:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Case closed on 20:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 03:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Case information

edit

Involved parties

edit

Prior dispute resolution

edit

Preliminary statements

edit

Statement by S Marshall

edit

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)[reply]

Statement by QuackGuru

edit

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."[1] 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)[reply]

Statement by CFCF

edit

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 [2]. 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)[reply]

Statement by SPACKlick

edit

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)[reply]

added: Just to add in response to SMcCandlish's post. In terms of the two problems I've seen 2, the anger at the arguments or bullheadedness of others (perceived or real), drive several editors, guilty of the same or not, into problems and away from the page. I've certainly made bad editing choices as a result of it.

In terms of his 4 types. I've seen several people accused of A who are actually simply trying to prevent medical over-reach. Where he talks about articles even ones that are clearly about biomedical topics like the vapor/aerosol emitted by electronic nicotine-delivery devices, and its alleged health effects. I think it's worth noting that these two things are in seperate articles, the safety is clearly a medical topic, the composition of the vapour is clearly a topic in chemistry so while good sourcing applies that sourcing will likely come from different journals.

There's also another major concern, which is readability of the article. It's been raised by several editors that the article needs some quite major work just to improve the quality with which it delivers information and that's been my primary concern. Currently it's quite scattershot with one sentence per source and little to no information flow from sentence to sentence so the average reader coming to look at e-cigarettes to see, for instance, whether or not to use them, will usually give up reading the article very quickly and will likely be none-the wiser as to what the known health effects are, what the likely health effects are and what the known and likely health benefits over smoking are. Some editors, particularly those from project medicine, seem to be aiming this article at medical readers rather than the average audience.

Response to Jytdog: That wasn't hobby advocacy and to say it is clearly so baffles me. There is one bad paper that I had, for a period, had to point a couple of people towards why I considered it junk science and in fact an advocacy piece for Anti-Tobacco. So I put the links together in one place. My stance on these articles as hobby vs medical is that most readers will be hobbyists so we need to present medical information in a way that is easy to understand rather than dense, unflowing, disjointed prose with excess specifics.

Also the views of the medical establishment (a precautionary approach that calls for significant regulation due to the unknown risks of long-term e-cig use and the very clear risk of getting a whole new generation hooked on nicotine, It is unclear the level of dispute in the medical establishment over how cautious to be. This could do with better and clearer elaboration on the page. SPACKlick (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decision

edit

Clerk notes

edit

Electronic cigarette: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <10/0/0/0>

edit

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

Temporary injunction (none)

edit

Final decision

edit

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

edit

Role of the Arbitration Committee

edit

1) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Passed 8 to 0 at 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts

edit

2) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is incompatible with the goals of this project.

Passed 8 to 0 at 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors

edit

3) Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy.

Passed 8 to 0 at 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sanctions and circumstances

edit

4) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Passed 8 to 0 at 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Page Protection: Disputes

edit

5) Full page protection is specifically designed to address edit wars, content disputes, and disruption. During such protection, parties to any dispute about the page that is protected are encouraged to discuss the dispute on the talkpage. When protection expires or is reduced parties are expected to maintain discussion until consensus is reached on the talkpage.

Passed 8 to 0 at 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox Merging

edit

6) Improving an article on Wikipedia is always highly encouraged. The userspace exists so that users can work on an article that is not yet ready for publishing. Making large changes to current articles from the userspace without consensus, especially where the article is under a dispute or scrutiny, can be disruptive.

Passed 7 to 1 at 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Evidence not endorsed

edit

7) While the Arbitration Committee may link to sections of evidence presented, the Committee does not necessarily endorse the evidence presented as completely true and factual. Some sections of the evidence may be factual, and is what the Committee is attempting to highlight in their decision. The views presented in evidence are solely those of the person presenting the evidence and do not directly represent the views of the Arbitration Committee.

Passed 8 to 0 at 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Findings of fact

edit

Locus of the dispute

edit

1) This case relates to behavioral issues occurring around articles relating to Electronic cigarettes.

Passed 8 to 0 at 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

General Sanctions: E-cigs

edit

2) On April 1st, 2015, the community imposed General Sanctions on the Electronic Cigarettes topic area. Since that time:

  • 3 parties to this case and 1 non-party to this case have warned users in the topic area about general sanctions
  • Only a single enforcement action has been taken.
  • The topic area still remains disruptive after the imposing of General Sanctions
Passed 8 to 0 at 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru

edit

3) QuackGuru:

  • Has exhibited a double standard for sources in the electronic cigarettes topic area 1 2
  • Requested unprotection for the Electronic Cigarettes article for a second time less than an hour after reprotection Protection log RFPP Diff
  • Made two large changes to the Electronic Cigarettes article in between page protections 1 2
  • Edit warred on the Electronic Cigarettes article 1
  • Opposes multiple changes 1, and makes edits without further discussion 2
Passed 8 to 0 at 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru: Block log

edit

4) QuackGuru has previously been blocked multiple times for disruptive actions, specifically:

Passed 8 to 0 at 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru: Topic bans and restrictions in alternative medicine

edit

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. QuackGuru was also topic banned in July 2011 in "pseudoscience and chiropractic, broadly construed, for one year".

Passed 8 to 0 at 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

CFCF: Edit warring

edit

6) CFCF has participated in disruptive edit warring on more than one occasion.

Passed 8 to 0 at 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Single Purpose Accounts

edit

7) Single Purpose Accounts have in the past been operating in the Electronic Cigarettes topic area. (CFCF Evidence)

Passed 8 to 0 at 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Remedies

edit

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.

Contentious topic designation

edit

Previous versions
Superseded version
Former title: "Discretionary Sanctions".

1) General Sanctions for the Electronic Cigarette topic area are rescinded. In its place, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the Electronic Cigarette topic area, broadly construed.

1) General Sanctions for the Electronic Cigarette topic area are rescinded. In its place, the Electronic Cigarette topic area, broadly construed, is designated a contentious topic.

Passed 8 to 0 at 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Amended 10 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Rescinded by motion at 03:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

DS Extended: SPAs

edit

2) Discretionary Sanctions are explicitly extended for the Electronic Cigarettes topic area. Specifically, single purpose accounts may be topic banned or blocked (indefinite or otherwise), if in the view of an uninvolved administrator, they are being disruptive in the topic area.

Passed 5 to 3 at 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

DS: Administrators Encouraged

edit

3) Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in this case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:

  1. Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;
  2. Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
  3. Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.

The Arbitration Committee thanks those administrators who have been helping to enforce the community general sanctions, and thanks, once again, in advance those who help enforce the remedies adopted in this case.

Passed 8 to 0 at 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru Warned

edit

5) QuackGuru is warned that continuing to engage in a pattern of disruption to Wikipedia will result in further sanctions.

Passed 8 to 0 at 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

CFCF: 1RR Restriction

edit

6) CFCF is restricted to one revert per article per every 72 hour period in the Electronic Cigarette topic area, broadly construed.

Passed 8 to 0 at 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

CFCF Warned

edit

7) CFCF is warned that arbitration remedies are not required for sanctions against them for edit warring. Furthermore, they are reminded to contact the editor they are in dispute with before resorting to reverting.

Passed 8 to 0 at 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Enforcement

edit

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Amendments and motions

edit

Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)

edit

General Sanctions for the Electronic Cigarette topic area are rescinded. In its place, the Electronic Cigarette topic area, broadly construed, is designated a contentious topic.

As part of the 2022 adoption of the contentious topics procedure, the Arbitration Committee adopted the following motion to re-designate existing discretionary sanctions remedies as contentious topic designations.

Each reference to the prior discretionary sanctions procedure shall be treated as a reference to the contentious topics procedure. The arbitration clerks are directed to amend all existing remedies authorizing discretionary sanctions to instead designate contentious topics.

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Motion: Removal of Unused Contentious Topics, Editor conduct in e-cigs articles (October 2023)

edit

Remedy 1 of Editor conduct in e-cigs articles ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures.

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 03:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Enforcement log

edit

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy (except discretionary sanctions) for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor_conduct_in_e-cigs_articles&oldid=1180831948"