Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
QuackGuru		12 April 2015	{{{votes}}}
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Content on Grand Ashura Procession In Kashmir|Content on Grand Ashura Procession In Kashmir]]		13 April 2015	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Historical elections	13 Sep 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

QuackGuru

Initiated by Levelledout (talk) at 12:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Levelledout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification QuackGuru

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Two most recent ANIs (many more here):

• link1
• link2

Statement by Levelledout

QuackGuru has a long block log and an even longer section history at ANI. I don't know his full history of ArbCom cases but he has been sanctioned and banned at least twice previously diff1 diff2.

I can only speak of my personal experiences with him at the Electronic Cigarette article where he has become incredibly disruptive of late. Considering the 500 word limit I provide a summary of his actions since his last ANI section was closed in March 2015:

• Abuse of the page (un)protection process and thus WP:GAMING. Also forcing through large-scale changes without consensus and edit-warring, thus violating WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CAUTIOUS. Sequence of events as follows:
  1. Single handedly getting page protection removed, no notification of discussion on article talk page.
  2. Immediately dumping massive (9k) amounts of error-ridden material into article, no notification/discussion on article talk page.
  3. After article was consequently reprotected, immediately running straight back to requests for page protection without notifying article talk page and getting expiry date reduced.
  4. Intensely editing article in sandbox for next ten days until protection expired again, no notification or discussion to article talk page.
  5. Dumping vast (17k) error-ridden sandbox edits into article as soon as protection expired again, no prior discussion, in direct violation of instructions given by admin.
  6. Edit-warring the changes back into the article after they were reverted.
• Removing a POV tag 5 times within a few days thus edit-warring - diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5. On at least two occasions (diff2/talkpagediff and diff3/talkpagediff) doing so purely due to a personal fued, thus disrupting Wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT.
• Breaching WP:NPOV, likely in order to try and prove a WP:POINT in a personal feud with the insertion of the following into the article, sourced from an editorial:

"They (e-cigarette users) also undertake in uncivil online attacks on any person who implies that e-cigarettes are not an innovation, with at least one person associated to an organization that receives donations from the tobacco industry."

• WP:COMPETENCE issues regarding language and grammar, error-ridden edits (see above) and failing to understand the concepts of WP:OR and paraphrasing - diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5
• WP:FILIBUSTERING, often to the extreme, stating one objection, then when that is shown to be redundant, coming up with a different one, then when all else fails simply telling all other editors that their objections are invalid and inadmissible - diff1 diff2 diff3 also diff1 diff2 diff3
• Personal attacks and incivility diff1 diff2.

QuackGuru obviously has a good deal of adversaries but some editors support him, some of whom are well respected and/or admins. ANI has proved ineffective in dealing with him and no firm action has been taken against him for any of the above by admins, even in consideration that there are discretionary sanctions in place on electronic cigarette articles. Therefore I think that this is the right place to raise this matter.

@ Softlavender The SPA accusation is brought up against practically everybody that opposes QuackGuru, whether they actually are an SPA or not. In my case, I'm still a relatively new editor with relatively few edits. I have a relatively high number of edits to the main e-cig article talk page but the large majority of my main wiki editing is not on e-cig related articles diff. Overall so far most of my edits have gone on e-cigs because it's a topic that interests me and because there have been long protracted debates on the talk page. But I do not advocate for e-cigarettes, I recognise that there are both potential risks and benefits in line with the majority of sources. I also try to implement the NPOV that QuackGuru is intent on preventing. QuackGuru edits mainly what he would consider pseudo-science topics, does that make him an SPA? Your claim that QuackGuru is not the real problem and that he is causing less disruption than other editors is categorically wrong. Take a look at this page and this page and you will realise nobody is adding more material than QuackGuru and no active editor (Fergus M1970 is blocked and AlbinoFerret is on a voluntary ban) is contributing more to the talk page. Combined with the fact that QuackGuru violates many important policies and guidelines as demonstrated above, this means that QuackGuru is the most disruptive editor on the whole article at the moment. I do not believe that FergusM1970 was shown to be a paid e-cig advocate, although I could be wrong I think he was shown to be paid to be editing the Derwick Associates article. In any case, you seem to be arbitrarily accusing me of being a paid advocate simply because one other editor was at some point in the past, even though you have no evidence to suggest that I am.Levelledout (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Softlavender It is difficult to respond to a re-assertion that I am an SPA except for to re-assert that I am a relatively new editor and am here to improve the encyclopedia. I am not sure why you have provided a link to an old copy of my sandbox but it was a result of this discussion on the talk page. I later decided to abandon the copy-edit since there was no point in attempting it all the time that QuackGuru was editing the article.Levelledout (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Zad68 Since this is the only place I have raised the issue then by definition it is not forum shopping. There are several reasons I believe that ArbCom is the appropriate place:

1. QuackGuru's conduct issues are multiple, serious, protracted and therefore somewhat complex.
2. A substantial amount of the diffs presented are dated before discretionary sanctions were enforced and therefore would not be actionable under discretionary sanctions.
3. A substantial amount of the diffs presented are also dated after discretionary sanctioned were enforced, i.e. most of the POV tag removals and competence diffs, all of the filibustering diffs. The diffs show that QuackGuru's conduct has not improved since April 1st but despite admins patrolling pages no action has been forthcoming under discretionary sanctions.
4. QuackGuru has at least some amount of admin support
5. The allegations presented are serious and discretionary sanctions only allows for blocks of up to one year for instance.
6. QuackGuru has a long history of ANI cases as recent as March 2015, blocks and bans, ArbCom sanctions clearly demonstrating that the community has struggled to deal with his conduct previously.Levelledout (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@QuackGuru I'm not sure why QuackGuru states that it wasn't entirely accurate to suggest that he dumped 17k of information into the article with this edit. The revision history clearly shows +17,183 bytes of data. He remarks that I received a final warning. I have in fact received two warnings. The first was for reverting QuackGuru's 9k of edits referenced above on the basis of WP:CAUTIOUS. This was in fact the first wholesale revert I have ever made on Wikipedia. It certainly was not edit-warring since it was only one revert and I'm still slightly at a miss as to what I did wrong. The admin that made the warning appeared to concede that I was not edit-warring and that the warning was for informational purposes to prevent the situation descending into an edit-war. The second warning was for again reverting QuackGuru on his 17k of edits two weeks later. Once again I only reverted the once. I assumed that since I was not edit-warring the first time round and that QuackGuru was in direct violation of instructions received by an admin and also WP:CAUTIOUS, that reverting would be OK and the right thing to do. In all honesty it feels like I have received two warnings simply for trying to implement WP:BRD and to stop QuackGuru from forcing through large-scale changes without consensus.Levelledout (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken Can I please again emphasise that most of the diffs, including a lot of the most serious stuff, relate to activity which took place before discretionary sanctions were imposed. Therefore as I understand it I am not able to request action under discretionary sanctions for most of the above activity.Levelledout (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bishonen Note that one user (me) receives a warning for a single revert (by definition not edit-warring) and then a final warning for a second revert (quite possibly not edit-warring either) two weeks later whilst for instance QuackGuru gets nothing for removing a POV tag from the article 5 times, forcing through large-scale changes without consensus multiple times and in fact practically everything that I have listed above aside from one polite notice for edit-warring his 17k of changes back into the article. You call the request "frivolous" because you don't admit that action should already have been taken against QuackGuru and hasn't been.Levelledout (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore SPACKlick was warned for simply making two reverts here by Bishonen and KimDabelsteinPetersen was warned here by Bishonen for simply inserting the wrong type of article tag.Levelledout (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

SPACKlick has correctly pointed out that the following discussion should have been had here at this ArbCom page because it is somewhat relevant to this case request: LINK.Levelledout (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Black Kite Who exactly are you suggesting is a "company shill, quack and charlatan"? As you so confidently make such an assertion I'm sure you'll have no problems clarifying who you are referring to and providing the necessary evidence for all of these claims. On the other hand I suspect this is yet another baseless accusation and WP:ASPERSIONS that Thyryduulf refers to that gets thrown at literally everyone that opposes the likes of QuackGuru and that does actually provide evidence of wrongdoing.Levelledout (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by QuackGuru

I did explain my significant changes on the talk page. I spotted original research in the article and I did rewrite the text closer to the source. I cited the sources that confirmed the wording was original research or at least a bit misleading. I also made follow up edits that improved the wording to my original significant changes. User:Levelledout has been given a final warning. I added numerous high-quality sources, including MEDRS compliant reviews. Levelledout says I added about 17k. That's not entirely accurate because the edit history shows I added a total of about 25k.[1] I added more information recently. The page was 90,260 bytes. Now it is 115,982 bytes. I started a new discussion on the talk page for the 3 tags. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#No_evidence_has_been_presented_that_this_article_has_multiple_issues. More later if this case is accepted. QuackGuru (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

User:S Marshall wants to significantly shorten the lede and delete a lot of text from the page.[2] I disgreed.[3] This was the response by S Marshall. This previous edit by S Marshall was not an improvement to the lede. Now that his edits did not gain consensus he tagged the lede with 3 tags. Now it appears that S Marshall wants me banned without providing evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender (uninvolved party)

Hi, I've never edited any of the various e-cig articles, but I have observed the obvious pattern of WP:SPA editors who advocate for e-cigs and/or the e-cig industry, of which Levelledout is one, and of which at least one has been banned from Wikipedia because of paid advocacy for the e-cig industry, and of which another has had to swear off his SPA advocacy for six months. Although he has his own problematical behaviors, the real problem on the e-cig articles isn't QuackGuru, but rather the e-cig SPA advocates. And if one has been proven to be paid, how can we not suspect that the others are or may be as well? (Smoke/fire, and all that.) QuackGuru is a convenient target for the SPAs, and a convenient smokescreen to haul into ANI while masking the real issues at hand. It would also be very convenient for the e-cig SPAs to get rid of QuackGuru or topic ban him, because then they would have much more free reign to outnumber the non-SPAs, and to re-write the articles in the industry's favor. The sorry fact of the matter is, the issue that should be an ArbCom request is the obvious (and possibly paid) WP:SPA advocacy across all of the e-cig articles, not QuackGuru. Softlavender (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Levelledout: No, we don't call people editing the e-cig articles SPAs unless they are SPAs, and it takes no time at all to scroll through your contributions history and your sandbox to determine you are an e-cig SPA. Other than to mention the fact that there are other e-cig SPAs besides you and the two whom I've mentioned above, I've said what I wanted to say and have no interest in any further back and forth or discussion here. Softlavender (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Zad68

Compared to many at that article, I'm relatively lightly involved, holding the #8 position for Talk-page commenters by edit count but not even ranking in the top 20 by article edits.

This request is premature and the specific complaint against QG should be rejected because Community Sanctions were just authorized 11 days ago pursuant to a request at ANI, and the article has just picked up active monitoring from an uninvolved admin Bishonen. Bish has made warnings to other editors in the topic area, but not QG. Not a single AE request has yet been made regarding the topic area. Why not let the community-authorized DS have a chance to work first? A case can be made that this request is a bit of forum-shopping. Struck as explained below Zad68 14:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• BMK, according to the General Sanctions log, the ANI thread resulted in the community authorization of discretionary sanctions, and WP:AE is indeed an appropriate place for editors to ask admins to review behavior and see if a discretionary sanction is warranted. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but according to my reading at both WP:GS and the instructions at WP:AE that's how it's set up to work.) Zad68 18:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Levelledout the reason why I said "forum-shopping" is because in this ANI discussion you did not support community sanctions, and you supported an indef block of QG or a full ArbCom case. Because you didn't get the outcome you desired there, trying now to get a full ArbCom case before we've had a chance to see if DS will work seems like forum-shopping. But perhaps you just weren't aware of how this process is supposed to work. Either way, I can see that comment of mine is a distraction so I'll strike. Zad68 19:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• OK Bish, shoot, but I'll stop spreading that rumor. Without at least some period of having uninvolved admins visibly roaming the halls and handing out pink slips as needed I'm afraid we are indeed going to end up right back here within a matter of weeks. Zad68 23:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Mr. Stradivarius

I closed the ANI discussion authorising the community sanctions on April 1. (And no, that wasn't an April Fool's joke.) I think 11 days is a little too soon to say whether the sanctions have worked or not. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Bishonen: I have the e-cig pages on my watchlist, but I haven't really been actively monitoring them. Call it "watching from a distance". — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by S Marshall

We'll end up here, but QG hasn't had enough rope yet.—S Marshall T/C 17:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• ... but I'll support SPACKlick to this extent: QG is infuriating and impossible to deal with, and the article is unimprovable while he very actively guards it against any and all substantive edits by the evil cranks, paid editors and pro-e-cig-industry stooges such as, apparently, myself. We're basically marking time until QG crosses the line egregiously enough for a topic ban.—S Marshall T/C 09:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• @Black Kite (talk · contribs): This is where you get off. "Company shills, quacks and charlatans" is bang out of order.—S Marshall T/C 14:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Since the community imposed discretionary sanctions on the E-cigarette subject area, shouldn't any complaints about abuse there go either to AN/I or to the complainant's admin of choice, in order to have those sanctions enforced? Coming directly to ArbCom, especially when a case request has been turned down very recently, appears like an attempt to bypass community sanctions without giving them a chance to work. I suggest that the committee refuse this case request and refer the issue to AN/I. BMK (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Zad68: I could well be wrong, but I don't believe that community sanctions are enforced at AE, since the remit there is to enforce decisions of the Arbitration Committee. Normal community processes via an admin or AN/I should be utilized. BMK (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. BMK (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@DGG: You write that the community sanctions have not been very successful in the (mere) 11 days since they were instituted, but, in fact, admins have been putting their attention to this subject area for a much more limited time than that. In addition, there has been no evidence presented in this case request that there has been misbehavior in the subject area significantly before admins began to deal with it, I suggest that ArbCom, as the "court of last resort", should actually wait until it is, in fact, the last resort before it gets involved. Your acceptance of the case appears to me to be untimely and usurping of the community's realm of authority. ArbCom should only take cases when it has been shown definitively that the community cannot deal with the problem, which is hardly the situation here. I urge you to reverse your opinion. BMK (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Levelledout: If the diffs are from before community sanctions, then there has already been a massive AN/I which declined to sanction QuackGuru, and a request for a case to ArbCom, which declined in favor of community sanctions. Because of this, I agree with Zad68 that this request is essentially forum shopping to get another bite of the apple. If your evidence is an accurate portrayal of QG's behavior (about which I make no judgment), and he continues that behavior, then community sanctions will cover it and he will be sanctioned. BMK (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Bishonen

This is a pretty frivolous arbitration request in my opinion. I think the community general sanctions can work. It's true I've so far only given one e-cig warning specifically related to the sanctions.[4] But it may be worth mentioning that both I and Mr Stradivarius gave the OP here final warnings for disruptive editing on Electronic cigarette only hours before the sanctions came into effect;[5] the difference between those and "sanctions" warnings is pretty technical. That said, Zad68's kind mention makes my "monitoring" sound more magnificent than it is, as I don't have very much Wikipedia time and sometimes prefer the less prickly jobs, where users don't explode as soon as addressed. However, I'm assuming Mr. Stradivarius is watching too; aren't you, Mr S? Bishonen | talk 20:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC).

Changing my mind: I no longer think the community sanctions have much chance of working. There's far, far too much going on for me to even remotely take stock of — it's way beyond my pay grade, and no other uninvolved admin seems to want to touch it. Just as one tiny example, look at QuackGuru and SPACKlick going at it hammer and tongs on WP:AN3. (Unless the report there has yet again been moved to WP:AN as I write. It's been bouncing back and forth.) I'm sorry, but I will now unwatch the relevant pages and save myself. Please nobody ever say "electronic cigarette" to me again. Ever. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC).

Statement by A1candidate

This Committee needs to understand that the heart of this dispute revolves around several complicated issues including:

• QuackGuru's ownership of medical articles
• QuackGuru's accusations against other editors
• Disagreement among administrators on how to deal with QuackGuru

Some administrators are convinced that QuackGuru fights quackery and is a net asset to the encyclopedia, while others are aware of the amount of disruption he causes but are unwilling to take action because they view Wikipedia as a battleground between COI-vested advocates and a group of well-established and trusted editors to which they (and QuackGuru) belong. At this point in time, I do find it appropriate to highlight the indisputable battleground nature of this conflict that is well-documented in previous ArbCom filings and exemplified by a specific comment posted by this particular administrator:

"Second, it is a battleground. A battle against quackery in the real world, with prosecutions and a litany of exploitation of cancer victims by unscrupulous quacks, a battle on Wikipedia to hold back the lunatic charlatans whose motivation and determination to use Wikipedia to promote their beliefs is generally far stronger than the determination of any individual Wikipedia to ensure that we remain dependable ont hese subjects"

- Administrator JzG, 09:39, 27 February 2015

Whether Wikipedia is a battleground or not isn't the main issue here, I'm simply pointing out the fact that some administrators do in fact view this place as a real-world battleground. Other administrators such as Kww have also openly acknowledged their sympathetic views towards QuackGuru's cause [6]. This partly explains why previous attempt at dispute resolution have failed and it also indicates that future attempts at dispute resolution are likely to fail, unless these administrators change their behavior.

I opposed a proposal to bring this issue to ArbCom initially, because I believed (and trusted) in the community's ability to resolve it. I probably should say that I was completely wrong. Those defending QuackGuru (both here and elsewhere) must first answer the following question before this dispute has any chance of being resolved: Has QuackGuru's editing improved after a decade of repeated blocks and warnings? As Administrator EdJohnston noticed many years ago: "there is no apparent progress in QG's approach to editing". That was back in 2011, so has anything changed four years later?

According to administrator John, one of the few editors who stood up against QuackGuru's disruptive editing and repugnant behavior:

"If the community lacks the cojones to sanction QG, who is the main culprit, and is content to let him off with a weak "warning" (how many warnings is that now?) it is against natural justice to sanction AF. I tend to agree with the view that arbitration will be the way forward here."

- Administrator John, 07:10, 10 March 2015

The wisdom of John's statement is evidenced by the fact that QuackGuru continued to escalate the situation right after receiving his warning, first by making baseless accusations against other editors and then by bringing the entire issue to the Committee's attention [7] after his attempt to ban KimDabelsteinPetersen was quickly opposed by the community. John recently blocked QuackGuru for disruptive editing (see block log), so did QuackGuru accept his fault and improve his behavior? Did he take notice of John's advice to be a little more patient, and work on building consensus in talk before making any more bold edits? The answer is no, because if QuackGuru had heeded John's advice, the issue would have been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. -A1candidate 20:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kww

I think it is becoming time that we need to revisit the fundamental purpose of discretionary sanctions. In some cases (Palestine, the interminable dispute over Cyprus, the Ukraine, and other political issues come readily to mind) the purpose of the sanctions is to make the editors involved behave. In other cases (pseudoscience and alternative medicine articles, for example) the purpose of the sanctions is to ensure that the content of the article reflects our purpose as an encyclopedia.

The e-cigarette disputes seem to fall more towards the latter: the problems here are based on a long-term and contentious fight against industry forces that would paint e-cigarette use as a harmless hobby. That fight is being badly handled by an editor that isn't known for his subtlety and dispute resolution skills. I'd have no problem topic-restricting QG in this and similar battles if the topic-restriction was accompanied by revamping the sanctions to ensure that editors striving for accurate presentation had an intrinsic advantage over people shilling for industry interests and charlatans.—Kww(talk) 22:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Btw, Seraphimblade, I believe my answer is directed towards your question.—Kww(talk) 22:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Les Vegas

What a coincidence, this is too funny! I came to the Arbcom committee to file a request against QuackGuru on the Acupuncture article (after his latest round of IDHT'ing on the talk page), and noticed that Levelledout stole my thunder! Is there a possibility of joint-filing this request asking for a site ban? Afterall, I'm prepared to make a lengthy argument that QuackGuru's behavior on Acupuncture is as equally reprehensible as it is on E-Cigarette. The difference, however, is that the Acupuncture article has been under sanctions for some time. So, all that is to say, I don't expect QuackGuru's behavior to change on E-Cigarette (or anywhere else on Wikipedia for that matter) anytime soon. He is, by far, the worst, most lawless Wikipedian I have ever seen. LesVegas (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by SPACKlick

I will mostly stay out of this one as I've made it clear elsewhere I've run out of Good Faith for QuackGuru and he winds me up to the point where I make bad edits and bad judgement calls. I only wanted to respond to Softlavender's and Kww's assertions that the problem at the page is advocates for e-cigs trying to hide information. It belies a lack of understanding of the page to say that. Yes there are advocates, and they and their edits are generally dealt with. However the majority of the advocacy, as seen on the talk page and in edits, is for structure to make the information presented more readable and deliver the same information more informatively. Most of the content removals and removal requests are to remove duplications. As for the fact that there are SPA concerns. I don't know about others but I've noticed in the past that Battlegrounds tend to become a point of focus for editors with skin in the game. I've seen before with myself and other editors that the one fight going on, where you feel your editing could make a significant difference, gets most of your wiki-effort and edits there start to drain your wiki-effort overall. Quack is a disruptive editor. He's had several warnings about the way he edits and blocks for the way he edits. I wouldn't personally want to see him gone entirely, he does have an eye for finding sources he just doesn't have the competence to translate sources into readable prose and he doesn't have the competence or wikiquette to discuss changes to help achieve consensus. A ban from editing the e-cigarette articles broadly construed (excluding removal of blatant copyright and obvious vandalism) would help the article massively. Even a 3-6month one would allow people to get the article into a reasonable state from which Quack would likely be able to add new information easier as he does seem to be better in good articles than one's he's creating whole cloth. --SPACKlick (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: For a good example not on e-cigarettes see the section on Ernst's Review over at talk:Acupuncture. It's a reasonably good example of Quacks IDHT attitude to discussion of sources meaning. I don't even necessarily think he's wrong with his intent for the article in this case but he makes it very hard for a consensus to form. SPACKlick (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Black Kite (talk · contribs) I'd be careful with the personal attacks if I were you. Many people, I'd point to myself but for distance point to S Marshall as a fine example, don't like Quack's edits and neither of us are Shills, Quacks or Charlatans. It's not to do with disagreeing with his positions but his methods and styles. Read his discussions (or what he calls discussions) look at the sheer volume of edits he drops in immediately following protection with no discussion. Quack has some serious behavioural issues in these article spaces and talk spaces, it's not just quackery disagreeing with him. SPACKlick (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

Company shills, quacks and charlatans really don't like QuackGuru's edits. This is unsurprising, as pointed out by Kww above, and can be safely ignored. Which leaves us with a mild bit of edit-warring. Why is this request here again? Black Kite (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

QuackGuru: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/6/0/2>

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

• Awaiting more statements, but my initial thoughts are that something needs to change regarding the e-cigarettes topic area, and if the community sanctions aren't working then it's probably up to us to usher that in - but I want more opinions about whether they truly have failed, and if so what might work? @Softlavender: (and anyone else) whether someone is being paid is irrelevant to resolving this dispute - either they are editing in a manner that is improving the article(s) (directly, or indirectly) or they are not, and it is possible for someone who is being paid to edit to fall into either of those groups. Please also bear in mind WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:OUTING when making allegations against editors. Thryduulf (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It's clear that the time is not right for an arbitration case related to e-cigarettes, as the community is in the early stages of handling the matter with sanctions. However, I've not made up my mind about a case regarding the behaviour of QuackGuru more generally - I'd like to hear more input about his behaviour in other topic areas, with sample diffs of alleged wrongdoing, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• At the moment inclined to decline. I think it's too early to say that community sanctions aren't working. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline I really want to give community sanctions more time. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements. I would be particularly interested to hear why the community sanctions are not believed to have worked given how recently they were imposed, and would be inclined to give more time to see if that settles things down there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• Decline The GS were put in place 11 days ago. I don't see why we can't wait until mid-May to see if they work. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Accept this will be here sooner or later, and Community sanctions have not been very successful with this sort of problem--just as Kww points out above. We can have further disruption and then step in, or we can step in now and do what can be done to short-circuit the further disruption . The attitude of letting things become worse so the need for sanctions will become even clearer, is detrimental in the meanwhile to everyone who works in good faith with good manners in the area. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Decline at this point, with no prejudice against accepting a future case if it becomes clear after a suitable length of time that the DS are not working. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Decline - not opposed to a case examining all sides of editor conduct at e-cigarette articles. But a) this specific request lacks vigour, and b) the community sanctions have only just been imposed. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Decline. Let's give community sanctions a chance to work. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Decline. Per Euryalus and Salvio,  Roger Davies ^talk 12:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Content on Grand Ashura Procession In Kashmir

Initiated by Mifciw (talk) at 04:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Mifciw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Ugog_Nizdast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Abecedare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Ugog_Nizdast
• diff of notification Abecedare

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1
• Link 2

Statement by Mifciw

I want to know why editors i have mentioned are continuously removing content on Grand Ashura Procession In Kashmir. Please check its history so you can see History and Background Framework Recitation sections have been removed. I asked them to be bold and search for link instead they are removing content of these sections. Please see through history i provided links too to state newsapers which they accuse me that i am publisher of them. Now Please bring an end to their fire and add those sections whom i added. I hope you will bring them on space soon. See the links i provided to cite the content. http://kashmirobserver.net/news/opinion/history-jaloos-e-ashura-srinagar

Statement by Ugog Nizdast

This isn't needed. I'm sure Abecedare and anybody else involved are fine with any form of dialogue with Mifciw regarding the article. Our discussion is on Talk:Ashura processions in Kashmir#Article issues and the only reply we got with Mifciw is this. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Abecedare

I assume the case will be declined on procedural grounds, but for any arbiters or page-watchers wishing to do due-diligence (or, plain curious):

• I rewrote the article Saturday, from this version to this version (at that point the article was named Grand Ashura Procession In Kashmir)
• the reasons for the rewrite were explained on the talk-page

Any suggestions for further improvements, and more eyes, are of course welcome. Abecedare (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved TransporterMan

The Committee should note that before sending this applicant back to other DR that he should first be encouraged to discuss the matter on the article talk page before attempting it. I've gone over the applicant's edit history and it is highly unlikely that any of the regular DR processes — Third Opinion, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, or Mediation Committee — will be willing to accept a case in light of the paucity of discussion by the applicant so far. In light of the entire circumstances, the best place to refer the applicant would probably be the Teahouse. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Content on Grand Ashura Procession In Kashmir: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/0/0>

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

• @Mifciw: Abitration is the ultimate and final stage of dispute resolution; what previous DR processes have you engaged with regarding this issue? I can't see any evidence that you have taken this to any noticeboard or attempted to arrange mediation. Where have you used community policies to address this? Yunshui ^雲_水 08:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • In fact, I don't even need an answer to that; it's very clear that you have not exhausted - or even attempted - the initial stages of dispute resolution. It also looks as though this is a content dispute, rather than a behavioural one, which is not within the purview of ArbCom. Decline. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Decline per Yunshui - dispute resolution not exhausted and fundamentally a content dispute. You are being reverted by several fellow editors, please seek consensus for your proposed additions in the article talkpage rather than edit warring in the article itself. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Decline per Yunshui and Euryalus. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Decline. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Decline Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Decline. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)