Wikipedia 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

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are active arbitrators. Expression error: Missing operand for +. support or oppose votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

1) The Arbitration Committee's duties and responsibilities include:

• the hearing of appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users;
• the handling of requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools; and
• the resolution of private matters unsuitable for public discussion.

Support:

1. From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope and responsibilities,  Roger Davies ^talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. PhilKnight (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mixing up the first principle? Crazy talk! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2) When determining ban appeals, the Committee may hear evidence afresh and make a new determination. By default, the Committee hears proceedings in public and examines the conduct of all parties. Where significant privacy or harassment issues are involved, the Committee may hold a hearing in private and parties are given a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them before a decision is made. Aspects of the present case relating to privacy and harassment were heard in private.

Support:

1. Per usual practice,  Roger Davies ^talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. PhilKnight (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

3) The banning policy states: "Jimbo Wales retains the authority to ban editors".

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. PhilKnight (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. This is interesting, in that is one of the few direct powers that Jimbo still maintains as founder, most of the rest having been given up over the past few years. It's also interesting to note that the original version of the policy that enumerates this power contained a clause that this was a theoretical power not intended for use, which was later removed. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

4) When editors request or place sanctions in whatever forum on Wikipedia, the onus is on the editors requesting or placing those sanctions to provide the evidence to prove their claims. Failing to do so may constitute a personal attack. The longstanding "No Personal Attacks" policy states that "serious accusations require serious evidence".

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. PhilKnight (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

• I assume the thinking here is that we require evidence of wrong doing rather than the suspicion of it. One of the difficulties with COI is that there is an immediate assumption an editor will be violating NPOV, and so there is an atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust around an editor who has connections with an article, even when that editor declares their interest. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. Even though editing with a COI is not actionable absent other editing violations, making accusations of COI absent appropriate evidence is still a personal attack. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5) Editing with a conflict of interest ("COI") is discouraged but not prohibited. This is because conflicts of interest can lead to violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and copyright compliance.

Support:

1. From the current guideline,  Roger Davies ^talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. PhilKnight (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. This is how it currently is. Not as, perhaps it could be, or even should be. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

6) When investigating possible cases of COI editing, editors must comply fully with the outing policy. Editors repeatedly seeking private information (either via on-wiki questioning or via off-wiki investigations) contribute to a hostile editing environment, which may rise to the level of harassment. Wikipedia's policy against harassment and outing takes precedence over the COI guideline.

Support:

1. Per longstanding principle, policy takes precedence over guidelines.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. PhilKnight (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

7) Editors accused of having a conflict of interest are not required to disclose private information by way of defence.

Support:

1. From the "COI" guideline,  Roger Davies ^talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. PhilKnight (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

• COI encourages editors to "declare an interest" which may lead people into revealing unnecessary private information, or even to trap admins into asking for inappropriate information with questions such as: "Do you work for XYZ company", "What is your connection with Joe Blogs", "Are you the author of ...". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

8) Per policy, "as a matter of … effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'm prepared to go along with this, however, perhaps a copyedit is needed. For example, in a Request for Comment on user conduct it's not only acceptable, but expected, to indicate in which areas a user's conduct has been problematic. PhilKnight (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. We focus on the edits until there is concern about the editor. It should be that we don't comment on the editor until there is a genuine reason for concern. However, I accept the general principle. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per PhilKnight, this should not be regarded as prohibiting comments regarding an editor's conduct made within a legitimate dispute resolution process. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

• COI encourages us to focus on the editor. If the concern is if an editor has a connection with the topic, then people are looking at the editor not the edits. We need to ensure articles are robust and trustworthy, and I understand the concerns people have regarding editors who have a close connection with an article, though we should look for robustness in the edits and the sources as that is where it matters. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

9) It is prohibited by policy to disrupt other editors' enjoyment of Wikipedia by making threats, making repeated unwanted contacts, making repeat personal attacks, engaging in intimidation, or posting personal information. (From: "This Page in a Nutshell", Wikipedia:Harassment)

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. I couldn't agree more. This applies to on and off wiki harassment. PhilKnight (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Comments:

10) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Prolonged and repetitive use of community processes to perpetuate ideological and/or content disputes is extremely disruptive and creates a toxic environment.

Support:

1. Longstanding principle:  Roger Davies ^talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Again, I couldn't agree more. PhilKnight (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

11) Policy states: [while] administrators are not expected to be perfect... sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status".

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. PhilKnight (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

12) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

1) This dispute concerns the conduct of two editors - Will Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and TimidGuy (talk · contribs) - and has as its broad background the articles in the Transcendental Meditation movement ("TM") category. These articles have been the subject of numerous content disputes in which TimidGuy and Will Beback have been regular adversaries. Along with disputes about sources and verifiability, a recurrent long-running theme has been conflicts of interest.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. PhilKnight (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jclemens (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2) Many issues concerning paid editing, anonymous editing, outing and harassment, are unresolved. Our policies and guidelines are complicated and sometimes contradictory. Investigating, sanctioning and/or exonerating editors on the basis of who they are or what they do in real life is not only controversial but often impossible. Furthermore, extreme cases apart, there is no consensus about the extent that editors may edit articles on topics with which they are personally involved. Hence, of necessity, review must focus primarily on the editing patterns of those editors about whom problems are claimed.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. In other words, our role is to focus on the on-wiki activity, and not to investigate, or intrude into people's personal lives. PhilKnight (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yes. In order to ensure that articles are robust and trustworthy we must focus on the edits and the sources, not on the editor. Indeed, to ensure robustness we should ignore the editor altogether, regardless of who they are. We must not be seduced into accepting or rejecting material from someone purely because of their standing either in real life or on Wikipedia. I am disappointed when I see GA reviewers accepting "on good faith" print sources they have not checked. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Not to mention that amateur investigations are entirely likely to result in improper conclusions, which can cause real world harm to people falsely accused. There is a defined investigations process for issues, which is limited by design to functionaries who have identified to the Wikimedia Foundation and vetted by the committee and/or community, or employees of the WMF who have their own vetting process. In no circumstances are non-functionary admins encouraged to try and do the work of functionaries sans tools. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

3.1) TimidGuy (talk · contribs) created the account on 1 September 2006 and has made just under 8000 edits, mostly but not entirely within the TM topic.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. PhilKnight (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

3.2) TimidGuy has disclosed that he has a conflict of interest. The first instance was on 8 Dec 2006. Other instances include: 31 Mar 2007, 25 Jan 2008, 22 Feb 2010 and 1 Aug 2010.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. PhilKnight (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. It is also worth noting that the allegation made that TimidGuy was being paid for editing TM articles was based on these disclosures, and not on any additional evidence submitted privately. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. This is one of the keys here. TG has been upfront of his CoI and it has been used as a hammer against him. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

3.3) On 9 August 2010, TimidGuy was topic-banned at Arbitration Enforcement from TM-related articles for two months. The topic-ban expired on 9 October 2010. A revert restriction was imposed at the same time: this was withdrawn in December 2010.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. This turned out to be highly relevant to the case as there was very little problematic editing since the topic ban. PhilKnight (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Background info. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

4.1) Will Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is a very experienced editor and administrator, having made well over 100,000 edits. He has been an administrator since June 2005.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Courcelles 17:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

4.2) Will Beback was admonished in 2005 (then editing as User:Willmcw) and again in 2009. This later admonishment concerned a new religious movement, originating in India and focused on meditation, Prem Rawat. Will Beback was subsequently briefly blocked at Arbitration Enforcement for breaching an editing restriction.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Courcelles 17:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Note that the previous account was disclosed publicly in Will Beback's 2006 run for Arbcom. Jclemens (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• I've linked to his first admonishment, revert if you like. Courcelles 17:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5.1) On 30 August 2011, Will Beback participated in a discussion on Jimmy Wales's talk page about paid editing: [1], [2], [3]. He subsequently emailed Jimmy Wales, on 2 September 2011, copying the committee and others, making various allegations in respect of TimidGuy. Will Beback followed this up, on 8 September 2011, with more detailed allegations. Very shortly afterwards, Jimmy Wales responded by email, site-banning TimidGuy from the English Wikipedia.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. PhilKnight (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Courcelles 17:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. The email correspondence, obviously, is available to the parties and the committee, but not to the public. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

5.2a) Analyses by arbitrators of TimidGuy's edits since October 2010, when the two-month topic ban elapsed, do not appear to have detected any significant systemic concerns or apparent advocacy.[4],[5]

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree there were only relatively minor problems since the topic ban. PhilKnight (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Courcelles 17:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. This is important. The committee has asked repeatedly for evidence of continued problems since the topic ban, and no significant issues were found or brought to the attention of the Committee. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

5.2b) During the course of the review, evidence was presented which demonstrated that some of TimidGuy's editing did not comply with the reliable sources (medicine) guideline.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sure, this happened. Not entirely convinced this is the best way to phrase this. Perhaps, 'During the case evidence was presented which demonstrated that some of TimidGuy's editing did not comply with reliable sources (medicine) guideline.' PhilKnight (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm equally fine with this, too. I've tweaked the wording per your suggestion,  Roger Davies ^talk 17:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support PhilKnight's wording Courcelles 17:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Not normally significant enough for a finding, but to make it clear that there is still room for improvement. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

• To be clear, we're not handling these as opposed/mutually exclusive findings. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5.3) Since the sanctions elapsed, TimidGuy has made at least two edits which are inconsistent with the notion he was engaging in advocacy. In December 2010, he added "negative" material about TM "Contraindications". In February 2011, he removed " favourable" material about TM, because it was improperly sourced to press releases and a blog ("Yikes"). Will Beback was aware of both these edits at the time and commented on them: "Contraindications" response and "Yikes" response.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Perhaps 'inconsistent with the notion he was engaging in advocacy'. PhilKnight (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm okay with this, too, and I've made it so,  Roger Davies ^talk 17:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 18:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

5.4) Analysis of TimidGuy's contributions since 14 February 2010 shows that the vast majority of his edits are made between 05:00 and 07:00, his local time.

Support:

1. This is consistent with someone who edits before work rather than during work.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. For the avoidance of doubt, this is being commented on as it is directly relevant to the ban appeal. PhilKnight (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 18:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Comments:

5.5) For this appeal, in addition to the public material, the committee has examined private statements from Will Beback and from TimidGuy. The committee notes that some of the material submitted is unsupported assertion and some is inaccurate and has thus on occasion made its own enquiries. Taking all the evidence before it into account, the committee concludes that it is unlikely TimidGuy is paid to edit or to advocate on Wikipedia.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'll go along with this, but it's put in slightly stronger language than I would prefer. From my perspective, the case against TimidGuy failed to materialize. That is, a great deal of evidence was presented, both publicly and privately, however relatively little evidence demonstrated his involvement in Wikipedia was problematic. PhilKnight (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

6.1) In apparent violation of the "No Personal Attacks" policy, Will Beback has persistently dwelt on editors' affiliations and has seemingly used the "affiliations [of others] as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". (Extract from "What is considered to be a personal attack?") Examples: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Courcelles 19:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

6.2) Will Beback has repeatedly engaged in conduct inconsistent with the Outing and Harassment policies by focusing on personal information and real life identities. (Private evidence and public material)

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Courcelles 19:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

6.3) Will Beback has either initiated or been an active participant in many discussions concerning TimidGuy and COI on noticeboard boards and high-profile talk pages. The frequency of participation is suggestive of forum-shopping and/or battleground conduct and/or harassment. Examples include: COIN Feb 2009, COIN Aug 2009, COIN Aug 2009, COIN Jan 2010, SPI Jan 2010, ArbCom June 2010, AE Jul 2010, Jimbo Wales' talk page Aug 2011, Jimbo Wales' talk page Aug 2011, Sue Gardner's talk page Dec 2011, Sue Gardner's talk page Dec 2011.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Courcelles 19:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. He has enlisted as many people as possible in his crusade against other editors. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

1) Note: the proposed remedies are accumulative, not alternate, unless otherwise stated.

1.1) Jimbo Wales' ban of TimidGuy is vacated.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes. At the very most, the evidence against him would add up to a 3 month block, which he has already served. PhilKnight (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Courcelles 19:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. I would say that commuting it to time served is good, I doubt that a 3 month block would be on the table even if the evidence was viewed in the worst possible light for TimidGuy. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

1.2) TimidGuy is advised to adhere closely to the reliable sources (medicine) guideline in any edit he makes within the Transcendental Meditation topic.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. PhilKnight (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. TimidGuy remains subject, as do all editors within the topic area, to the discretionary sanctions provided for in a prior decision. Courcelles 19:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2) Note: the proposed remedies are accumulative, not alternate, unless otherwise stated.

2.1) For conduct unbecoming an administrator, Will Beback is desysopped and may only regain the tools via a new Request for Adminship.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Courcelles 19:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. For specifically losing sight of Wikipedia's norms and policies in his attempt to fight what he considered an attempt to slant articles. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

2.2) Will Beback is admonished to adhere scrupulously to the harassment/outing and related policies.

Support:

1. Others may wish to add other options,  Roger Davies ^talk 15:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support, though it strikes me as useless should one of the substantive remedies (above or below, or both) pass. Courcelles 19:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support, although it's relatively harmless if any of the substantial remedies pass. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

2.3) Will Beback is topic banned from pages related to new religious movements, broadly construed.

Support:

1. I believe that the links in Finding of Fact 6.1 demonstrate that this conduct problem extends beyond just the area of TM. Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. I think it's time Will step away from the topic area. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

2.4) Will Beback is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. After six months, he may appeal his ban to the Arbitration Committee, provided he is able to demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee that his history of disruptive conduct will not continue.

Support:

1. I don't see all these as alternatives, but the evidence in this case strikes me that if Will Beback was not a sysop, the ban would be the only remedy being considered. A mere desysop here exemplifies the "Super Mario Problem" where editors with no advanced permissions get banned, and those with such permissions merely get them taken away. This is unacceptable, and the conduct here is so bad that it, in my mind, calls for this. Courcelles 19:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I think a de-admin and a topic ban is enough. Leaving aside the Super Mario Problem Courcelles mentions, I think that there's enough good outside of the NRM area that it would be a net positive to retain Will outside the areas where he's problematic. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

3) The community is encouraged to open a Request for comment on the "Conflicts of Interest" guideline with a view to reconciling some of the apparent contradictions discussed in the applicable finding of fact above.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. PhilKnight (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Courcelles 19:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Note that policy is currently informed by the 2009 RfC at WP:RFC/PAID, which at over two and a half years old, is quite aged for the importance of the topic and the evolution of Wikipedia's popularity. Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Look. I will be blunt. I can't say that leaving TG editing in the area doesn't concern me. But the Committee and its members have to deal with policies as they are, not as we want them to be. I don't think there's support amongst my fellow arbs for moving TG to editing from the talk page where he can have an indirect say in the article rather than a direct say.. there's just not enough evidence for us. So, this remedy to ask the community to resolve the contradictions and smooth this area out and make our life easier when dealing with this SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

1) Since this case involves a ban placed by Jimbo Wales, no party in this case may appeal its outcome to Jimbo Wales, per Wikipedia:ARBPOL#Appeal of decisions.

Support:

1. This happens so infrequently, it's probably appropriate to remind all parties of this up front. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Needs to be said, although the enforcement section may not be the best place for it. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. More a principle than a enforcement provision, but it needs to be said somewhere. Courcelles 19:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree with this. Also, concur this should be moved. PhilKnight (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by 20:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 20:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC) by SirFozzie.

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Jurisdiction	6	0	0		2
2	Form of appeal	6	0	0		2
3	Review of a ban by Jimbo Wales	6	0	0		2
4	Burden of proof and personal attacks	6	0	0		2
5	Conflicts of interest	6	0	0		2
6	Investigating conflicts of interest	6	0	0		2
7	Responding to accusations of conflicts of interest	6	0	0		2
8	Focus on the edits not the editor	5	0	0		3
9	Harassment	6	0	0		2
10	Battleground conduct	6	0	0		2
11	Conduct unbecoming an administrator	6	0	0		2
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Locus and nature of dispute	6	0	0		2
2	Conflict of interest guideline	5	0	0		3
3.1	TimidGuy: account history	5	0	0		3
3.2	TimidGuy: disclosure of COI	6	0	0		2
3.3	TimidGuy: previously topic-banned	6	0	0		2
4.1	Will Beback: editing history	5	0	1		2
4.2	Will Beback: admonishments and block	4	0	1		3
5.1	Site ban: background	5	0	0		3
5.2a	Site ban: TimidGuy's editing	5	0	0		3
5.2b	Site ban: TimidGuy's editing	5	0	0		3
5.3	Site ban: advocacy allegation	5	0	0		3
5.4	Site ban: analysis of editing times	5	0	0		3
5.5	Site ban: conclusion	4	0	0		4
6.1	Will Beback: affiliations of other editors	4	0	1		3
6.2	Will Beback: outing / harassment	4	0	1		3
6.3	Will Beback: forum shopping	4	0	1		3
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1.1	TimidGuy: site ban vacated	5	0	0		3
1.2	TimidGuy: advised	5	0	0		3
2.1	Will Beback: desysopped	4	0	1		3
2.2	Will Beback: admonished	4	0	1		3
2.3	Will Beback: new religious movements topic ban	1	0	1		6
2.4	Will Beback: banned	1	0	1		6
3	RFC on the "Conflicts of Interest" guideline	5	0	0		3
Proposed Enforcement
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Lack of further appeal	4	0	0		4

Notes

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

Oppose

Comments