Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal

---

Initiated by IRWolfie- (talk) at 23:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• IRWolfie- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [3]

According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal#Investigating_conflicts_of_interest: "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."

I have recently begun editing John Hagelin, after noticing specific issues with the article with regards to fringe claims. The article had become a good article fairly recently. One of the editors, TimidGuy has an established COI as they are a member of (Redacted) (as you are aware). Another editor, Littleolive oil (or olive), has cited the above "Investigating conflicts of interest" as a reason for her not to declare whether she works with Hagelin or not [4]. if true, that would make at least 2 of the editors on this page both working in the same institute and on the same article for the good article review without disclosure during the review.

She further says that it is not my business whether she works at (Redacted): "I'm sorry, but where I work or don't is no one 's business. I suggest you review the TG arbitration for further information on the implications of pursuing editors based on making COI connections" . I think it is self evident that editors with a COI should be open about their conflicted interests when they edit topics in which they have a clear conflict of interest. To me this seems contradictory to the openness generally expected in declaring conflicts of interests. The uncertainty surrounding possible Arbcom sanctions creates a chilling effect on looking at any possible conflict of interest. I am looking for clarification on what Littleolive oil can be expected to answer, and what I can ask. I am not asserting that having a COI is necessarily problematic, I am specifically trying to ascertain what I can ask to find out about a COI, and what is a reasonable response, and what I can do without being accused of harassment. Is asking someone if they work in the same place as an article subject a request for private information? If I went to COIN now would that have been harassment?

Also, due to the lack of specific denial, I think it is also reasonable to assume the conflict of interest exists. Can I make this assumption? can a consensus of editors make this assumption? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Olive. I'm not sure what point you are making about my speed. I made a 413 word statement after deciding to post after your initial reply. How long do you think I require? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dreadstar, Fringe promotion is a POV issue, that is exactly what I highlighted. Look to articles for POV issues, not user talk pages. There is no need for the aggression. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @Silktork, your argument is an argument against ever dealing with civil POV pushing, and against having openness around COI issues. If someone consistently pushes a POV with their edits, or they have an undisclosed COI when they make the POV edits but they argue in a civil way when people fix it, then that is ok by you? If not, in what way does your position contrast with this? By extension, I presume you support paid advocates editing articles since we should focus on the contributions only? Can you highlight why not if you disagree?

John Hagelin is a director at the Maharishi University of Management. TimidGuy works at the Maharishi University of Management, and has disclosed his conflict of interest elsewhere. That's fine with me as long as there is transparency (he didn't disclose his COI at the article which is disappointing). Having a COI does not mean editing is necessarily problematic, and I'm not asserting it is. Olive also edited the topic, but has disclosed no COI in any location. Neither disclosed a conflict of interest at the Hagelin article or during the good article review. The article had serious POV issues, I suggest you review the version that passed GA yourself: [5]. There is a real concrete issue with fringe promotion with that version, and a deliberate confusion of mainstream science and fringe work, see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/John_Hagelin/1. Olive says she worked to the best of her ability to make it neutral, but it is evidently far from that. Assuming good faith, that indicates that the COI is getting in the way, or the editor is unable to edit neutrally. That perhaps multiple people from MUM are the ones who made the article like this, don't you think that is problematic and that clarity and honesty is needed?

I'm not trying to beat Olive in the head with this, but if there is a POV issue, a COI and they are here for the long haul but they are civil, don't you consider that problematic? They can simply out wait any other editor. At this stage, it feels like if I even put up COI tags on the article, for those who have an already disclosed COI, I will be accused of harassment. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to highlight that the three posters (olive, Dreadstar, and Keithbob) have focused on attacking me personally, rather than commenting on the specifics of the request for clarification. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@NW, very well. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how ever TM practioner who has commented here has tried to associate Will Beback with anyone who finds issue with their edits, and some have used the implicit threat of sanctions to beat people over the head [6][7][8]. I still ask any arb who hasn't done so to view the article that Keithbob, TimidGuy and Littleolive oil thought was neutral for GA, and are currently defending at: Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/John_Hagelin/1, Timidguy doesn't seem to know what was possibly wrong with the previous version and wants more examples. The random mention of discretionary sanctions by Olive, is also interesting in that discussion.

I think their COI is making them unable to see the bias. I understand you will take no action for simply having a COI as NW highlighted, but surely you can at least acknowledge the COI itself exists? Skin shows conclusive evidence for the connection to the BLP (i.e the CU report). That's on-wiki evidence, it's not off-wiki. It's not outing either, its not reporting on private information which isn't available on-wiki. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised this long, articulate post was posted so quickly, with in minutes of IR Wolfie telling me he was going to. Amazing really. I've heard these arguments before including the, "Also, due to the lack of specific denial, I think it is also reasonable to assume the conflict of interest exists." a very typical Will Beback statement directed at me multiple times. I asked for a GA review in good faith; many editors worked on the John Hagelin article and had input on it. I, to the best of my ability worked on the points/ concerns the reviewer made and had including a weeks long overhaul of all the refs. I have been open to making changes to the article to make sure it complies with Wikipedia GA standards. (olive (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

• Per Skinwalker's post: The edits Skinwalker has posted is content dispute material which if cited on a NB or in discussion would also have context which Skinwalker has not included here. Further, these are serious allegations about editor conduct and again are based on edits taken out of context of the articles, their discussion pages, and the sources, in short are based on a lack of information. Citing a group of editors like this is not in my mind a simple AE clarification problem but points to the same kinds allegations, oddly, in much the same language, that brought us to arbitrations in the past. (olive (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

• Skinwalker's assertions about the TM research article are so inaccurate that I have a hard time understanding how he could have actually looked at the TM research article and come up with the assertions he made. The article doesn't rely on primary sources, as he alleges, but relies almost exclusively on research reviews, including systematic reviews and meta-analyses -- all of them compliant with MEDRS. And contrary to his assertion regarding low-impact journals, sources in the article indicate medical research on TM has been published in top journals, including journals put out by the American Medical Association and the American Heart Association.

• Nuclear Warfare: You are deliberately encouraging two editors here to set up a situation in which editors can be sanctioned. I find that suggestion to be concerning coming from a neutral arb especially given Skinwalker's post here which even from a superficial glance contains numerous errors indicating that the allegations of POV Skinwalker is posting are misplaced. I'm afraid this feels like some editors are being set up, and by an arbitrator. This is wrong. (olive (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

This looks to be a possible violation of WP:OUTING by User:IRWolfie-, and an attempt to intimidate Littleolive Oil by forcing her to out herself or be guilty by faulty reasoning such as "Also, due to the lack of specific denial, I think it is also reasonable to assume the conflict of interest exists". I do not see anything here or on Littleolive Oil's talk page about POV editing, which is the real key to showing violations of WP:COI. And this is the same tactic and wording used over and over again by User:Will Beback, which lends some credence to the idea that he does a lot of manipulation off-wiki and may be involved in this incident. I think it is a natural suspicion. This looks to me to be purely WP:OUTING and WP:HARASSMENT by IRWolfe, plain and simple. Dreadstar ☥ 02:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• IRWolfe- and outing, There's been very light comment on this and some denials, so here is the detail I'm commenting on above: User:IRWolfie- asked Olive this question (Redacted)

This "guessing" of Olive's workplace is a clear violation of WP:OUTING where it says: "“Posting another editor's personal information is harassment,....Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not.”" (bolding is mine)

Whether correct or not, User:IRWolfie- posted where he thinks she works (Redacted) Wow, talk about tactics of intimidation! Then add to that the various actions IRWolfie- has initiated against Olive - including this very Clarification, and the numerous articles he has followed her to, that she edits; this is turning into a massive case of harassment. Dreadstar ☥ 20:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding redacted PI per WP:OUTING: "If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia; although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing." Dreadstar ☥ 20:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what I've revdeleted, the key is that when an editor redacts PI, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia - no matter what the method of removal. It's a matter of safety. Additionally, Any "COI issue" would actually be regarding the edits, not the editor's purported affiliations - if the complainants are not sticking to discussion about actual edits and NPOV, then they just want to ’win’ with guilt by association. Win by NPOV, that's what I say. And leave real people their safety and security. Dreadstar ☥ 05:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hat this to focus on the real issue here. Outing and harassment. Dreadstar ☥ 05:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@IRWolfie- :There's no other way to read this thread; cherry-picking from different talk page discussions [15] only serves to obfuscate what seems to be clearly stated in that singular thread; there's no dishonesty from me on this. As for the hounding, WP:DUCK and goose, not just one, a gaggle actually. (Not that I have the time now to look at them all, but taking a quick scan over the past few months, it's definitely more than one, silly rabbit. 11, - 22, - 33, - and lest we forget this one, and -Following Keithbob too? Mebbe just coincidence....) Dreadstar ☥ 23:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps you do not actually realize what this thread says; you might want to re-read it and make a few changes and possibly apologies. Then again, I see much broader implications to your statements and actions, I still think your intent is to intimidate - and perhaps your apparent Fruedian slip in that thread is most telling. But by all means, try to get ArbCom to shut me up, that's probably the most telling thing you've said so far; get ArbCom or whoever to shut up anybody and everybody who disagrees with you and Will Beback. Or by all means, de-admin me because of your faulty communications style. I'm sure you're not trying to intimidate me too, eh? Nice. Dreadstar ☥ 00:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding AGK's request of me below, I've replied here: User_talk:AGK#Sure

And I'm going to repeat this here, because I think it's damned well important:

• And speaking of courtesy, then I ask that you and the other ArbCom members give the courtesy of addressing the Outing issues that have been raised in this case. Yes, I (and others) can certainly make some statements on Wikipedia that are insulting, but those can be left on the computer screen. Outing has resulted in real life consequences for people, threatening and harassing phone calls and emails, threatening calls to their jobs, their families, to local businesses where the person lives...some of these people don't edit Wikipedia any more because of those...real. Life. Threats. If anyone here has posted personal information and then redacted it, then it behooves us to not repeat it on Wikipedia. Doesn't it? Dreadstar ☥ 22:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad IRWolfie has opened this thread. There are some issues lurking in the shadows in regards to IRWolfie's editing and I think it's time they saw the light of day. I'll flesh out my thoughts in a post later on today. Thanks for your patience. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the information below speaks for itself. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timid Guy Ban Appeal Final Decision Feb 2012:

• Burden of proof and personal attacks--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".
• Conflicts of Interest-- 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.
• Investigating conflicts of interest-- 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.
• Responding to accusations of conflicts of interest-- Editors accused of having a conflict of interest are not required to disclose private information by way of defence.
• Focus on the edits not the editor--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. The usual exception to this principle is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process.
• Harassment-- 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)
• Battleground conduct-- 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.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TM movement Arbitration Case May 2010:

• Neutrality and conflicts of interest-- Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. Editors who have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest should review and comply with the applicable policies. These does not prohibit editors from working on articles about entities to which they have only an indirect relationship, but urges editors to be mindful of editing pitfalls that may result from such a relationship. For example, an editor who is a member of a particular organisation or holds a particular set of religious or other beliefs is not prohibited from editing articles about that organisation or those beliefs but should take care that his or her editing on that topic adheres to the neutrality policy and other key policies.

TM movement Arbitration Requests for Clarification Aug 2011

• The principle you reference says that "an editor who is a member of a particular organisation or holds a particular set of religious or other beliefs is not prohibited from editing articles about that organisation or those beliefs but should take care that his or her editing on that topic adheres to the neutrality policy and other key policies" - so it really depends on the edits themselves. If you think an editor who may have a conflict of interests is not observing relevant site policy/guidelines with their editing, then you should engage the discretionary sanctions provided for in the remedies by seeking enforcement at WP:AE. –xenotalk 20:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• What Xeno said. Jclemens (talk) 00:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• I also agree with Xeno, although I would add that the first step might be to discuss your concern directly with the editor in question himself or herself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• Concur with Xeno and Newyorkbrad. Keep in mind the converse is also true; those who have a personal belief system that is in direct conflict with the philosophies of Transcendental Meditation (or for that matter, any other belief system) must also bear in mind their own potential conflict of interest and edit neutrally or not at all. Risker (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• I too concur with Xeno and Newyorkbrad. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• There has never been an outright prohibition against conflicts of interest on Wikipedia (for many reasons, not the least of which is the inability to properly define "conflict of interest" in the first place). What COI entails, however, is a higher risk that one's editing unwittingly strays into being tendentious or otherwise problematic. This is why editors in a plausible conflict are counseled to propose edits to talk pages to raise consensus: it's insurance. Ultimately, however, it's the quality of the edits that count. If the pope edited the articles on Christianity while remaining rigorously neutral, then few people would find cause to argue. — Coren (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Concur with those who have spoken before me SirFozzie (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Skinwalker:

• Skinwalker’s post is an ill-informed piece of propaganda eerily reminiscent of Will BeBack’s (WBB) four year campaign to vilify all editors on the TM topic who did not agree with him. Skinwalker's position appears to be that only WBB knows the right way to write/edit a New Religious Movement article and that any changes to the articles since WBB has been topic banned, must be wrong. This is interesting since Skinwalker has never edited any of the TM articles yet he/she feels they have the expertise and skill to objectively summarize a year’s worth of good faith edits and improvements covering the 14,700 words and 540 citations contained in the three articles he/she references in their post.
• Is Skinwalker also familiar with the 17,560 words of talk page discussion by 14 different editors on the Transcendental Meditation research article since WBB left? Or the 8,740 words of talk page discussion by 8 editors on the Transcendental Meditation technique article since WBB left? Or the 25,577 words of discussion by 13 editors on the Transcendental Meditation article since WBB left? I don’t think so. Because if they were, then they would know that the “POV tag removed” from the Transcendental Meditation technique article was performed by uninvolved USER:Arjayay who said at the time:it was a long and active article, which made following the changes rather difficult; especially when, halfway through re-reading it, it was changed again - but as the changes were heading in the right direction, I was happy to let them run their course. As stated on the talk page, I was impressed by you and your fellow editors' ability to view the article from a NPoV.”
• I could go into the specifics of other fallacies in Skinwalker’s post put this is neither the time nor the place for it. If Skinwalker wishes to file an RfA and the case is accepted. I’d be happy to go through his/her statement point by point and gives diffs to reveal each falsehood. In the meantime his/her reckless repetition of three year old allegations of sockpuppeting and COI, which have been repeatedly examined, in detail, by ArbCom year after year (as outlined in my prior post) only serve to demonstrate the depth of Skinwalker's WillBebackian-like, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, point of view.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@IRWolfie: In my (albeit limited) experience editing Wikipedia, most COI concerns are overblown, and in the relatively few instances where a COI editor does serious harm to the encyclopedia, little to nothing is ever done about it. So, my question to you is this: Can't you improve the article by focusing on content instead of the contributor?

As for the GA status of that article, that sounds like you should bring this up at WP:FRINGE/N. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The elephant in the room - which we apparently are not permitted to acknowledge upon threat of a siteban - is that a small number of Transcendental Meditation students and employees, nearly all of whom edit from overlapping IPs in a highly specific geographic location, have systematically collaborated to extol TM and to remove well-sourced criticism of the movement and its devotees. They have interpreted the outcomes of the two TM cases as Arbcom Stamps of Approval® to continue this behavior. But don't take my word for it. Let's look at the content differences they have implemented in TM articles since approximately December 14, 2011 - the day the Timidguy ban appeal case was accepted:

• Transcendental Meditation December 11, 2011 - March 29, 2013:
  • The lead now has a strong emphasis on the number of practitioners of TM, noting the Maharishi's "scientific presentation". Well-sourced criticism of TM health claims from the Cochrane Collaboration and TM science claims from Carl Sagan are removed.
  • The history section, like the lead, has new verbiage that yet again emphasizes the size of the TM organization. This information is sourced to books written by TM adherents.
  • The technique section has lost information about the cost of TM courses. A note that a US district court disallowed the teaching of TM in schools on religious grounds is gone. This is particularly relevant as TM has over the past three decades forcefully denied that they are not a religious organization but instead are a secular self-help group.
  • In the further reading section, a long list of medical articles demonstrating no health effects of TM practice has been removed.
  • A lot of content was ostensibly forked out to Transcendental Meditation technique and a few other subpages. Moving on to those...

• Transcendental Meditation technique November 24, 2011 - March 22, 2013:
  • POV tag removed.
  • The lead notes that over 340 medical studies on TM have been published (the source for this is not WP:MEDRS compliant) - ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the studies have found null results for TM health claims and that the studies that have found positive results have almost exclusively been published by TM affiliated researchers in low-impact journals. The lead further minimizes the religious nature of TM, juxtaposing a two critical references with multiple denials from TM.
  • The Selection section now states that the Maharishi's selection of a student's mantra is "foolproof".
  • In the Course Description section, material from a textbook on how to use TM to fight crime has been introduced.
  • A section on TM-Sidhi has been added. This section uses numerous low-quality studies to support the claim that TM-Sidhi has various beneficial effects on society at large, including the reduction of crime, illness, terrorism, and the improvement of international relations and crop yields. This section also contains the statement on pseudoscience removed from the lead of the main article, buried at the bottom and shorn of the Cochrane Collaboration material.
  • In the TM Teachers section, reliably sourced information on the steep costs of TM courses has been deleted.

• Transcendental Meditation research December 8, 2011 - April 3, 2013:
  • POV tags were removed and then added recently. An advertisement tag was also added last month.
  • The summary in the lead about the lack of efficacy of TM health claims has been rewritten to downplay the preponderance of evidence from reliable medical sources.
  • I'm going to stop detailing the problems with this article to avoid TLDR. The general trend has been to juxtapose primary, poorly executed studies against MEDRS-compliant sources together to give an overall impression of TM efficacy.

I could make similar analyses with articles like Maharishi Effect, which presents paranormal claims of the TM organization as virtual fact and buries criticism at the end. Or, consider John Hagelin, a laudatory BLP which was recently promoted to good article status with absolutely no review of the fringe and original research problems in the article.

One particular behavoiral problem stems from the a principle from the first TM arbitration - "Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess." A tactic observed across most TM articles has been to overload the article with poor-quality sources, and then to threaten enforcement with this principle on an editor who removes these sources.[16][17]

I've focused here on the content, not the contributor to show serious and systemic problems with our TM articles. I fully expect to be told that these are not behavioral problems, content noticeboards are thataway, etc, etc. Despite various claims otherwise, these are behavioral problems stemming directly from a group of professionally connected editors being permitted to push a non-neutral POV for years. The results from TM arbitrations have created a chilling effect on editors who disagree with the party line on TM articles. These editors end up threatened, admonished, or sitebanned. Skinwalker (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to various:

• I chose to analyze the articles beginning in late 2011 because they have been almost exclusively edited by TM advocates since then. The talkpages of the affected articles consist of these editors vehemently agreeing with each other. Other editors have been scared away by the constant threat of sanctions.
• I note that the reactions of TM advocates have been attempts to associate me with banned editor Will Beback and blanket denials of POV - ignoring the specifics of my analysis of their changes to TM articles.
• I further note the threats of sanctions made by Littleolive oil, Keithbob, and others. This is typical behavior - when an editor makes a content change they disagree with, they revert and insinuate that the offender may be sanctioned. This is textbook disruption, and it needs to stop. I'm going to post an edited version of my analyses at AE after the various clarifications die down and see where that goes. Skinwalker (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that IRWolfie is only the latest editor to inadvertently wander into the walled garden of the TM articles. I sympathize, as I had the same misfortune about 4 years ago. The direct conflict of interest of TimidGuy and LittleOlive Oil with respect to this subject matter was definitively established at COIN years ago. The coordinated editing of the TM-related articles by a handful of editors pushing the identical POV was well documented at the TMArbCom. ArbCom, for reasons that I disagree with but which I understand, took a different approach than it did in the Scientology cases, and declined to impose wide-spread topic bans. The more generalized sanctions did, nonetheless, lead a number of subsequent blocks and bans through AE for continued POV pushing and violation of the TMArbCom decision. The TimidGuy appeal case, which led to WillBeback's ban, again did not lead to any further sanctions against POV-pushing editors, though a number of ArbCom members expressed their thoughts that such sanctions were in order. And, the more recent refusal of ArbCom to consider WillBeback's unblock request, without having the integrity or transparency to explain to either him or the community the basis for that refusal can hardly encourage anyone who questions what is going on in these articles

What I have witnessed in the aftermath of that case in particular, is that a small group of editors, working in concert, have been working diligently ever since the WBB ban to rewrite very substantially a large number of TM-related articles, with essentially no outside involvement. Why no outside involvement? Given the green light that ArbCom has given to these editors, and the message it has given to other editors, which I characterized at the time: "Complain about it once, you will be ignored; complain about it twice, you will be warned; complain about it three times, you will be banned" I'm certain that other editors who might otherwise think about entering the discussion or disputing the edits are frankly scared away from the topic area. The only time I've stepped in to the discussions in those articles is when someone has done something so obviously outrageous and improper that it is not even a close question. Other than that, I've stayed away, discretion being the better part of valor. The fact that the same cast of characters, including their guardian angel Dreadstar, show up like a Greek chorus to threaten sanctions against any new editors who question them, underlines that they view this as a winning strategy.

I agree with the analysis above that these TM-related articles are being rewritten in a systematic fashion to change the tone of the articles, make them more promotional, to minimize any controversies, to present it as accepted science, and remove or obscure any criticism or material which does not fit the preferred narrative of the TM organization. I don't know whether to laugh or cry over the claim being made at the Hagelin GA reassessment discussion that the article is the result of some collaborative effort among many editors (including myself). It would take hundreds of pages of diffs and comparison of sources and analysis of text which no-one is going to read to document all the changes. Just read the "before" and "after" versions, and come to your own conclusion. Now, I am sure that this will be closely followed with a long list of diffs in which the editors claim "You can't claim I'm POV-pushing, because in edit "x", I removed something that was positive about TM, and in edit "y" I added something that was negative, and in edit "z", when somebody questioned some change, we came to agreement. They've been very smart about doing precisely that to create a track record of plausible deniability. I could also point, on the opposite side, to tendentious tag-teaming on the talk pages that IRWolfie, DocJames and others have become embroiled in, showing extensive removal of reliable sources, addition of sources that don't meet RS or MEDRS, and the gross mischaracterization of sources in service of the narrative. Frankly, I have neither the time nor inclination to pursue this, and it is clear that ArbCom for reasons known only to themselves, have no interest in doing anything about it. If ArbCom doesnt' care, why should anyone else? Go ahead and let the TM Organization and any other organization/company/movement/political party/religion just rewrite the articles about themselves, their beliefs, and their products any way they want and ban anybody who questions it. Fladrif (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreadstar. Give it a rest already. You know full well that Olive voluntarily disclosed her COI, that it was extensively discussed at COIN in multiple threads, that she was directed to comply with COI policy, she defiantly ignores those decisions and directives. You then personally blanked her userpages containing the disclosure of her COI. Enough with the tired, blustering threats. Fladrif (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreadstar #2. You do not have WP:Oversight rights [18], thus your redaction of Olive's voluntary COI disclosure is not covered by the cited policy, and reference to her voluntariy self-disclosure is not WP:OUTING notwithstanding your redaction. Moreover, her COI and the self-disclosure is extensively documented at multiple COIN threads, none of which have been redacted or oversighted. So again, give it a rest. Fladrif (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have editors unilaterally deleting, reverting, hatting on this thread and apparently elsewhere, etc, the fact that TimidGuy and Olive have both, repeatedly, revealed who their employer was. Are we going to next disappear the COIN findings as to their conflict of interest? And the ArbCom findings that TimidGuy had a revealed conflict of interest? This is getting absurd. The policy is quite clear, having voluntarily revealed their COI, it is no violation of Outing to refer to it. None of the editors who are busily trying to unring this bell have Oversight rights on Wikipedia. Fladrif (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Dreadstar is trying to rewrite the Harassment policy yet again to his own liking above. Once an editor has revealed his employer, voluntarily, simply deleting it does not unring the bell. Has Oversight removed the multiple, voluntary, disclosures of his employer across multiple userpages, article talkpages, noticeboards, AE, ArbCom, and probably half a dozen I've forgotten? Otherwise, this effort to whitewash the facts is directly contrary to policy. Fladrif (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a group of editors is POV pushing on TM, and there is clear, unambiguous evidence to back this up, then that is a user conduct problem that can be resolved administratively or by arbitration, if nothing else will work. What is totally unacceptable is to claim that because an editor is, or is alleged to be, a member of a religious group, their editing on the topic is ipso facto biased. You wouldn't try to ban Jews from articles on Judaism, or Christians from articles on Christianity, would you? Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is primarily hortatory, cautioning editors about a factor that might lead them into the temptation of biased editing. The guideline also allows blatant COI problems, such as editing as a paid advocate for an organization, to be dealt with harshly. Again, it should not be assumed that any member of a religious group is ipso facto a paid advocate, and the allegation should not be made speculatively. If Littleolive oil/Keithbob/etc are biasing TM articles, their editing itself is sufficient evidence against them, without straying into argumentum ad hominem. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a general comment, simply asking an editor whether they have a conflict of interest (COI) on a topic is not outing.

@AGk: There seems to be a conceptual problem with the idea that individuals cannot legitimately conclude that a COI exists, while groups can.

On Wikipedia, groups reach conclusions mostly by consensus (although sometimes by voting), so a group can reach a conclusion only as a result of individuals reaching the same conclusion.

So, preventing individuals from concluding that a COI exists would also prevent groups from concluding that a COI exists. Cardamon (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the above argument by Cardamon:

An individual certainly might suspect a COI - but under Wikipedia policies that individual should not make accusations based on their own surmise or on their own research concerning the person. More importantly, no individual has the right to act on their own surmise to the detriment of the other editor. If an editor makes an accusation on any talk page based on their own "research" (beyond using an editor's name if the editor is not using a 'nom de Wiki') then that is contrary to policy as "outing."

An individual might mention a surmise, and others might concur, but is is again not up to any such group to act on a surmise to the detriment of any other editor.

What Wikipedia has is a noticeboard specifically for making any determinations of COI affecting edits on an article WP:COI/N

It is on that noticeboard that the questions are asked with the goal of determing if a COI exists, and whether the COI affected the editing of the article improperly. Note that simply having a potential COI does not mean that one can not properly edit on a topic, and thus the post above has very little to do with the proper arguments thereon. Collect (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• When looking at content, if users concentrate on contributions rather than contributors they won't go far wrong. If there is a problem with content, deal with the content. A contributor comes into focus when their conduct becomes a cause for concern. So if a user is dealing with problematic content, and a contributor is being obstructive or disruptive, that would be the time to look at their behaviour - but it would be their on-Wiki behaviour one would look at, not assumptions about their private life. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Skinwalker: I am very sympathetic to your position. I'm not sure if a majority, or even a sizable minority, of the Committee is at this time. In the meantime, perhaps there might be some knowledgeable individual administrators at WP:MED who might be interested in reviewing articles, talk page, and archives for sanctionable behavior if you put together a well-argued post that shows evidence of civil POV pushing.

  @IRWolfe: There is an unresolved (and perhaps unresolvable) tension between our principles of allowing pseudonymous editing and discouraging articlespace edits by those who have a conflict of interest, as I believe a past Arbitrator once put it. There is no good solution to this, so I would give you the same general advice as I gave Skinwalker. NW (Talk) 20:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In my view, one editor individually cannot legitimately conclude that a conflict of interest exists, but a group of uninvolved editors can. AGK [•] 19:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Dreadstar, your statement seems mostly speculative in nature, and it would be appropriate for you to rescind or substantiate it. AGK [•] 22:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I may add more later, but for now I would say that editors who edit topics in which they have a clear professional or personal involvement should disclose that. My rule of thumb is that if you were publishing something under your real name, and your prior involvement in that topic on a professional or personal level would lead people to question the objectivity or motivation for what you were writing on Wikipedia, then you need to disclose that you have a COI (conflict of interest). Failing that, if you are unwilling to disclose or discuss potential COIs, you should chose to edit something else (a new interest, unrelated to previous and current professional or personal interests). This also applies to those who may arrive at an article with the intention of promoting or denigrating a topic, though that is technically POV pushing.

  More generally, what Wikipedia needs is generalists willing to work on a wide range of articles, and willing to look at an article that they have little prior knowledge of, and assess potential sources objectively and dispassionately. Such editors would work with others (including specialists, advocates, critics, and others who have willingly disclosed their connections to the topic area) to achieve a well-written article that serves our readers. Put the article through some recognised review process, and then move on to do the same on other articles.

  Anything else is horrendously inefficient and prone to protracted arguments between pseudonymous people who (in some cases rightly) question each other's motives and why they disagree on the right approach to sourcing and writing such articles. It should be not about what the editors need (protection from each other?), but what the articles need, and they need editors from a range of backgrounds willing to work together on the articles and improve them efficiently. And that should always include someone with little prior knowledge of the topic, able to provide objectivity, and to whom those editing the article will listen. Carcharoth (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by MastCell ^Talk at 18:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Will Beback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([19])
• ImperfectlyInformed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([20])
• IRWolfie- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([21])
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) ([22])
• Thryduulf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([23])

(The list of affected users is simply a list of those who commented in the bottom subthread of this discussion. I've also posted a general note in that thread notifying readers of this request).

In the TimidGuy ban appeal case, Will Beback (talk · contribs) was indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. In March 2013, Will stated on his talk page that he had appealed the ban to ArbCom, and that his appeal had been rejected ([24]).

Pursuant to this lengthy but inconclusive discussion, I am requesting the release of the simple vote count by which Will's appeal was declined (that is, a tally of which Arbs supported, opposed, or abstained on the appeal). Failing that, I am requesting a concise explanation of why such a tally cannot be released.

I am not requesting the release of any privacy-sensitive information, although of course individual Arbitrators are free to comment on their reasoning if they choose. MastCell ^Talk 18:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, I am not asking for the release of any internal deliberations. A simple "yes", "no", or "no comment" next to each Arb's name would suffice. If such a process didn't take place, then perhaps a one-word summary of each Arb's position is not too much ask. Failing that, perhaps you could explain why this information needs to remain secret. Finally, while I understand that you believe a vote tally "serves no purpose", a number of editors in good standing have requested the information as a matter of accountability, and clearly believe that it serves that purpose. MastCell ^Talk 20:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of any precedent for such a request having any effect on ArbCom, and suggest that iteration of the same points is unlikely to have different results from the request made a short time back. While I am in favour of following "process" I find multiple requests are unlikely to result in much at all, other than many hours and many thousands of characters of discussion leading nowhere. I see no procedural, policy, or guideline basis for demanding vote tallies. Collect (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmh: We ask questions about policy views of the candidates - see my ACE2012 page if you do not understand how the process works -- from answers we get, we can determine the philosophy of the candidates. Voting on the basis of political positions on any specific given case is going to be a remarkably bad way to make such decisions indeed. Collect (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@WG -- this page is not about me, though you seem to think ad hom asides mean anything. For the record, WBB and I intersect on about 4% of all articles I have worked on ... many of which do not have us editing anywhere near the same time. I have never kept any "enemies list" at any point, and for you to suggest that I have impure reasons for saying that ArbCom has no precedent for this sort of action is asinine. And, in fact, ought to be removed as having nothing at all to do with the requests being presented. Collect (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback's ban occurred in public (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal/Proposed_decision#Will_Beback:_remedies for the vote tally) largely as a result of public evidence, presented above the decision. We know the original story. Even if we don't know what Will's emails to Jimbo looked like, ArbCom unanimously affirmed that Will Beback emailed Jimbo with allegations, and so on. It is unclear why the ban appeal needs to have special treatment such that even the vote tally needs to be kept secret. The denied appeal was never revealed to the community and no official statement was made; Will Beback said he also did not receive an explanation in its rejection. Will Beback apologized at length at his talkpage after the appeal denial (we don't know what his communications looked like, but he has said "I would be happy for any of my statements to the ArbCom to be made public"). Regardless of the result of this request, I intend to edit the policy and open a RfC on the change (I'll hold off so we don't have too many pots on the fire). There is, incidentally, precedent for revealing votes when the appeal is successful (such as Russavia's unblock appeal tally currently at WT:BASC).

On a larger issue, the purpose behind this goes back to Churchill's quote (now a cliche) that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried" (called the Churchill Hypothesis in academic literature). ArbCom members have expressed concern about politicizing, and I understand that there is some purpose to being more deliberative than an angry mob. However, ArbCom is elected, and we need to know the votes to hold them accountable for their positions.

On a further note, this position of not allowing Will to have a second chance, or even a hint of a public hearing, is plain discouraging to other long-term editors as it suggests a basic lack of fairness and respect for those who have dedicated many hours into improving this encyclopedia. I should also note that I proposed a compromise: a revote, in public, with no requirement to repeat the prior vote. II | (t - c) 20:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration policy: Committee deliberations are often held privately though the Committee will make public detailed rationales for decisions related to cases, unless the matter is unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal or similar reasons. (emphasis mine) While I agree the "working notes" of committee should remain private, a consensus summary statement and vote tallies doesn't seem unreasonable per committee policy. Did the committee make any public announcement? I've reviewed the Timid Guy case and AC/N and am not seeing any. NE Ent 21:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd. The scope of the committee does not extend to redefining commonly used English words. It should either follow the policy as written or change the policy to follow practice. The former is preferrable per the research quoted in last October's signpost

ensuring participation and transparency is crucial for maintaining the stability of self-governing communities.
— Schroeder, Wagner, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology^[1]

NE Ent 22:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies, as II has pointed out, Arbcom already releases tallies. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio Are you suggesting that a clarification about a decision made by arbcom related to a case should not be done here? Are you suggesting that this appeal is not a decision related to a case? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad I am sure they did vote in good faith, which is why I don't understand why other arbs are declining this measure. The alternative is, that Arbs who have declined to comment will be asked for clarification at the next election in the questions; the tin will be kicked down the road but for no apparent reason that I can discern. It isn't as though people are going to start waving pitchforks at the arbs. The justification that tallies can't be given because it violates a sacred trust or some such just doesn't appear to add up, particularly considering that other tallies have been released. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps a partial tally could be released, with those refusing to release their position noted as such? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• How many sitting arbs actually voted? IRWolfie- (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuchs; perhaps instead of supporting a release, you could just clarify which way you voted? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support the request that the vote tally be released. If the candidates stand for election again, there are editors who may want to support or oppose based on this issue alone, so we need the information to be an informed electorate.

I would like to add an additional request, namely that the committee agree to re-hear an appeal from Will now in public. I understand from the BASC page that once an appeal is decided, the committee "will not revisit it earlier than six months except at the request of a sitting arbitrator." I'm therefore asking that one sitting arbitrator agree to ask the committee to hear Will's appeal again now, given that the circumstances of his first appeal have caused concern.

Roger suggested below that Will do this, but as he can't edit he's not able to request it here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know nought about TimidGuy or Will Beback and why they were banned. However, on the face of it, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask for the vote on the appeal. Straw poll or formal vote, one hopes that the process was clear enough to make this information readily available. To RogerDavis's point below, it appears that all that is requested is a tally of votes, not for the release of information "lock, stock and barrel". --regentspark (comment) 01:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for public rehearing

I have made public and private apologies for my past behavior,[25][26][27] and committed to not repeating the same mistakes. Despite that, my appeal was denied without explanation or indication of how the committee voted. Since then I have seen various, sometimes conflicting reasons for the denial, or the initial ban, and unclear statements as to whether or not the committee even voted on my appeal. For those reasons, I am requesting a public rehearing of my appeal to my ban which resulted from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal. This is per the invitation of Roger Davies.[28]   Will Beback  talk  02:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posted here by Will. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A number of people have commented that if we do not like the decisions made by arbcom we should vote in different arbcom members. The implication seems to be that the only input we should get is that of voting every couple of years. But how to vote when decisions and positions are held in secret? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While most arbitrators have commented. It is unclear how many of them weighted in on this specific case. For those who are clear and commented many thanks. I am trying to tabulate the positions here [29] If i get any of them wrong feel free to correct me / add to the discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Summary:

• Carchroth's final comment at the WBB Arb Ban Appeal was: "the best way to get a formal response from the full committee, if not satisfied with what is said here, is indeed to post at WP:ARCA.”
• So MastCell filed this ARCA case saying: “I am requesting the release of the simple vote count by which Will's appeal was declined (that is, a tally of which Arbs supported, opposed, or abstained on the appeal)”. It seems to me that through simple addition, the purpose of this case has been achieved:

1. Risker stated at the WBB pseudo RfC: “For the record, I did not vote on Will Beback's unban request, and I opposed banning him in the original case.”
2. At the WBB Ban Appeals case AGK, Silk Tork, Carchroth, Roger Davies and Nuclear Warfare all made their views clear.
3. And here at this WBB ARCA case NewYorkBrad, Timotheus Canens, Salvio giuliano and David Fuchs have added their views.
4. Worm That Turned is currently listed as an inactive Arb.
5. So that leaves only two arbs that have not yet self-released their “vote”: Courcelles and Kirill Lokshin. Those that feel a strong need to hear from Courcelles or Kirill Lokshin on this matter may approach them on their user talk pages and pursue their statements in that way.

With this in mind it would appear that the WBB ban appeal issue, which has been pursued in five separate venues, involving more than 100 editors, Admins and Arbitrators, has run its course. (Note: The five venues are: WBB's private request via email, WBB's talk page, WBB's psudeo RfC in Doc James' sandbox, Arb Ban Appeals and here.)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note Collect's procedural/policy/guideline-based opposition; and note also the history of his interactions with WB at article talk pages, where WB clearly does not suffer Collect's debating—or editing—tactics gladly. (The discussion here is representative, e.g. where WB comments: Collect, you haven't even bothered to respond to two different compromise offers. You haven't explained how you decided to chose the items on the list. You've brushed aside my policy-based concerns and falsely accused me of objecting to the material based purely on not liking it. And you've engaged in edit warring to keep your preferred version in the article. That is not good editing behavior. [. . .] As for the assertion of a "clear consensus", I don't know if that's intended to be humorous. It's so absurd that I have to take it as a joke. If there were a consensus there would not be this long thread and the award section would not be the subject of edit warring.) Nevertheless, precedent or no, the Arbs are perfectly capable of responding to this request, and it's important they do so, not least because, as SlimVirgin has said, when Arbs stand for reelection there are editors who may want to support or oppose based on this issue. This main narrative thread so far is one of evasion and obfuscation. It's time for full accountability and clarity. Where there's a will there's a way. Writegeist (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this committee no longer believes in accountability or transparency. Your reasoning basically comes down to "we don't want to release this information; we get to keep secrets". Fine. People here who rightly think we ought to have access to this info for our voting purposes: instead, vote out these politickers who are obstructing transparency. Though frankly, if they had any decency as Wikipedians, they'd either quit obstructing or resign from this joke of a committee. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So this was a straw poll, not a formal vote? I'm a bit confused why the committee would do this for such a significant matter as the unbanning or not of a long-term contributor banned on fairly serious grounds. I do thank those arbs who have revealed their own actions on this issue, but I still find this tendency not to make it easy to know what's going on behind the scenes to be unnecessarily secretive and obfuscatory. I would really like to see a more transparent committee that clearly descends from its crystal fortress to tell us what it's doing more often. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, I'm afraid "forthcoming" is not how I would describe this committee's approach to this particular issue at all. I'm not targetting you, as you've been clear enough on yours, but it's certainly taken a while for all this information to come out. I'm hardly the only one here saying that the committee's transparency here's been suboptimal, either. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with SilkTork. If the "discussion was held on the understanding that it was held in camera" then the Arbs should keep it in camera unless there is unanimous agreement by everybody who contributed to the discussion to change that understanding. That surely satisfies MastCell's request for "a concise explanation of why such a tally cannot be released". MOMENTO 23:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Heim, "I'm a bit confused why the committee would do this [a straw poll rather than a formal vote] for such a significant matter". My understanding is that the straw poll was just to establish the current state of play - i.e. whether there was sufficient in principle support for allowing TimidGuy WillBeBack back with conditions to make it worthwhile working out what those conditions would be. If there had been sufficient support then those conditions would be developed and then a formal vote held to determine whether to accept him back if he agreed to the conditions. However as there was no such support nobody thought it worth wasting their and their colleagues time in proceeding further. It is analogous to the way the British House of Commons (and presumably similar legislative bodies) work - the proposal is put to members by the speaker for an auditory straw poll, only if there is not a clear majority for or against will a formal vote be held. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thinko error above corrected (s/TimidGuy/WillBeBack/). Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is obviously something more to this story than the Arbitration Committee is willing to tell us, and I imagine it must involve some very private information which likely pertains to someone's real life identity, or could otherwise cause serious harm if revealed to the public. That is the only conceivable justification I can think of for this complete lack of transparency.

Even though it's referred to as a social construct, a ban is a preventative measure. It is only applied when someone's contributions are detrimental to the well being of Wikipedia's integrity, whether through long-term disruptive editing or the endangerment of other contributors (among other possible reasons). What harm could possibly be done by allowing Will Beback to return? He's been banned for a year, and everyone knows what he did. We are all aware of Will's Machiavellian attempt to get his adversaries blocked. He'll never see the light of adminship again. But what threat is he to anyone now? Does he really have any sway? After being gone for a whole year, I doubt very highly that Will would do the same things that got him into this mess in the first place, even if his apology strikes some people as insincere (I personally think he meant what he said).

This ban serves no purpose at this point. Justice has been served. Whether Will remains unrepentant or unapologetic for his actions is his prerogative. Community consensus is not against his return; if you look through the opposes at Jmh649's recent RfC, you'll notice that most of them are merely against tarnishing the legitimacy of Wikipedia's most powerful dispute resolution process by overturning one of its rulings in such an ad hoc manner, yet they say virtually nothing about the merits of the case itself. Meanwhile, the majority voiced support for lifting the site ban. Waiting six more months before allowing another appeal smacks of process for process's sake, which is one of the most dangerous precedents we could set. If nothing else, it will seriously harm editor retention. Who wants to be part of a community where the rules are more important than the people they're applied to?

Finally, I'm not a fan of how cryptic ArbCom is about this case. It's one thing to withhold confidential information from the public, but it is something else entirely for the committee to give non-answers to basic questions and then tell everyone to just move along and go back to what they were doing. I understand that the job is much harder than people may think, and arbitrators are given virtually no gratitude for the essential services that they provide. Nevertheless, we need a transparent ArbCom; this opacity serves only to further alienate themselves from the rest of the community.

To put it in perspective, if the Arbitration Committee simply issued a statement where they described Will Beback's appeal as lacking in substance, or if they mentioned "recent developments" which cannot be released to the public for privacy reasons, then I could rest easy. I may still disagree with their decision, but they know more about the case than I do, so I'd be willing to trust their judgment. This air of secrecy gives me more than a modicum of unease. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding from what I have read is that there was WP:Consensus in the committee not to lift the ban, and various concerns were shared with the filer of the appeal. If no formal vote was taken, no formal vote was taken, and votes are clearly not the only way to determine things. I don't see any substantiated representation that the User was not in fact apprised of both the concerns and the consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Decline. It wasn't a vote tally, it was a discussion held on the understanding that it was held in camera. Also, such a vote tally serves no purpose. Will can appeal again in six months, and hopefully when he does, he will address the concerns that have been shared with him. That is the appropriate way of dealing with this matter. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline release of tallies. Tallies in straw polls are informal documents created purely for the purpose of seeing which way the wind is blowing. They help They are part of the process of deliberating. What's more, they are rarely binary and usually express nuanced thoughts and positions. By releasing tallies, the committee would be releasing, in effect, private working papers. The committee handles too much sensitive stuff to establish a precedent that it should disclose deliberations lock, stock and barrel whenever the torches and pitchforks come out. If something is done in private with a reasonable and legitimate expectation of privacy, it's private. On the other hand, there has never been a problem with individual arbitrators stating, should they wish to do, what their position is on a particular issue.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @II. The obvious thing to do is for WBB to request a review of his ban here. I have no difficulty with that at all and it mystifies me why this hasn't been done. Instead we've got this request based purely on procedural stuff, which isn't really of that much significance. (I've added "release of tallies" to my Decline above, to make it clearer what I'm declining.)  Roger Davies ^talk 21:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• If MastCell wants to factor this failure to unban Will Beback into his vote come December 2013/4, he should be able to. I am disappointed in Arbitrators who opined that the appeal ought to be dismissed and are choosing not to reveal that fact to the public. NW (Talk) 20:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• MastCell, this is not what clarification/amendment requests are for. In my opinion, if you wish to know how an individual arb voted, you should ask him on his talk page. That said, I believe that a more important question for Will to ask would be "why was my appeal declined?", so that he can take that into account when appealing next. This request should be archived. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • NE Ent, the policy you quote only refers to cases, not to appeals; to my knowledge, the Committee has never made a public announcement whenever an appeal gets declined (considering BASC receives many appeals per week, that would be unwieldy). Declined appeals are usually only discussed with the appellant. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you suggesting that this appeal is not a decision related to a case? I believe that, according to current practice, appeals are not decisions related to cases, at least not in the sense meant by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Transparency and confidentiality: declined appeals have never been publically discussed. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• My internal comment when we considered this appeal in February was, in substance: "For us to decline this appeal, this long after the decision was issued and despite Will Beback's note to us, would be to say that Will Beback is one of Wikipedia's worst editors: that there is no set of restrictions and no amount of guidance that we could provide that would allow him to edit productively and within policy on any topic; or that the way he crossed the line with respect to TimidGuy was so unforgiveable that, to revive and modify a well-known phrase, he can never again be a Wikipedian. Given Will Beback's record of contributions, and despite his various failings, I am not prepared to say that." Accordingly, my vote was to grant the appeal and allow Will Beback to return, subject to appropriately tailored restrictions on his editing to reduce the likelihood of further problems. Because the majority voted to decline the appeal, we did not reach the issue of what the appropriate conditions for a return might have been. I do not feel at liberty to set forth the votes or comments of my colleagues, but I would stress that each of them commented and voted in good faith based on his or her evaluation of the original case and the appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I didn't vote in the appeal because large parts of the appeal challenges the findings made in the original arbitration case, but I was unable to find the time to fully examine and evaluate the voluminous public and private evidence and discussions related to that case, and hence could not possibly reach an informed decision. As to whether the tally should be released, I'll defer to my colleagues who have actually voted in the matter. T. Canens (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There's no policy reason to release tallies for ban appeals. On occasion, we have used more formal votes as a clearer way of seeing where the arbs stand (for instance, if there are a number of options for unblock conditions, etc). But that's not applied retroactively, nor should it. As to entertaining Will's appeal earlier than six months, I don't see any reason why the consensus (or, depending on how you look at it, lack of consensus) that he should be unblocked even on narrow conditions would have changed, especially as a result of this carousel of RfCs, noticeboard posts and clarification requests. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with T. Canens that finding the time to fully examine and evaluate the voluminous public and private evidence and discussions related to that case is indeed a problem. If arbitrators were expected to review even recent cases with the expectation of reversing or overturning them, the workload would be too much (some ban appeals that focus on righting past injustices as perceived by the appellant would require reviewing years and years of e-mail and on-wiki edits, which is just not possible). It is much better to take an approach whereby banned editors accept or move on from the details of a case, and accept that a return to editing will need to be under restrictions, and then gradually request those restrictions be lifted (rather than argue about them at the time of requesting a return to editing). On this particular matter, I agree with David Fuchs. There needs to be an acceptance that this appeal has failed, and a recognition that this formal on-wiki stage is the last step in the process of seeking clarification on the appeal. I do think that a more formal response here, as opposed to the ones provided at WT:BASC, was needed, but that should now be an end to the matter until the six months has elapsed. tldr: what SilkTork said. Carcharoth (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I very much believe that each arbitrator should state whether they voted for or against Will Beback's appeal, but that cannot happen without a unanimous vote by the arbitrators to do so. My own vote, as I have repeatedly stated elsewhere (mostly at WT:BASC in one long comment), was to decline his appeal. More broadly speaking, I think people should be moving on from Will's appeal to other things, and that they are not only compounds my concern that this particular matter has become deeply politicised. Will can appeal his ban again in the autumn, and for now I have nothing more to say about this matter. AGK [•] 20:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Heimstern: Banned users' appeals are generally heard off-site by e-mail in order to avoid a distraction to the project. I think we quite rightly confine their appeals to the committee's mailing lists; can you imagine the enormous drama and time-sink that would be created if we were to hear every ban appeal on-site? It would be a circus, and it would waste our editors' time. We are forthcoming when there is an acute community interest in an appeal (in this case, it looks like every arbitrator has said how they voted on the appeal in question), and we consult the community when we aren't sure what to do, but I don't think it's fair to characterise our practices in the way you have done. AGK [•] 11:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem here, is that when it is known how a matter fell -- in this case, failing, and a non-trivial number of arbitrators state how they opined on an internal straw poll no one expected to be published, it soon becomes very easy to make accurate and reasonable guesses to how the other people voted. What should have happened, and what I really thought was going to happen based on the emails I've read, was that another vote was going to be taken, as an actual vote, as opposed to e-mail expression of opinions with the clear and universal knowledge it would either be on-wiki from the start, or published at the end. This is even a harder case than usual, because so many of the reasons Will needed to be banned in the first place are unpublishable. All that said, in this case I think at least a majority of us are fine with releasing the thrust of our comments -- I hesitate greatly to call what took place a vote -- I did oppose lifting the ban. Courcelles 23:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]