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

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion on stipulation of TimidGuy's COI

1) The general nature of TimidGuy's alleged COI shall be stipulated by the parties so as to make clear the nature of the problem without disclosing personally identifying information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't think this needs to be a motion, but agree with the general idea. PhilKnight (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It should be quite possible to document inappropriate editing without disclosing personally identifying information. Risker (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe this is even relevant until and unless inappropriate editing is documented. Jclemens (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

To the extent that the ArbCom wishes to hold this case semi-publicly, information on the nature and severity of the conflict of interest needs to be stated publicly so that members of the community can make sense of the issues. It's my understanding that TimidGuy has not disputed that aspect of the case.   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't yet responded to any facet of your 1,700 words of evidence. It's my understanding that I have until December 28 to present evidence and to respond to evidence against me. Is that correct? TimidGuy (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. However this concerns how we can safely discuss the nature of your (alleged) role without violating your privacy. If you wish to deny that role then you can (in which case saying you have that role wouldn't violate your privacy). This public motion is a mirror to a private proposal sent via email, which you should have received. For obvious reasons, this needs to be discussed off-Wiki.   Will Beback  talk  11:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

(BTW, the evidence I sent to the ArbCom via email is the same evidence I sent in September, with a small addition, so TimidGuy has had three months to review it.)   Will Beback  talk  11:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently there is a dispute about what the exact reason for Jimmy Wales' ban of TimidGuy. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Evidence#Kww's evidence. I'd request that we quote his exact reason, as expressed in his email of 11:51 PM, Sep 7, 2011. It does not contain personally identifying information.   Will Beback  talk  05:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:NuclearWarfare

Proposed principles

Conflict of interest

1) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a guideline, strongly discourages editing regarding an organization by those associated with the organization, especially in a public relations capacity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

That principle is from five years ago. Surely prior committees have had something to say on COI since then? After all, the guideline has changed markedly since it was passed. Jclemens (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This is overly stringent. To give an example, I occasionally do voluntary work at Chester Zoo, and have made a couple of minor edits to the article. As this stands, my actions would be considered 'wrong', when in all honesty, I don't consider they were problematic. I think a copyedit along the lines of 'strongly discourages making substantive edits regarding an organization by those associated with the organization, especially in a public relations capacity" would be an improvement. PhilKnight (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This overstates the current version of the guideline and does not include significant other aspects of it, but I can foresee a principle related to this issue. Risker (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Noted,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. Editors seem to read the COI guidelines as suggesting that they merely edit with care rather than strongly discouraging them from editing at all. While non-controversial edits like fixing vandalism are rarely an issue, substantive or contentious edits, especially concerning POV issues, should not be made by COI editors. Instead, they should make use of the talk page to present their views on the article text.   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: I think it's important to recognize that there are different types of COI. Being an enthusiastic volunteer is one kind of COI. Being a longterm public relations officer is a very different kind.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Taken from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education. NW (Talk) 19:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Honesty is expected

2) While there is no prohibition against editing anonymously or pseudonymously, users who have a heavy conflict of interest in a topic area they are active in are expected to disclose this publicly or to the Arbitration Committee. If asked directly, they are expected to answer honestly and not intentionally understate their true conflict of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I do not see where a conflict of interest must be disclosed, even per request. We had something along these lines come up earlier this year, in a matter never discussed on-wiki, and couldn't find it in policy. Has anything changed, and/or did we miss something? Jclemens (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

@Will, unless you can find me an "are expected" somewhere in existing policy, this will not fly as written. "Strongly encouraged" and "expected" may seem very close, but they are not identical. If we were to upgrade "strongly encouraged" to "expected" by ArbCom fiat, we would be making policy, which is outside our remit. Principles are to reflect current policy and guidelines, not what committee members or parties wish they said. That would be a matter for an RfC. Jclemens (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

@Will #2, you're digging yourself in deeper, I'm afraid. While dishonesty is indeed frowned upon, remaining silent, especially on a question where there is no expectation of an answer, is not dishonest. Please start providing diffs of specific instances where TimidGuy has edited contrary to policy, rather than stringing together inapplicable or misapplied policies or guidelines. Jclemens (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I also don't see where it says this. Looking at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Declaring an interest, the language used in the guideline is very different. PhilKnight (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to NW for the link to WP:HONESTY. PhilKnight (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Too strong. There is no obligation on the part of ANY editor to answer personal questions about themselves, and they cannot be required to "out" themselves. Risker (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm very concerned about where this might lead. Currently, there is absolutely no requirement anywhere in policy that editors provide factual personal information to rebut, for instance, interrogatories by their ideological opponents and that's how it should be. Instead, the focus is on the edits not the editor: not only does this keep things depersonalised but it also avoids speculation about motive, which strike me neither as productive use of anyone's time nor as an appropriate exercise in a collaborative venture.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. Giving dishonest answers to direct questions about COI is obviously deceptive behavior and exacerbates COI problems. Announcing a COI does not require divulging any other personal information. The editor need merely say "I have a (minor/significant) COI on this topic." BLPs are a special case and exemptions may be necessary, though having BLP subjects editing their bios under pseudonyms is probably a bad idea.   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

@Jclemens - the proposed principle says that editors "are expected" to follow what could be considered best practices, not that they "must" do so. The COI guideline says that editors are "strongly discouraged" from editing in areas of conflict, that they "are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests", and that those "who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia". I think this principle is entirely consistent with the existing guideline.   Will Beback  talk  08:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

@Jclemens - While WP:COI is a guideline, WP:CIVIL is a policy, and it clearly states that lying is an uncivil behavior. Denying the existence of a COI when one exists is dishonest. Taken together, the contentious editing of topics where there is a COI, the failure to disclose that COI voluntarily, and the denial of COI when questioned add up to a violation of basic expectations of good faith editing.   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

@Jclemens - I sent my evidence to the ArbCom back in September and twice again this week. Do you need me to send it a fourth time? As for the policies on COI and honesty, if editors don't wish to reveal their COI then the honorable alternative is to avoid editing in the topic. WP:AVOIDCOI.   Will Beback  talk  15:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

@Risker and @Roger Davies - Editors with conflicts of inerest are expected (AKA "strongly discuouraged") to avoid editing in their area of conflict. They are also expected to disclose those conflict if they choose to edit. The question here is whether, despite those clear statements in the guideline, it is acceptable for a PR professional and public writer on the topic can make contentious POV edits while hiding behind a pseudonym without any limitations.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. NW (Talk) 19:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As a general principle, i.e. outside the context of the present case, I'm a bit worried about the tension with general privacy concerns and the leniency that we want to show to BLP subjects. Also, we have problems both with lots of undisclosed COI editing and with frequent hysterical overreactions to disclosed COI editing. I think that requires more nuanced language to avoid merely shifting the balance and giving ammunition to the latter for no commensurate practical benefit regarding the former. Hans Adler 23:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Bullet point #5 of Wikipedia:Honesty. To be honest, I'm surprised that this is even controversial. It seems like it is covered under the most fundamental of policies. NW (Talk) 18:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Claiming to be someone who you are not is one thing, not admitting that you are who you are is something quite different, and not proactively disclosing it to Arbcom is yet another thing. These three points should not be confused. Hans Adler 20:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Citing oneself

3) Self-published sources on Wikipedia are generally only acceptable if they are produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. It is generally considered inappropriate to cite non-peer reviewed content which one has originally written on an external website, especially for a contentious topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This seems to cover WP:SPS but not WP:SELFPUB, the following section. I can see how this might be relevant in establishing a pattern of editing against policy, but whether or not this is included as a final principle may depend on whether such editing has been effectively established by the presented evidence. Jclemens (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This is probably worth including. Regarding Jclemens comment above, if needed another principle could be added. PhilKnight (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. However there may be a better way of addressing the principles involved with citing and promotion in this case.   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. NW (Talk) 19:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Authority of Jimbo Wales

4) Jimbo Wales has historically had a great deal of power on Wikipedia, as described by Wikipedia:Role of Jimbo Wales. This included the power to ban editors, desysop administrators, promulgate policy without community agreement and appoint Arbitrators. Over time, Wales' power has gradually been devolved to portions of the Community. Notably, Wales' agreed in 2009 to "give up the ability to block other users. However, the banning policy currently states that "Jimbo Wales retains the authority to ban users", which is accurate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Something along these lines is appropriate, I expect, although it may take a quite different form by the time we're done recounting relevant history. Jclemens (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably worth including as background. PhilKnight (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. Simple statement of written policies.   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. NW (Talk) 19:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Authority of the Arbitration Committee

5) The Arbitration Committee was created by Jimbo Wales in 2004. Although its authority originally came as a delegation of power from Jimbo Wales, since June 2011, its authority has come from the Community's ratification of the Arbitration Policy. The Committee may hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users. Its decisions may be appealed only to the Wikimedia Foundation or Jimbo Wales, unless the case involves Wales' actions. The Wikimedia Foundation has historically declined to become involved in internal site matters, leaving the Arbitration Committee as functionally the body of last resort in matters where Jimbo Wales is involved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Like the above, something will probably be put forth on this topic, although it may take a very different form than what is presented here. Jclemens (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jclemens; something along these lines is probably worth including. PhilKnight (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing in the Arbitration policy about appeal to the WMF.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. Simple statement of written policies.   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. NW (Talk) 19:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Roger, the draft terms of use states "The community has primary responsibility to address violations of Project policy and other similar issues. At the Wikimedia Foundation, we rarely intervene in community decisions about policy and its enforcement." This implies that the WMF may intervene and overrule anything the community does if necessary, which I think has been the historical understanding. NW (Talk) 13:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This principle indicates ArbCom authority now derives solely from the community, but I contend this is not true. While Jimbo continues to appoint Arbitrators, while "elections" are presented as advisory only with Jimbo able to refuse to appoint candidates supported by the community, while Jimbo retains access to and remains able to participate in all off-wiki ArbCom communications, able to influence (and potentially direct) as he sees fit, and theoretically able to dismiss ArbCom members or even disband the Committee, the notion that ArbCom authority is solely community based is flawed. It is, for example, far from clear that the community could disband ArbCom should that be the community's will yet such authority is fundamental to delegation. The community has absolutely no mechanism to force a misbehaving arbitrator from office, yet this too is integral to a revocable grant of authority; only the peer pressure of her or his colleagues or Jimbo's power can allegedly force a removal, demonstrating clearly that Jimbo's powers are an on-going restraint on ArbCom. I think it would be great if ArbCom did derive its power solely from the community but that will not be the case without a recall mechanism, the modification of elections to be binding, and the removal of Jimbo from any position to influence ArbCom off-wiki beyond the options available to every editor. With Jimbo on the ArbCom mailing list no claim of complete independence from Jimbo is credible. EdChem (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Nothing yet. NW (Talk) 19:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Template 1) Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others: Template 2) {text of proposed finding of fact} Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Ban replaced with a topic ban

1) The ban placed on User:TimidGuy is vacated. TimidGuy is indefinitely banned from all pages related to the Transcendental Meditation movement, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Obviously I'll wait until after all the evidence has been presented before deciding, however this is probably an option worth considering. PhilKnight (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. The behavioral issues concerning TimidGuy are solely with his editing of TM movement articles.   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed as a possible option. NW (Talk) 19:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Support. Fladrif (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Alexandria

Proposed principles

Transparency

1) Transparency is important, unless private data is involved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Too general to be effective guidance on how conflicting principles--NPOV and privacy--can be managed to create a top-notch encyclopedia, free from both inappropriate influence and witch hunts. Feel free to try again, but in this case, I'm afraid terseness works against this principle. Jclemens (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Does this mean transparency in editing articles, or in handling ArbCom cases? Perhaps the meaning of "transparency" could be expanded upon to clarify the proposed principle.   Will Beback  talk  00:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Alexandria (chew out) 20:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

On wiki notification

2) Except in certain circumstances (such as the blocking of socks revealed via the checkuser tool), editors should be notified of a block and/or ban on wiki.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Interesting. I don't recall seeing this facet of the case protested by any of the parties, actually. Worth considering, although it's certainly not a slam dunk to say that private evidence should result in public naming-and-shaming. Jclemens (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, if an editor is banned privately, they should be given the option of it being posted on-wiki. PhilKnight (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Alexandria: Perhaps the way to achieve the transparency you seek is to suggest that off-wiki bans should always be accompanied by on-wiki blocks.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I'm not sure of any reason why TimidGuy shouldn't have been notified on wiki. Alexandria (chew out) 20:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

@Jclemens: It's frustrating to me as an admin when someone supposedly has been banned via off wiki decision and there's nothing to note of it. It makes the enforcement that much harder because well, how do we even know there's a ban in place? Granted Timid did take the high road and honor the ban when clarified to him it was indeed a ban. Alexandria (chew out) 16:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

@Roger: Pretty much. Alexandria (chew out) 16:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Template

X) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

TimidGuy's Block Log

1) TimidGuy's block log is clean.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Guerillero, I think the point here is that this was a ban without accompanying block. Many bans occur after a user has repeatedly failed to honor community consensus regarding behavioral expectations, and escalating blocks are a more typical progression than what has happened in this case. Jclemens (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Obvious. Alexandria (chew out) 20:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Why does this need to be stated? --Guerillero | My Talk 01:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Method of banning

2) TimidGuy was not blocked or banned on-wiki but instead banned over email by Jimbo Wales

Comment by Arbitrators:

Probably worth stating. PhilKnight (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Alexandria (chew out) 20:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

TimidGuy's ban

3) TimidGuy, despite not being blocked on wiki, honored the ban until approaching arbcom for appeal.

3.1) TimidGuy, despite not being blocked on wiki, largely honored the ban with the exception of two to six edits immediately following the ban until approaching arbcom for appeal. The edits in question may have happened without being aware of the ban.

3.2) TimidGuy, despite not being blocked on wiki, largely honored the ban with the exception of two edits (one of which was a minor edit) following the ban until approaching arbcom for appeal. The edits in question were made due to confusion on TimidGuy's part on whether or not the ban was in effect. Once it was clarified that the ban was in effect he stopped editing until requesting the case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Note that after Jimmy's initial ban there was a fairly strong response from Arbcom to Jimmy that led me to believe I wasn't banned. I subsequently made two edits, which were immediately reported to Jimmy by NW. And then upon further discussion between Jimmy and Arbcom, it was clear that I was indeed banned, after which I stopped editing. TimidGuy (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Alexandria (chew out) 20:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely true. The ban was sent out via email by Jimbo on 8 December; TG made six edits after that. But it's close enough. NW (Talk) 20:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Arguably 2-6 edits. It really depends on when he got/read the email. 3.1 proposed. Alexandria (chew out) 20:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

3.2 proposed. Alexandria (chew out) 16:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I am highly skeptical that this is true. TimidGuy has used sockpuppets in the past to edit the TM articles. He admitted that he acted as a meatpuppet when he wrote the original TM article, submitting material under his name written by an unidentified third person. Since his ban, other editors, long dormant or inactive, suddenly became active aggressive editors on the TM articles, advancing arguments and making statements and pushing the same POV he has been pushing for years. Coincidence? I doubt it. Fladrif (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

No on-wiki notification

4) There was no notification on wiki of the ban by any editor included in the email.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Alexandria (chew out) 20:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Template

X) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Fladrif

Proposed findings of fact

Repeated COIN Proceedings

1) TimidGuy's editing behavior on articles relating to Transcendental Meditation has been the subject of numerous discussions at WP:COIN, dating back to 2007.[1]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Premature. This is not (yet?) in evidence,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Roger; findings are premature if the information hasn't been entered into evidence. As I have noted in my comments on the evidence talk page, I would expect to see diffs demonstrating issues that have occurred since the closing of the TM case in June 2010, because issues before that date had been addressed during that case. Risker (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

*DONE 12/16.[2]Fladrif (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Evidence about this has been submitted to the ArbCom. Parties have been forbidden from commenting on the evidence until further notice from the ArbCom. May I ask if the submitted evidence has been read by the ArbCom members who've commented here?   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Admission of a Conflict of Interest

2) TimidGuy has repeatedly acknowledged that he has a conflict of interest with respect to articles related to TM. [3]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Premature. This is not (yet?) in evidence,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

*DONE 12/16.[4]Fladrif (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Yes, this is in evidence.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

COIN Findings and Directives

3) TimidGuy was determined at COIN in 2007 to have a "clear and immediate conflict of interest" with respect to Transcendental Meditation-related articles, and advised that he should not edit those articles, but confine his activities to the talk pages of those articles.[5]

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is not (yet?) in evidence,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

*DONE 12/16[6]]Fladrif (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Please see the evidence already submitted.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Refusal to follow COIN Findings and Directives

4) TimidGuy has openly defied the directive from COIN that he not edit TM-related articles, claiming that there has never been a finding that he had a conflict of interest and that he had never been instructed not to edit the TM-related articles.[7]

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is not (yet?) in evidence,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

*DONE 12/16 [8]]Fladrif (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It is frustrating that ArbCom members are able to comment on the evidence but the parties are not.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sockpuppetry to advance positions

5) TimidGuy used an IP sockpuppet account to edit TM-related articles, deleting reliably sourced material critical of TM, inserting unsourced material favorable to TM, and otherwise engaging in disruptive editing. He dissembled about this to hide his sockpuppetry at the COIN Noticeboard, and then lied about it at the SPI investigation that led to the TM Arbcom before finally admitting it.[9][10]

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is not (yet?) in evidence,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

*DONE 12/16[11]Fladrif (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Please see follow the link provided - that's evidence.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Collaboration with TM Officials and Legal Threats

6) Timidguy consults with TM-Org officials regarding content of TM-related articles, including its General Counsel, and based thereon has made legal threats against other editors.[12][13][14][15][16][17]

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is not (yet?) in evidence,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

*DONE 12/16 [18]Fladrif (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Fladrif. This is from 2006, has there been any similar behaviour since June 2010? Risker (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The post TM ArbCom circumstances that led to TG's formal warning at AE[19], as noted on my evidence, shows that TG is, by his own admission, collaborating with MUM officials with respect to content on Wikipedia articles, manipulating source material, in very clear violation of WP:COI and the TM Arbcom. I am unaware of any further legal threats similar to those he posted in the past. Fladrif (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Fladrif, again...it seems that the diffs in that AE case are all from prior to the 2010 Arbcom case, and the result was to remind TG of the discretionary sanctions; no sanctions were imposed. I'm unclear why you think we should be retrying a case we already heard using the same evidence already submitted. Risker (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Reread it. Carefully this time. The actions in question were post-Arbcom. The only reason that a formal warning only was issued was because that was all that was requested by the complaining Admin at the time. Subsequent misconduct by TG resulted in a two-month ban from the TM Articles and a 1RR Restriction. The point is, TG has a COI; the TM ArbCom had no effect whatsoever on his editing behavior, resulting in two AE proceedings against him, each with sanctions imposed. Jimmy Wales' ban is the result of it being discovered that the true nature of TG's COI is not merely being a lowly member of the MUM faculty, but (or so I take from the discussions above), that he is some kind of professional PR flackweasel paid to promote TM on Wikipedia. Which explains why he is unable, pre-COIN, post-COIN, pre-ArbCom or post-ArbCom, to conform his editing behavior to the requirements of Wikipedia. Fladrif (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Yes, this is in the evidence.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

@Risker: 1) This is not a fresh case. It is just an appeal of a ban placed by Jimmy Wales. The relevant questions are whether Wales had the authority to place a ban, whether the ban was consistent with Wikipedia's written and unwritten policies, and whether there was reasonable cause for a ban.

2) Any admin could have placed a topic ban under the discretionary sanctions authorized by that case. TG was already warned, so no further bureaucratic steps were necessary.

3) The 2010 RFAR/TMM case involved 13 parties. Obviously, the committee's attention was not focused on TimidGuy alone as it is with this appeal. It is logical for TG's entire Wikipedia career to be reviewed since the allegation is that he has been a paid advocate since he started and since that was not known last year. Furthermore, it is apparent that the committee viewed some evidence in the best possible light. Now that we know that TimidGuy has been acting in bad faith, the committee should review the prior evidence in this new light. Also, the 2012 ArbCom which will review this appeal is substantially different from the 2010 committee. Many members of the 2012 committee will not have reviewed TG's editing history before, so it's appropriate to have a fresh review.   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If it is the Committee's intention to review and consider the entire editing history of the named parties, then it would be good for ArbCom to make this clear, so that those presenting evidence can expand their evidence presentations accordingly. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Administrative Enforcement following TM ArbCom

7) Following the TM Arbcom, TimidGuy was banned in AE for two months from editing TM-related articles, and placed on 1RR restriction for "obstructing consensus through persistent stonewalling and unconstructive debating." His editing behavior was found to be "a persistent effort...to block consensus by an endless row of objections of wikilawyering and nitpicking nature, aimed at deemphasizing the findings of studies critical of TM. Many of these objections, mostly about the correctness of summaries of the research literature proposed by other editors, appear to be patently without merit. Taken in isolation, such objections would probably count as normal good-faith content disagreements, but in the larger picture and given their constant, long-time effect of blocking effective consensus-building, they take on the character of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption, especially as he and the other editors who support his viewpoint are refusing to listen to independent outside input, which was successfully elicited by the RFC." [20]

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is not (yet?) in evidence,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

DONE 12/16 [21]Fladrif (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

@TimidGuy: If you want the topic ban clarified/vacated, you really ought to have queried it at the time.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Frankly, I wish Arbcom would take a look at this ban levied by Future Perfect and Cirt. They didn't give any diffs or point to any specific talk page discussion. It's over a year later and I still have no idea what specifically they were objecting to or which comments Future Perfect felt were "patently without merit." TimidGuy (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Are we expanding the scope of the case to review past AE cases?   Will Beback  talk  10:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Roger: with the greatest respect intended, your comment here, "If you want the topic ban clarified/vacated, you really ought to have queried it at the time." indicates in my mind how the world of AE may be out of sight of most arbitrators, they don;t know how difficult to impossible it is to be heard and judged fairly even to such a fundamental right as having a chance to speak , how difficult it is to know even where to be heard, and how "controlled" are the judgements. This is past and perhaps times have changed. I hope so. (olive (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC))

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: