Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
no
Line 803: Line 803:
:Comments:
:Comments:
:*Perhaps a way to get these diffs into perspective is to look at them as if they were allegations of socking. I don't suppose the community would tolerate so many separate reiterations of essentially the same issue in so many places and over so much time. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
:*Perhaps a way to get these diffs into perspective is to look at them as if they were allegations of socking. I don't suppose the community would tolerate so many separate reiterations of essentially the same issue in so many places and over so much time. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
::*Roger, this subject area resulted in an arbitration case and topic bans for some of the TM advocates. And it seemed to take several step before (thankfully) editing improved. It didn't arise ''de novo''. What we're proposing here is that a small group of like-minded editors could feasibly own and subvert material and cry "forum shopping" any time they were scrutinised. So, no, I don't think that is beneficial to the long-term production of a neutral encyclopedia. If someone edits outside of guidelines then it needs scrutiny. as for the comments on Sue and Jimbo's page, various editors generalise all the time based on specific problems they have - we see them complain generally of incivility, copyvio, OR, FRINGE, BLP or whatever and often there is a specific antecedent the editor is concerned about. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 20:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


===Template===
===Template===

Revision as of 20:33, 21 February 2012

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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

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

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

Expression error: Unexpected mod operator
Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority

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

Proposed motions

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

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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

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

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Jurisdiction

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

  • the hearing of appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users;
  • the handling of requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools; and
  • the resolution of private matters unsuitable for public discussion.
Support:
  1. From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope and responsibilities,  Roger Davies talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PhilKnight (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 17:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mixing up the first principle? Crazy talk! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Form of appeal

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

Support:
  1. Per usual practice,  Roger Davies talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PhilKnight (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 17:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • I'm not sure this doesn't require slight clarification. Cases by default are heard in public to the extent possible and appropriate, but appeals from banned (or long-term-blocked) users are often resolved (either by the full Committee or by BASC on the mailing list. The decision that an appeal should be addressed via a case, rather than in another fashion, involves the exercise of our discretion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of a ban made by Jimbo Wales

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

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PhilKnight (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 17:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is interesting, in that is one of the few direct powers that Jimbo still maintains as founder, most of the rest having been given up over the past few years. It's also interesting to note that the original version of the policy that enumerates this power contained a clause that this was a theoretical power not intended for use, which was later removed. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. If I recall correctly, Jimbo Wales indicated some time ago that he would no longer exercise his authority as an administrator to block users. This case reflects that he is regarding his authority to ban (in his special capacity) as distinct from that. I think it would be generally agreed that this reserved power should be exercised sparingly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Lack of further appeal

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

Support:
  1. This happens so infrequently, it's probably appropriate to remind all parties of this up front. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Needs to be said, although the enforcement section may not be the best place for it. Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. More a principle than a enforcement provision, but it needs to be said somewhere. Courcelles 19:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree with this. Also, concur this should be moved. PhilKnight (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 11:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. When it was decided (with Jimbo Wales' concurrence) that his actions involving individual users (e.g. to ban or desysop) were subject to review by this Committee, it was also decided that Jimbo Wales' reserved power to review this Committee's decisions could not apply where we reviewed one of his own rulings. The formulation in the Arbitration Policy is broader (as applied in this case it would apply to a theoretical appeal from a remedy involving Will Beback as opposed to a remedy involving TimidGuy, who was the subject of the original action that sparked this case), but it seems reasonable. As a copyedit, however, I would prefer a more positive wording: Perhaps "As provided in the Arbitration Policy, decisions of the Arbitration Committee may be appealed to Jimbo Wales, except when an action or decision by Jimbo Wales is itself under review" or similar. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • I'm willing to have this go into principles. The reason I put it here in "enforcement" is that it concerns the possible actions after the case closes. Jclemens (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Newyorkbrad. Thanks for the comment but that too has a slight element of instruction creep to it. The actual policy wording is "Remedies may be appealed to, and amended by, Jimbo Wales, unless the case involves Jimbo Wales' own actions". If there is to a copy-edit, I suggest it incorporates policy verbatim.  Roger Davies talk 18:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burden of proof and personal attacks

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

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PhilKnight (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 17:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. The principle as stated is correct as far as it goes, although I see a major difference between "personal attacks" as in "good-faith but excessive or unwarranted allegations of misconduct taken a step too far", as opposed to "personal attacks" how it is usually taken as synonymous with "unwarranted abusive name-calling." The important point is that (as I believe we've stated in the past), repeatedly making insufficiently supported allegations of serious misconduct is disruptive and is damaging to the editing environment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • I assume the thinking here is that we require evidence of wrong doing rather than the suspicion of it. One of the difficulties with COI is that there is an immediate assumption an editor will be violating NPOV, and so there is an atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust around an editor who has connections with an article, even when that editor declares their interest. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of interest

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

Support:
  1. From the current guideline,  Roger Davies talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PhilKnight (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 17:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This is how it currently is. Not as, perhaps it could be, or even should be. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. technically yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. True as a general statement. As is evident from this case and our other cases involving conflict-of-interest issues, there are many types of COI, of varying degrees of seriousness, and our response to COI editing needs to be based in part on a sense of proportionality. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Investigating conflicts of interest

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

Support:
  1. Per longstanding principle, policy takes precedence over guidelines.  Roger Davies talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PhilKnight (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 17:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. much of this in essence is true, but is oversimplified. I mean if it were completely literally true then WP:SPI is verboten....isn't it? The interplay between problematic editing and what we do about it contra privacy policy is not as simple. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • This statement, like the previous one, is generally true, but it may require some rewording, per Casliber. Actually, I don't think that the SPI board would be problematic in light of the principle, so much as that many discussions on the conflicts of interest noticeboard might be. Fred Bauder put it well in a principle that he wrote in a decision several years ago (I am paraphrasing slightly here): based on fundamental decisions that the community has made about how Wikipedia is to operate, there is tension between allowing anonymous editing and discouraging conflicts of interest that of necessity is imperfectly resolved. And often we address the most obvious, yet least harmful, conflicts of interest with the greatest force. Clearly, as reflected in the last remedy, this whole subject needs some rethinking by the community—yet for myself, I am not sure that much can change within the (on balance positive) constraints of how Wikipedia works. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Casliber: Perhaps the essential distinction is that WP:COI is a guideline and WP:SOCK is a policy. The WP:SPI apparatus is not verboten because it is specifically permitted in policy and has elaborate procedures (including a probable cause provision) in place to prevent abuse and gaming.  Roger Davies talk 18:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to accusations of conflicts of interest

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

Support:
  1. From the "COI" guideline,  Roger Davies talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PhilKnight (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 17:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Also agreeing with SilkTork's comment below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Focus on the edits not the editor

9) 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.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to various comments below, I've tweaked the principle by adding: "The usual exception is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process". Please revert if you disagree. Roger Davies talk 19:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm prepared to go along with this, however, perhaps a copyedit is needed. For example, in a Request for Comment on user conduct it's not only acceptable, but expected, to indicate in which areas a user's conduct has been problematic. PhilKnight (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. We focus on the edits until there is concern about the editor. It should be that we don't comment on the editor until there is a genuine reason for concern. However, I accept the general principle. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per PhilKnight, this should not be regarded as prohibiting comments regarding an editor's conduct made within a legitimate dispute resolution process. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The nice part of "focus on the edits" is that it provides a level playing field, with no advantage to doing "opposition research" on people, and no penalties for those who appropriately disclose their own conflicts of interest. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Courcelles 21:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. In general, yes. But with provisos per Silktork and PhilKnight. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Per SilkTork, PhilKnight, and Kirill. I won't insist on it, but a copyedit to reflect their comments might be useful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • COI encourages us to focus on the editor. If the concern is if an editor has a connection with the topic, then people are looking at the editor not the edits. We need to ensure articles are robust and trustworthy, and I understand the concerns people have regarding editors who have a close connection with an article, though we should look for robustness in the edits and the sources as that is where it matters. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

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

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I couldn't agree more. This applies to on and off wiki harassment. PhilKnight (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 17:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. It is worth reiterating the general rule that while our including a principle in a decision obviously suggests that the Committee finds the principle relevant to the case, it does not by itself represent a finding that a party to the case violated the principle. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Comments:

Battleground conduct

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

Support:
  1. Longstanding principle:  Roger Davies talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Again, I couldn't agree more. PhilKnight (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 17:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Although as we discussed in another recent case, there is a fine line between legitimately pursuing a concern until it is resolved, and pursuing it to an excessive extent reflecting a loss of one's sense of perspective. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Conduct unbecoming an administrator

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

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 17:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template

13) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus and nature of dispute

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

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 17:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jclemens (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Conflict of Interest guideline

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

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In other words, our role is to focus on the on-wiki activity, and not to investigate, or intrude into people's personal lives. PhilKnight (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes. In order to ensure that articles are robust and trustworthy we must focus on the edits and the sources, not on the editor. Indeed, to ensure robustness we should ignore the editor altogether, regardless of who they are. We must not be seduced into accepting or rejecting material from someone purely because of their standing either in real life or on Wikipedia. I am disappointed when I see GA reviewers accepting "on good faith" print sources they have not checked. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 17:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Not to mention that amateur investigations are entirely likely to result in improper conclusions, which can cause real world harm to people falsely accused. There is a defined investigations process for issues, which is limited by design to functionaries who have identified to the Wikimedia Foundation and vetted by the committee and/or community, or employees of the WMF who have their own vetting process. In no circumstances are non-functionary admins encouraged to try and do the work of functionaries sans tools. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. See also my comments on the principles. (As a sidenote, I don't necessarily agree with SilkTork about GA reviews, but let's not get into that here.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

TimidGuy: Background

TimidGuy: account history

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

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 17:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

TimidGuy: disclosure of COI

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

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 17:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It is also worth noting that the allegation made that TimidGuy was being paid for editing TM articles was based on these disclosures, and not on any additional evidence submitted privately. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This is one of the keys here. TG has been upfront of his CoI and it has been used as a hammer against him. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Proposed copyedit: after "has a conflict of interest", add "on the subject of transcendental meditation". Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call. Added,  Roger Davies talk 18:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

TimidGuy: previously topic-banned

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

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This turned out to be highly relevant to the case as there was very little problematic editing since the topic ban. PhilKnight (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 17:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Background info. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Will Beback: background

Will Beback: editing history

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

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Courcelles 17:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Will Beback: admonishments and block

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

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles 17:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Note that the previous account was disclosed publicly in Will Beback's 2006 run for Arbcom. Jclemens (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Thank you. The link is appropriate; and, as Jclemens notes, Will Beback has disclosed that previous account. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ban appeal

Site ban: background

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

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Courcelles 17:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The email correspondence, obviously, is available to the parties and the committee, but not to the public. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Site ban: TimidGuy's editing

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

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree there were only relatively minor problems since the topic ban. PhilKnight (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Courcelles 17:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is important. The committee has asked repeatedly for evidence of continued problems since the topic ban, and no significant issues were found or brought to the attention of the Committee. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. It has been claimed that it is in the accumulation of minor edits over a prolonged time that we see the bias, though that hasn't been proved. We tend to see TimidGuy removing negative bias rather than adding positive bias. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. We are not saying (at least I am not saying) that TimidGuy's editing has been perfect. But within the months leading up to the ban, no one has found a pattern of biased or conflicted editing that would have been likely to result in sanctions had the matter been addressed on-wiki through our normal processes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. placeholder. need to come back to this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

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

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, this happened. Not entirely convinced this is the best way to phrase this. Perhaps, 'During the case evidence was presented which demonstrated that some of TimidGuy's editing did not comply with reliable sources (medicine) guideline.' PhilKnight (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm equally fine with this, too. I've tweaked the wording per your suggestion,  Roger Davies talk 17:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support PhilKnight's wording Courcelles 17:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Not normally significant enough for a finding, but to make it clear that there is still room for improvement. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agree with the copyedit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Site ban: advocacy allegation

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

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Perhaps 'inconsistent with the notion he was engaging in advocacy'. PhilKnight (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm okay with this, too, and I've made it so,  Roger Davies talk 17:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jclemens (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 18:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Technically true, and shows both parties can interact collaboratively. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Edits contrary to a perceived point of view don't always mean that the editor isn't engaged in POV editing, as they might be tactical, or intended to create a record. However, I don't see any evidence of that in this instance and therefore can support the finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Site ban: analysis of editing times

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

Support:
  1. This is consistent with someone who edits before work rather than during work.  Roger Davies talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. For the avoidance of doubt, this is being commented on as it is directly relevant to the ban appeal. PhilKnight (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Note that this is entirely consistent with TimidGuy's disclosure of 22 Feb 2010, linked in finding 3.2 above. Jclemens (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 18:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. True and arguably relevant—although, at some theoretical level, I'm not sure that this isn't the same sort of analysis that elsewhere in the decision, we are encouraging other editors not to engage in....... Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Site ban: conclusion

5.5) For this appeal, in addition to the public material, the committee has examined private statements from Will Beback and from TimidGuy. The committee notes that some of the material submitted is unsupported assertion and some is inaccurate and has thus on occasion made its own enquiries. Based on the evidence before it, the committee is not persuaded that TimidGuy is paid to edit or to advocate on Wikipedia.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've copy-edited this to reflect the comments. The before/after text is in Comments, below. Please revert if you disagree,  Roger Davies talk 05:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'll go along with this, but it's put in slightly stronger language than I would prefer. From my perspective, the case against TimidGuy failed to materialize. That is, a great deal of evidence was presented, both publicly and privately, however relatively little evidence demonstrated his involvement in Wikipedia was problematic. PhilKnight (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support new wording. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agree with the comments and copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Courcelles 19:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Not thrilled on the idea of speculating here, given we're taking others to task for doing so. Agree some of material submitted appears to have been exaggerated, yet finding is irrelevant given we are concentrating on edits not editors. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • I've not seen evidence that TimidGuy is paid to edit or to advocate on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure about drawing conclusions from that about how likely or unlikely it is. I think I would be more comfortable saying that there wasn't enough evidence to get TimidGuy banned as a paid advocate. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I think it goes sufficiently far beyond that such that I feel comfortable with the "unlikely" wording. Still, if not enough of the committee are convinced to that level, I would support a copyedit along those lines, since the lesser level of assurance would not materially change the conclusions or outcome. Jclemens (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Cas and @SilkTork. Funnily enough the existing text ("Taking all the evidence before it into account, the committee concludes that it is unlikely TimidGuy is paid to edit or to advocate on Wikipedia.") is supposed to be stating a probability but I've probably phrased it clumsily. On looking at this again, it can be read as an exoneration finding, which we traditionally don't do. I've copy-edited it to read "Based on the evidence before it, the committee is not persuaded that TimidGuy is paid to edit or to advocate on Wikipedia", which should resolve your concerns.  Roger Davies talk 05:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it is better, but am concerned we're now judging or commenting on what we are criticising others for. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I don't really see the concern here, I'm afraid. Most of our cases, including this one, involve questions of fact and we (arbitrators) are elected to make findings about them.  Roger Davies talk 18:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback: conduct issues

Will Beback: affiliations of other editors

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

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    These diffs do indeed come from a divisive discussion, the Cirt RFC. That though does not excuse them as it has never been acceptable to systemically add fuel to an already heated debate, especially when the person seemingly doing so is an administrator.  Roger Davies talk 18:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles 19:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I'll pay battleground, but in all these cases the discussion wasn't groundless. There was generally some form of conflict, acrimonious debate or unusual editing going on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Will Beback: outing / harassment

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

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles 19:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yes, there is material that would have been better forwarded privately in the TM case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    placeholder - I've seen three diffs and not convinced they unequivocally represent outing. Just need to review some evidence again. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Will Beback: forum shopping

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

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles 19:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. He has enlisted as many people as possible in his crusade against other editors. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. All of these (bar the last two) predate the arbitration case, subsequent to which several of the TM editors were placed under sanctions. The appropriate noticeboard (COIN) for discussion was used. Concerns about editing were expressed by a number of other editors. The comments at Jimmy Wales and Sue Gardner's talk pages were general statements of facts and concern about some issues surrounding advocacy which create dilemmas which have been discussed widely. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Perhaps a way to get these diffs into perspective is to look at them as if they were allegations of socking. I don't suppose the community would tolerate so many separate reiterations of essentially the same issue in so many places and over so much time.  Roger Davies talk 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roger, this subject area resulted in an arbitration case and topic bans for some of the TM advocates. And it seemed to take several step before (thankfully) editing improved. It didn't arise de novo. What we're proposing here is that a small group of like-minded editors could feasibly own and subvert material and cry "forum shopping" any time they were scrutinised. So, no, I don't think that is beneficial to the long-term production of a neutral encyclopedia. If someone edits outside of guidelines then it needs scrutiny. as for the comments on Sue and Jimbo's page, various editors generalise all the time based on specific problems they have - we see them complain generally of incivility, copyvio, OR, FRINGE, BLP or whatever and often there is a specific antecedent the editor is concerned about. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

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.

TimidGuy: remedies

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

TimidGuy: site ban vacated

1.1) Jimbo Wales' ban of TimidGuy is vacated.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 15:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes. At the very most, the evidence against him would add up to a 3 month block, which he has already served. PhilKnight (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Courcelles 19:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I would say that commuting it to time served is good, I doubt that a 3 month block would be on the table even if the evidence was viewed in the worst possible light for TimidGuy. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. All in all, I think the editing had improved and there was possibly a mellowing post arb case. I still have concerns but the pages are scrutinised and I have faith that TimidGuy is happy to discuss content he adds, subtracts, sources etc. So I think there is scope for a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per PhilKnight. - Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

TimidGuy: advised

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

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 15:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. TimidGuy remains subject, as do all editors within the topic area, to the discretionary sanctions provided for in a prior decision. Courcelles 19:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. It's useful for everyone to be advised to follow that guideline when editing any article related to health or health claims. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Goes without saying...which...well, which everyone should be doing anyway really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Will Beback: remedies

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

Will Beback: desysopped

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

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 15:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles 19:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. For specifically losing sight of Wikipedia's norms and policies in his attempt to fight what he considered an attempt to slant articles. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Will Beback: admonished

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

Support:
  1. Others may wish to add other options,  Roger Davies talk 15:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, though it strikes me as useless should one of the substantive remedies (above or below, or both) pass. Courcelles 19:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, although it's relatively harmless if any of the substantial remedies pass. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agree that erring on the side of discretion is prudent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Will Beback: new religious movements topic ban

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

Support:
  1. I believe that the links in Finding of Fact 6.1 demonstrate that this conduct problem extends beyond just the area of TM. Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think it's time Will step away from the topic area. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Prefer the site ban, but this is necessary either after that expires or should that not pass. Courcelles 19:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Will Beback: banned

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

Support:
  1. I don't see all these as alternatives, but the evidence in this case strikes me that if Will Beback was not a sysop, the ban would be the only remedy being considered. A mere desysop here exemplifies the "Super Mario Problem" where editors with no advanced permissions get banned, and those with such permissions merely get them taken away. This is unacceptable, and the conduct here is so bad that it, in my mind, calls for this. Courcelles 19:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In my mind, the most serious offense Will Beback has engaged in is lese-majesty. As I look at the case, what I see is that through careful selection of evidence provided to Jimbo, Will Beback essentially misled Jimbo into a ban not supported by the totality of the evidence, and there's no way we can both provide justice for TimidGuy and not say this. My personal belief is that Will Beback used Jimbo's statements in WP:RFC/PAID ("I will personally block any cases that I am shown"), in which he also participated, as a basis to obtain action, tailored his presentation to that desired result, and manipulated Jimbo into an inappropriate ban. In my opinion, that's the worst possible sort of gaming the system around. Jclemens (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. With two previous admonishments related to negative behaviour to other users, a third case involving negative behaviour - this time leading to a user being inappropriately banned - must result in a ban. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Courcelles makes a convincing argument here; being an administrator should not, in and of itself, shield a misbehaving user from sanctions that would ordinarily be imposed in response to their conduct. While there exist certain offenses which may be regarded differently when committed by an administrator than when committed by a non-administrator—"conduct unbecoming an administrator" is not necessarily interchangeable with "conduct unbecoming a Wikipedian"—the principal concerns in this case are not among them; harassment remains harassment regardless of what privileges its perpetrator might hold. Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I think a de-admin and a topic ban is enough. Leaving aside the Super Mario Problem Courcelles mentions, I think that there's enough good outside of the NRM area that it would be a net positive to retain Will outside the areas where he's problematic. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Six months is too long, and requiring an appeal is not useful. Three months, no appeal, and I would support. That is closer to how long TimidGuy was banned without merit based on Will's faulty evidence. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per SirFozzie really. I've seen other editors baited or goaded into indefblocks with no reaction whatsoever elsewhere. There was an arb case and a ban and a lingering battlefield mentality which had shown signs of thawing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

RFC on the "Conflicts of Interest" guideline

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

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 15:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Courcelles 19:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Note that policy is currently informed by the 2009 RfC at WP:RFC/PAID, which at over two and a half years old, is quite aged for the importance of the topic and the evolution of Wikipedia's popularity. Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Look. I will be blunt. I can't say that leaving TG editing in the area doesn't concern me. But the Committee and its members have to deal with policies as they are, not as we want them to be. I don't think there's support amongst my fellow arbs for moving TG to editing from the talk page where he can have an indirect say in the article rather than a direct say.. there's just not enough evidence for us. So, this remedy to ask the community to resolve the contradictions and smooth this area out and make our life easier when dealing with this SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. As it is, the guidelines use lots of words like, "discouraged" or "strongly discouraged" - which are likely to dissuade the more honorably-intentioned editors and not the less honorably-intentioned ones. Need more clarity. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:
  1. We need an enforcement provision, since a topic ban looks likely to pass. Courcelles 20:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

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

These notes were last updated by Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 20:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC) by Casliber.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Jurisdiction 10 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Form of appeal 10 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Review of a ban made by Jimbo Wales 10 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Lack of further appeal 8 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Burden of proof and personal attacks 8 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Conflicts of interest 10 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Investigating conflicts of interest 9 0 1 PASSING ·
8 Responding to accusations of conflicts of interest 9 0 0 PASSING ·
9 Focus on the edits not the editor 10 0 0 PASSING ·
10 Harassment 10 0 0 PASSING ·
11 Battleground conduct 10 0 0 PASSING ·
12 Conduct unbecoming an administrator 10 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Locus and nature of dispute 9 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Conflict of interest guideline 9 0 0 PASSING ·
3.1 TimidGuy: account history 8 0 0 PASSING ·
3.2 TimidGuy: disclosure of COI 9 0 0 PASSING ·
3.3 TimidGuy: previously topic-banned 9 0 0 PASSING ·
4.1 Will Beback: editing history 8 0 1 PASSING ·
4.2 Will Beback: admonishments and block 8 0 1 PASSING ·
5.1 Site ban: background 9 0 0 PASSING ·
5.2a Site ban: TimidGuy's editing 8 0 1 PASSING ·
5.2b Site ban: TimidGuy's editing 7 0 0 NOT PASSING 1
5.3 Site ban: advocacy allegation 9 0 0 PASSING ·
5.4 Site ban: analysis of editing times 9 0 0 PASSING ·
5.5 Site ban: conclusion 7 0 1 NOT PASSING 1
6.1 Will Beback: affiliations of other editors 7 1 1 NOT PASSING 1
6.2 Will Beback: outing / harassment 8 0 1 PASSING ·
6.3 Will Beback: forum shopping 7 1 1 NOT PASSING 1
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1.1 TimidGuy: site ban vacated 9 0 0 PASSING ·
1.2 TimidGuy: advised 9 0 0 PASSING ·
2.1 Will Beback: desysopped 7 0 1 NOT PASSING 1
2.2 Will Beback: admonished 8 0 1 PASSING ·
2.3 Will Beback: new religious movements topic ban 5 0 1 NOT PASSING 3
2.4 Will Beback: banned 4 3 1 NOT PASSING 4
3 RFC on the "Conflicts of Interest" guideline 9 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Enforcement
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
None proposed
Notes


Vote

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

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

Support
Oppose
Comments


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal/Proposed_decision&oldid=478130507"