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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:02, 22 February 2012

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Deadlines extensions

Per request from drafting arbitrator User:Roger Davies, the deadline for evidence submission is extended to 23:59 (UTC) 2 January 2012. Consequently the workshop deadline and proposed decision date are also extended to 9 January and 16 January respectively. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With 3 drafting arbs plus extension and this still seems overdue. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's normal for decisions to take awhile. I'd rather them take their time and get it right than rush something out that doesn't fully address all the issues at hand. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note about recusal

I'm active on this case overall, however I'm recused in regard to Will Beback as we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delay in posting proposed decision

The proposed decision is scheduled for posting in the next day or two, but I'm heading out this weekend. I've asked if the posting can be rescheduled until after the weekend. Will Beback talk 04:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the proposed decision need to be delayed if you are out this weekend? It will still be here when you get back. Cla68 (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem in delaying this when one of the parties to the case is available to comment; as can be seen on the other current case, voting can sometimes move very quickly. There is no harm in showing some degree of deference to those who are most likely to be affected by a decision. Monday is fine as far as I am concerned. Risker (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirming that I have no problem with this either and that I have adjusted the timetable accordingly. Roger Davies ^talk 15:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does TimidGuy mind waiting another couple of days on the decision while Will goes on vacation? Cla68 (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think an extra two/three days is not something to fret about. :-) Lord Roem (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that TimidGuy's opinion doesn't factor in, can you guess what the proposed decision is going to be at least in some respects, Mr. Press Correspondent?

ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really followed this case, so please forgive my ignorance; but why would one party's opinion (or request) be given preference over another's? — Ched : ? 12:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Cla68, if TimidGuy asked for a brief delay in posting the decision, I am sure the Committee would have granted it. We have done this on many occasions. Risker (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, this is TimidGuy's ban appeal. If the ban is lifted, TimidGuy is able to resume editing of the TM articles. So, if I were him, I would wonder whmy ban decision has to wait a couple more days while Will Beback is on vacation, when it isn't Will Beback who is making the decision. Cla68 (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the proposed decision is posted, I presume it is more clear why we honored Will Beback's request. Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Nod). Cla68 (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COI/Outing RfC

Interesting remedy. Unlike the 1st/2nd mover blocking dramaz, the COI vs. outing issue is perhaps one that actually defines the Wikipedia editing model. I'm not optimistic that a RfC can succeed in bringing any substantive change after Wikipedia turned 10. At least some Arbs are frank about what they would like to see. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Will Beback

The proposed decision does not make any acknowledgement that I have apologized, both in private and in public, for placing undue emphasis on COI issues in the past. I have committed, publicly and privately, to avoiding any further mention of COI issues for at least ~~the past~~ a year. The proposed decision seems to ignore the fact that I have learned from this matter. Editors and admins make mistakes, and I intend to do better in the future. I have not misused any of the admin tools, I have not outed anyone, and I have not intentionally harassed anyone. I would request that the remedy be changed to allowing re-sysoping based on an appeal to the ArbCom after a period of time.

Jimbo Wales did not take any action in regard to me. He simply took an action on another user based on a complaint I made to which he was a party (as was the ArbCom).

Regarding potential topic bans, there are no findings of fact regarding problems with my editing. The sole issues in the FOFs are about my behavior regarding COIs, for which I've apologized and promised to change. Regarding forum shopping, I've never heard that merely participating in a discussion is included in the definition of "forum shopping". That term normally refers to someone instigating discussions over a single issue in multiple locations within a limited time. The listed discussions concern a variety of issues, and some were instigated by other people, and span about two and a half years. Will Beback talk 22:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will, could you clarify "I have committed, publicly and privately, to avoiding any further mention of COI issues for at least the past year." Specifically, "past year" suggests you committed to this a year ago? If that is correct, could you provide diffs. Thanks, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, that was a typo (now corrected). This is a recently made commitment to change future behavior. Will Beback talk 23:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was that before or after you attempted to, er, advise PumpkinSky by email that unless he followed your advice to leave quietly, that unnoticed information about his wife would be publicized?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very different situation. One concerns complaining about off-Wiki conflicts of interest in the promote a cause, and the other an accusation of meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry as part of the administration of Wikipedia. Hopefully, my involvement in resolving the problems with Rlevse has not affected the case here. I specifically wrote to Roger Davies to ask him if it would and he never responded. Will Beback talk 00:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In both matters, you used private email to try to get another to do as you desired. I think they are closely related. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not generally regulate private emails. The only policies concerning what we say in private emails is the one prohibiting "stealth canvassing". The ArbCom has ignored evidence that some editors involved in this case have participated in that. Will Beback talk 00:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback also threatened me via emails [1] which I never invited nor responded to. Instead I forwarded them to ArbCom:

8/31/11 2:33UTC WillBeback emails Keithbob saying: a serious, undisclosed COI issue may need to go public if WillBeback's COI behavior and editing of TM topics become an issue at Cla68's proposed RfC/U.
8/31/11 6:13UTC @ Keithbob's talk page: "you're adding a lot of evidence...related to COI." [2]
9/12/11 7:02UTC WillBeback emails Keithbob saying he is going to submit evidence about Keithbob's COI to ArbCom-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you accusing me of doing? You were assembling evidence against me and I said if you kept doing that on-Wiki I'd also assemble evidence. You've taken the opportunity of this Arbcom case to present your evidence, but I did not presented any evidence against you, beyond the issue of stealth canvassing. Will Beback talk 02:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lese majeste

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)

It is not uncommon for an admin to say something like, "If I see user:JohnDoe do that again, I will block him" or "Any user I see doing something like that will be blocked." I have never seen a user accused of a serious violation for providing evidence to the admin that the threshold for blocking has been met. Jimbo Wales has said that he does not believe he was misled or manipulated. This appears to create a new policy: that users may not provide evidence to admins or higher authorities who have said they would ban or block for those causes. Will Beback talk 00:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's evident that Jclemens doesn't know what "lese-majesty" means, but that's rather beside the point. This statement is bizarre and insulting on its merits. It presumes that Jimbo is too obtuse to critically weigh evidence presented to him. It would be one thing to acknowledge that Jimbo has a different threshold for acting on COI concerns than does the Committee, but this is really stretching reality to paint Will in the worst possible light, as some sort of evil genius capable of leading poor, naive Jimbo astray. MastCell ^Talk 04:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or it simply presumes that Jimmy was too busy with all his other obligations and took a series of complicated assertions at face value. You'll further note that my statement is my own opinion, and not any sort of finding. I don't have a crystal ball or a mind probe, but if we can't AGF about Jimbo's motivations in this unfortunate series of events, where are we? Oh, and it's entirely possible I'm using lese-majesty wrong; what I mean to say by that is that I believe Will Beback has made Jimbo look bad, and that I think that is, of itself, a separate issue. Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The AGF explanation is that Jimbo's threshold for acting on a COI complaint differs from yours. Instead, you're asserting that someone could reach a different conclusion from you only if they were lazy, obtuse, or easily misled. MastCell ^Talk 05:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, are you one of the two editors besides Jimbo and ArbCom to whom Will Beback provided personal information on TimidGuy? Cla68 (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68, it's inappropriate for you to be making accusatory questions like that about comunications with the ArbCom. The committee knows the identity of the other two admins if they want to share it. Will Beback talk 06:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed MastCell would answer "no" and then I would say, "Then how do you know how complete the information was which was given to Jimbo upon which he based his decision?" Cla68 (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think I've ever had any off-wiki contact with Will (we've barely interacted on-wiki). It seems very simple: information was provided privately to Jimbo and to ArbCom. They interpreted it differently. That may be because Jimbo is really obtuse and ArbCom is really insightful. Or it may be because they just have different thresholds for acting on COI complaints (which are, by universal agreement, an incredibly gray area). Either explanation is possible, but Jclemens' statements seem to admit only the former. In the end, though, it doesn't really matter, I guess. MastCell ^Talk 20:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo denies being manipulated or misled. Apparently the ArbCom believes they know his mind better than he does. Will Beback talk 07:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you deny misleading Jimbo? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COI was stipulated by TimidGuy multiple times; the matter under consideration is paid advocacy. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So which policy do you think I've violated in this regard? Will Beback talk 04:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom does not create new policies. According to which existing policy is it a bannable offense to "[manipulate] Jimbo into an inappropriate ban"? How many other users have been ban for providing evidence which causes an admin to block a user? If a user manipulates the ArbCom into an inappropriate ban have they too committed a bannable offense? Will Beback talk 06:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought "gaming the system" was a clear enough reference to WP:GAME that it didn't need to be wikilinked. See "Gaming sanctions for disruptive behavior" point 1. Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming the system, which I deny I did, is not a bannable offense. Writing to an official of the project, and giving them honest evidence, is not gaming the system. No one has shown that anything I wrote to Wales and the ArbCom was knowingly false. Will Beback talk 07:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the email in question is not in the public evidence, I am in no position to provide specific justifications for why I believe that you did "game the system", but I have no problem stipulating that we disagree on that point. To your assertion that gaming the system is not a bannable offense, I offer two answers: 1) WP:GAME states that such may constitutes Disruptive editing, and the nutshell summary of that behavioral expectation specifically mentions blocks and bans, and 2) the rationale is just that: my rationale for supporting a site ban proposed by another arbitrator. While I don't disagree with his reasoning, I find my own motivation for supporting the site ban differs, and in the interest of the greatest possible transparency given that much of the evidence is not public, have provided my reasoning. Jclemens (talk) 07:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can provide the justification via email: you have my address. But what it comes down to is this: I stumbled across evidence which I honestly though violated the norms of this project, and I shared that with the senior officials, including yourself, whom I thought were in a position to deal with it. We should encourage that behavior, not ban people for it. Will Beback talk 07:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As has emerged during the case, after a possible COI was brought to his attention on-wiki, TimidGuy has been circumspect in his editing, which has been unproblematic. I would agree with MastCell here that there is no reason to question Jimmy Wales' powers of judgement in assessing any information he receives. ArbCom apparently had been sent the same information in 2011 and apparently raised no doubts then. Evidence not available on-wiki seems to have been used in forming their subsequent evaluation. In hindsight, Will Beback's actions were possibly over-zealous and do not appear to have been in response to any urgent concern; no deception or "gaming of the system", however, seems to have been involved. (I hope that Newyorkbrad might be able to shed some light on this issue.) In response to possible questions from Cla68: No, I have never been informed and know nothing. Mathsci (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have admitted that my past focus on COI was overzealous, have apologized, and have committed to avoiding COI complaints in the future. Will Beback talk 19:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

apologies again for commenting on something I haven't followed. But I would mention that if someone is "mislead" or "manipulated" then they are not typically aware of that deception. That's not a comment directed towards any individual, just a general observation in regards to this discussion. — Ched : ? 08:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fladrif and COI/N

I find it interesting that most of the COI/N threads from FoF 6.3 ("Will Beback: forum shopping") were actually started by User:Fladrif, yet Will Beback is the only one held responsible for those. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fladrif wasn't a party to the case. We declined to add at least one additional party to the case, although I don't recall a request to add Fladrif. I think it's kept the issues narrowly focused, but there's no question that other behavior on all sides could have been addressed. Still, others were complaining on the timing, so my hope is that the final decision balanced these concerns appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's kinda weird. I thought that once someone presents /Evidence in a case, they are effectively a party. And Fladrif has presented evidence in this case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Fladrif. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the selection of parties, which I believe is a significant matter in this case, is it forum shopping to even participate in a thread someone else started? If so this is such a widely flouted policy that it is proscriptive rather than descriptive. Some of the linked issues don't concern TimidGuy at all, so I'm not sure what the issue here is which I'm supposed to have forum-shopped over. Will Beback talk 01:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be helpful to read this insightful document, in particular its nutshell summary: Arbitrators usually work from broad impressions of what a case is about and do not consider details, nuance, or context. MastCell ^Talk 01:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find this decision disturbing. It seems like there are many valid points made here in Will Beback's defense which, for some reason, have not convinced the arbitrators. I have often seen him participate as a voice of reason in contentious issues, and I am not convinced that another administrator would do as good a job as he has. Wnt (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admonishments

Admonish: to express warning or disapproval to especially in a gentle, earnest, or solicitous manner[3]

I have been admonished twice over a six year period, during which time I've made over 140,00 edits. The first time was for a specific reason:

Willmcw is admonished to extend respect and forgiveness to users such as User:Nskinsella (Stephan Kinsella) who share the burden of being notable enough to have articles regarding them be included in Wikipedia.

The second was a unexplained, non-specific admonishment four years later:

...and Will Beback ... are admonished for their conduct in articles related to Prem Rawat.

There were no findings of fact against me in that case, and it's never been clear why I, or several other editors, were admonished in that case, which was three years ago. In my entire six career on Wikipedia I've only been blocked once years ago, for 24 hours, for violating a 1RR per week remedy. So two gentle warnings, one of them non-specific, over a six year period and a single short block are sufficient background that any further problems must lead to a site ban? That seems like a higher standard than other editors have been held to. Will Beback talk 07:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comments here may be helpful in regard to how admonishments are viewed. I never expected when this case started that a ban would be on the table. Indeed, my initial view was that a caution would be the most that would be offered, as I felt that you were acting in the best interests of the project and, at most, had been over enthusiastic. I didn't think it could possibly come to an editor with a known COI being unbanned, and a valued Wikipedian being under risk for being banned. I am dismayed at how the evidence has played out. The evidence you have supplied has been interesting, and I can see the reasons for your concern. I also buy into Jimbo's vision for a Wikipedia which can be trusted. I think what is behind this incident is how we deal with concerns or suspicions. The nature of unregistered editing is that everyone is under suspicion as we don't know their motives. What we have, though, is the evidence of the edits. Our policies and guidelines and our general ethos is that we assume people are editing in good faith until proven otherwise (same as real life law in which a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty). To present an inaccurate claim that an editor has been advocating in order to get that editor banned, is inappropriate. I think, however, if that were an isolated incident, and you took on board that you had gone too far on too little evidence, a warning would be sufficient. To find out that there had been prior concerns about the way you focus on other editors, and you have twice been sanctioned for such behaviour, means that we must send out the message that any editor who does not heed warnings, and does not amend their behaviour accordingly, will receive a higher sanction. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I have heeded the warning: "to extend respect and forgiveness to users such as User:Nskinsella (Stephan Kinsella) who share the burden of being notable enough to have articles regarding them be included in Wikipedia." There have not been any subsequent problems with me disrespecting users who have articles. The second admonishment doesn't address any specific behavior, but it certainly was not about focusing on the editors. And the one block was due to a 1RR/week violation, back when that was a very novel remedy and there was disagreement over how to interpret it.

In this case I have apologized and promised to correct my behavior. Why isn't that being acknowledged? Or that I too am a "valued Wikipedian"?

As for the evidence, I believe in good faith that the evidence shows TimidGuy holds a PR position, and that his editing on Wikipedia has overwhelming (but not exclusively) been to promote TM. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is how it looks to me. I did not knowingly present false evidence. In fact, none of the evidence has been found false: we just disagree about the interpretation of it. I have never heard of a previous ArbCom case in which editors presenting a theory of evidence and calling for a ban were themselves sanctioned simply because the ArbCom rejected their view of the case. In fact, if I recall correctly, there are editors who have outright lied to the ArbCom in cases who have not been sanctioned at all. I have been honest and forthright throughout this case and in all my work on Wikipedia. Will Beback talk 18:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the evidence, what year range do you believe that TimidGuy was holding what you believe to be a PR position? I asked you this on the /Workshop but you didn't answer in public. Your private answer to me does not align well with what you have written here now. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can I answer this question, which involves three separate job titles, in public? Let me put it this way - of the three, I know that he has held one as recently as this month. Regarding the others we know when he started the jobs but not when he left them, if ever. Will Beback talk 00:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"We"? And how would you know someone started a job this month unless you were investigating them. Why are you still investigating this editor? How disturbing this is.(olive (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Will has explained this above. He said he, "stumbled across the evidence." Rumiton (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[e/c] I've shared my evidence with the Arbcom, so "we" all know the same information. I just looked for an update at the specific request of a member of the ArbCom. Will Beback talk 02:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that current job a PR position? Regarding the other positions, you should have very reasonable doubts that he has held those positions recently. When is the last evidence you have that he held the other jobs? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You and the ArbCom have the same evidence I do, so I don't know why you're asking me these questions here. Will Beback talk 07:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If anyone's in any doubt that Will should be de-sysoped and topic banned and about the absurdity of his last sentence, I suggest you have a good look at the evidence I gave about him in the 2009 Prem Rawat case [4]. Sound familiar? And even this month he has continued. On Feb 4 I pointed out that there was a chronological error in the Prem Rawat article. Will decides to my denigrate my proposal by claiming I made the mistake in the first place. He says - Momento added the material in question. I'm not sure why, two years later, it is now described by the same editor as an error. [5] In fact, my edit was correct, it was Rumiton's edit a few days after mine that incorrectly places the sentence out of order. [6] [7] I asked Will to correct his error but, of course, he didn't. For further evidence of how Will and others corrupted the ARB/COM process, read on.[8][9]Momento (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And in light of Will corresponding with Jimbo Wales, I'd be interested to know what Will said in his email to Bainer before Bainer ignored the overwhelming evidence against Francis Schonken and Will Beback and proposed only that I and Rumiton should be banned. [10] What did you say Will?Momento (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above editor (Momento) is the only one that I know of that has been topic-banned for a period of over a year from the Prem Rawat family of articles, (violated that ban, and was re-banned) for wide variety of offenses, including edit warring, incivility, etc. Will_Beback has often been the target of that hostility, and I have no doubt that this is at least a partial motivation for the "evidence" he chooses to include here. Despite the often extremely high level of emotion that often appears on those talk pages I have personally found Will_Beback to be one of the most level-headed editors I have had a chance to work with on these articles, and the articles have benefited because of him. Full Disclosure: I have another account that I use to edit things that are not related to the PR articles (because ppl get nuts over there from time to time). I am not a SPA, and I have no grudge against Prem Rawat (others will argue otherwise, predictably). Additionally, only knowing what is on this page, it seems like a bit of a misguided attempt by the arbitrators to fix things that are not the issue at hand, in particular, the fact that COI policy seems ridiculously unenforceable. The fact that uninvolved editors who are very much involved in the subject are allowed to "attack" Will_Beback as well seems a bit kangaroo court-ish. -- Maelefique^(talk) 04:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, Rumiton was also topic banned for a year and I'm sure Maelefique would admit, Rumiton is a gentle and patient editor who edits other articles.Momento (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a useful discussion, no evidence was supplied that Will improperly applied pressure or misled anyone in the case that Momento is bringing up, either back when it happened, during the case, or now. Remember: "Serious accusations require serious evidence" and none has been supplied. I'm going to ask the clerks to look at removing some of this as not useful to discussing the proposed decision. SirFozzie (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SirFozzie but I reserve the right to reply to Will's statement "it's never been clear why I, or several other editors, were admonished in that case, which was three years ago". Although he does have a point, "it's never been clear to me why Will, or several other editors, were admonished in that case, which was three years ago". They should have been banned.Momento (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to cmt by Casliber

To Will above:Thanks. I think I misunderstood what you were saying.(olive (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The sanctions Casliber refers to might deserve at some point some real scrutiny by those knowledgable about Wikipedia, and with a truly neutral mind set, while giving editors a chance to answer to concerns. I of course don't expect that to happen but one can wish. An arbitrator said to me at one point to just continue editing in a compliant way and eventually these sanctions will be forgotten. That isn't the case. They are trotted out at every convenience to discredit editors. There are multiple issues with several of those cases that are irregular. The idea now, that a group of editors have somehow improved because they were sanctioned in the way they were is not logical. What has happened is that those editors, I speak for myself, walk on eggshells fearing some thing else will be drummed up to try and get rid of them. An editor asked me by email why the chill on the TM articles. Why? Because the most innocent action can be twisted to damage an editor. To imply that editors will rum amok on an article because Will Beback is no longer there is so opposite from the truth of the environment on those pages as to be ludicrous. This is not in criticism of any of the arbs., just a moment to speak out in my opinion. What you see is the tip of the iceberg, and I'm tired of pretending the part under water doesn't exist. (olive (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I have to agree with Littleolive oil that I'm surprised how sanctions in old cases are never forgotten or forgiven, no matter how much time has passed or or how may edits have been made since they were decided.

However I have to disagree with the state of the TM articles during the period before my participation. There were several instances in which a group of editors came to agreements to exclude significant information from the articles, and when other editors tried to add they were told that the consensus had already been determined. The exclusion of any mention of Sexy Sadie, a song written by John Lennon about the Maharishi, is just one example. I have never observed any significant disagreement between members of that group, and they often explicitly support each other. Potential COI aside, that is unacceptable ownership of a topic and it is the reason I got involved in the first place. The conclusion from this case seems to be that it is truly impossible to dislodge a group of editors who take control of a topic, and that outside editors who try do so at their own peril. Will Beback talk 22:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to Casliber's recent comment,[11] this current case is the latest one related to Transcendental Meditation. Any arbcom case usually results in a substantial change in the dynamics of editing in the subject area covered by the case (not always as envisaged). Any diffs that predate the last TM arbcom case (Feb-June 2010) are therefore probably best viewed in that context.Mathsci (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mathsci is right. ArbCom cases do affect the editing environment of the topics that they cover. For example, I think if you check the climate change articles (I think I can bring that up here since this is a dispute resolution forum?), you will find much less incivility among the regulars of those articles on the talk pages, much less edit-warring in the articles themselves (although I wouldn't be surprised if it is still going on), and much fewer attempts to add pejorative or defamatory information to the BLPs of climate change personalities. To be sure, the involved editors are toeing the line because they are scared of what will happen if they don't. Fear appears to be an effective motivator. I think it is a little different in the TM topic, however. It appeared that certain editors were holding the TM ArbCom case over the heads of the other editors in that topic, using any slip-up to accuse COI or threaten to take them to ArbCom or other administrative forum for sanction. That can't have been a very pleasant editing environment. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that the first TM case actually exacerbated the problems rather than solving any. Following it, every editing dispute was framed in the context of which editing problems were sanctioned by the ArbCom, for example. The blame for that goes to all parties and to the Arbcom itself. The Arbcom is not really a dispute resolution body, and it wants to be it needs to re-think the adversarial approach which is fostered as part of arbitration. Will Beback talk 23:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Little Olive Oil. Take a look at my talk page to see how many times Will Beback and his associates have tried and/or succeeded to have me blocked and banned.Momento (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Agree with Little Olive Oil too, if she said that Momento was banned on many occasions for deliberately ignoring warnings and continuing to disrupt articles with what was already explained to him by uninvolved administrators that his behaviour was groundless and disruptive. If that isn't what Olive said, then I retract this comment (and yes, I realize that I, just like Momento, have very little reason to be commenting here at all). -- Maelefique^(talk) 04:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not comment on Momento. I've never encountered him on any article and know nothing about him. (olive (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not even out the door yet, but the TM editors are already adding poorly sourced positive material,[12][13][14][15] removing well-sourced material in favor of vague assertions,[16] and planning to remove critical material.[17] Will Beback talk 23:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping Battleground conduct

Articles on Transcendental Meditation are subject to sanctions and vigilance is required. The present case was clearly not framed to air possible grievances and gripes of editors concentrating on TM articles (see above). Going back to this case, given the timeframe (2009-2012) of diffs used to justify ~~"forum shopping"~~ "battleground conduct," perhaps these diffs should have been included in the section now headed "battleground conduct".[18] [19][20][21] As far as harassment is concerned, Will Beback did not comment when Litteolive oil, TimidGuy and Edith Sirius were topic banned for editing as a WP:TAGTEAM.[22] Mathsci (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Empathy

...[Will Beback] must develop and demonstrate at least a tiny shred of empathy for the editors he has harassed,...

While I deny intentionally harassing anyone, I have admitted that I have been overzealous in pursuing COI issues. I have apologized to the parties in this case for doing so, and I have committed to avoid COI issues in the future.

I have personally endured significant harassment, hectoring, and outing on and off Wikipedia as a result of my editing here. I have great empathy for those in the same position. Will Beback talk 21:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It boggles the mind

that the same person who drafted the Scientology ArbCom decision [23] drafted the TMArbCom decision [24] and this.

What the committee has done is tell any organization wishing to systematically pervert Wikipedia through coordinated POV pushing by its employees is to simply not do it on the organization's computers. It was absolutely clear from the evidence in the TM ArbCom case that that the TM Organization was doing precisely what the Church of Scientology had been doing, but just not from the organization's own computers. Internal documents posted on WikiLeaks, referenced in that case showed that the TM Organization set up teams of employees to systematically influence web-based information about the TM Organization, its products and services, including assigning team leaders to coordinate that activity. The evidence in that case also clearly established that the on-and-off Wiki postings of TimidGuy and a number of other TM-affiliated editors was consistent with such a systematic plan. On Wikipedia, that involved removing properly sourced information critical of the Organization, its products and services; inserting favorable poorly sourced and unsourced information; slanting the articles and the characterization of sources to fit the way the Organization wanted to present itself, its products and services to the public; and tendentiously dominating talkpages and discussion boards to artifically create a false consensus and drive away other editors. It is a reasonable conclusion from the breadth and intensity of his activity on and off Wiki that TimidGuy was one of those team leaders and that the TM-Affiliated parties to the TMArbCom were speaking with one voice as part of that team. In the Scientology case, numerous topic bans were handed out to the involved organization editors and the organization blocked from editing. In the TM case, on the other hand, the involved organization editors were given a pat on the back, and told to carry on (and they have the temerity to say that, as a result, they're "walking on eggshells" around Wikipedia!!).

The committee is now doubling down on its own inconsistency by sanctioning an Will for following the appropriate protocol of bringing confidential information to the committee and Jimbo privately about the that apparent team-leader - evidence which Jimbo has said here on these pages that, if disclosed publicly, the community at large would hardly be surprised at his decision to ban TimidGuy from Wikipedia.

What the Committee is really telling any editors who are unfortunate enough to stumble inside the walled garden of the TM-related articles is,

Complain about it once; you will be ignored.

Complain about it twice; you will be sanctioned.

Instead, take as your model the dozens of editors over the years who have simply thrown up their hands in disgust and frustration, and walked away from the subject matter.

Do not be surprised if the model followed by the TM Organization here is widely emulated by other organizations in the future, because you have stamped it with the official ArbCom seal of approval. Fladrif (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 132: / Line 132: @@
 ::::I did not comment on Momento. I've never encountered him on any article and know nothing about him. ([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 15:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC))
+*I'm not even out the door yet, but the TM editors are already adding poorly sourced positive material,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Lynch_Foundation&diff=478279648&oldid=466786724][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Lynch_Foundation&diff=next&oldid=478287802][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Lynch_Foundation&diff=next&oldid=478291513][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Lynch_Foundation&diff=next&oldid=478308319] removing well-sourced material in favor of vague assertions,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Lynch_Foundation&diff=next&oldid=478284125] and planning to remove critical material.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Wants_to_Fly&diff=478279565&oldid=478154898] &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 23:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 == <s>Forum shopping</s> Battleground conduct ==