User:Doc James/Will Beback

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Discussion regarding Arbcom decision with respect to Will Beback

Background

Will BeBack was banned, topic banned and desysopped by ArbCom on the 27th February 2012, for battleground conduct, outing / harassment and for affiliations of other editors. Evidence for outing/harassment was not included in the findings of fact Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal. This discussion is about the denial of his ban appeal in a non-public discussion by ArbCom, and to see where the community stands on the issue. write up to try and address concerns by opposers, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It's really too late to try and make a neutral comment for this 'sort-of RFC', and the standing, skewed comments below this in what appear to be an RFC statement aren't mitigated by your addition. Dreadstar ☥ 19:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Doc James

User:Will Beback was a long time editor who made more than 100,000 edits to Wikipedia between 2006 and 2012 often dealing with controversial topics. His top edits can be seen here [1]. During his time editing he was involved in bring two articles to FA status and was awarded many barnstars by the community at large.[2]

He was indefinitely banned by arbcom in 2012 based on three concerns: "outing", "battleground behavior" and "personal attacks". Per here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal#Will_Beback:_conduct_issues

The so called "outing" which occurred was an off Wikipedia private email relating to COI regarding a new religious movement (I as an administrator was party to these emails and was involved in the case in question).

Evidence for so called "battleground conduct" include comments he made regarding issues of conflict of interest generall. For example on Jimmy Wales talk page he wrote "Tell that to the ArbCom." [3] Other comments are [4], [5], [6].

The evidence for "personal attacks" include evidence like this [7], [8], [9] which are not personal attacks but a discussion of COI which is allowed during a RfC/U

A year has passed and Will Beback has requested that arbcom allow him to return to editing. They have refused supposedly without justification per off wiki communication.

Concerns

• The above evidence makes it appear as if arbcom was blocking Will Beback as retribution for his comments regarding them. Wikipedia has policies against using admin tools in cases in which one is involved and in this case it appears we have arbcom exercising their authority against an editor in which arbcom is involved. When did it become a bannable offense to discuss COI? While the edits listed as "personal attacks" are not useful comments I have seen much much worse resulting in no sanctions at all let alone a site ban.

Comments from Will Beback

"I have honored the ban for more than one year, during which time I have neither engaged in any ban evasion nor in off-wiki campaigning. I have apologized to TimidGuy, expressed my remorse for my errors, and promised to avoid repeating them. In my appeal, I did challenge some of the findings in the case, which I believe were based on insufficient evidence or misinterpretation of policy. Apparently banned users are not allowed to argue for their innocence and can only admit to total guilt and beg for mercy. The appeal was rejected without explanation, and without even telling me who voted for or against it. I am not sure how the ArbCom processes these appeals, which is done entirely in secret. I have been a constructive editor in the past, and believe that I can be again." as per here [10]

Statement #2 from Will Beback, retrieved from User talk:Will Beback

Some of the editors who have participated in the discussion at User:Jmh649/Will Beback have publicly or privately said that they are opposed to allowing me to edit Wikipedia because of my behavior regarding Rlevse/PumpkinSky. I had not mentioned him or any other editors because the case that led to my ban only concerned TimidGuy. I regret that, in the course of many editorial and administrative actions over several years, I have offended various good faith editors. That was never my intent, and I sincerely apologize for any harm I have caused them.

There are questions regarding what is or should be public or private about the case or the appeal. No one from the ArbCom gave any indication that a public hearing was possible. In fact, no information about how the appeal would be dealt with was forthcoming. I was just told it would be reviewed, and then weeks later I was told it had been rejected. The instructions at WP:ARBCOM#BASC, which I followed, does not mention public hearings. I would be happy for any of my statements t the ArbCom to be made public.

Various Arbitration members appear to have made conflicting statements about the "real" reason for my ban. Since the committee won't say why the appeal was rejected, I am left unsure what further response they are looking for beyond the statements I've already made.

Being away from Wikipedia for a year has given me a different perspective, and I would not edit the same as I did before. I am simply looking for a second chance.   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement #3 from Will Beback, retrieved from User talk:Will Beback

(Sent by email)

In the course of public and private statements during the original appeal of TimidGuy's ban, I made repeated apologies for my behavior towards TimidGuy. However none were as direct as they could have been, and some may have been made without having been addressed to you, It is proper that I give a full, clear, public apology.

I was wrong to have pursued the conflict of interest allegations against you to the point of using Google to search for information about the nature of your employment. Even if you had been a paid advocate, as I believed, I should not have tried to prove that in order to get you sanctioned. I sincerely regret any distress that my words or actions have caused you and I apologize for my conduct.

Because of this case I have come to realize that I have been overzealous in approaching COI issues. I commit to never again make a COI allegation against another editor on Wikipedia.

Sincerely, Will Beback 20:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

1) We propose that Will Beback be allowed back to edit English Wikipedia

Users who endorse

1. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Will is simply looking for a second chance. He is honorable and deserves it.
2. As drafter Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
3. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
4. pbp 02:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
5. A year is a long time, secrecy is bad, we need good editors. That's enough. Rich Farmbrough, 02:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC).
   
6. SlimVirgin <sup>(talk)</sup> 03:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
7. A bit of a POV warrior, but will remain topic-banned from the major problem area, which seems sufficient. Was victimized by one of the worst ArbCom decisions in Wikipedia history. Current ArbCom has failed to be transparent in this case and need to be prodded to at least explain their rationale and to state who voted how so that appropriate action can be taken in the next election, as suggested by former Arb JClemens. Carrite (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
8. I only had extremely positive interactions with him. I think a year away from editing is sufficient, and many, many eyes will be on him should he return. AniMate 07:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
9. Enthusiastic yes. Rivertorch (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
10. Agree, except for the theory about the arbitrators' motivations. Cardamon (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
11. Agree, topic-ban is sufficient.--В и к и T 10:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
12. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
13. Agree. Will Beback's recognition of fault on his part is a significant change from the time of the Timid Guy case. Returning to unrelated topics, formalised by a topic-ban, would be a good way forward. Mathsci (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
14. Agree, per Farmbrough. Smallbones<sub>(smalltalk)</sub> 13:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
15. Agree. The person has served out his long block. He didn't make sockpuppets and so forth as many do. He's apologized to the injured party (above) and promised to undertake to do better. These are all hard things for a fellow to swallow but he's done it, what more do you want? In addition, my experience with this editor is kind of limited but he's been good and useful where I did interact with him. If you're ever going to unblock anyone, this'd be a good time I think. If not, can we get some more explanation please? Herostratus (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

    "injured partY"? Erm. There were multiple ones here, not just TG, so what about the other apologies? KB, etc. He's never apologized for trying to blackmail me either. PumpkinSky talk 18:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

    You were not one of the Involved parties, so please take your unsubstantiated accusations, and grind your axe elsewhere. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

    Did you even bother to read that list of involved parties? I am not among them. Please take your blindness elsewhere. I have proof, but do really want all that dredged up again?PumpkinSky talk 21:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

    If you don't want it dredged up, why are you bringing the issue up? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

16. Any inhabitant of planet Earth can edit Wikipedia, only in exceptional cases when there is a threat to Wikipedia, do we ban people. So, given the way this site operates, it doesn't make sense to not allow someone back in if the problem areas are sufficiently dealt with (using topic bans, desysopping etc.). While you can't be 100% sure that someone will start to misbehave again, you don't know exactly who all those anons are that are editing either. So, unless there is convincing evidence that points to Will Beback having devious plans after his return here, you can't a priori distrust any edits he is going to make here. Not allowing him back in then amounts to closing Wikipedia to someone who can contribute, which goes against Wikipedia's fundamental principles. Count Iblis (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
17. Agree. I have deep concerns about how this case was handled. I have always found Will to be incisive and knowledgeable, as well as a true credit to Wikipedia. This decision by ArbCom is just the latest example of their often dubious reasoning in the past year, and the recent resignation statement of ArbCom member Coren, in which he calls the body "moribund and cancerous", backs my opinion up with words from an editor I respect who is in a position to know. ArbCom, in my further view, is out of line with community consensus in this matter. Will has devoted countless hours here, and deserves a chance to become a fully rehabilitated Wikipedian. Not to do so is clearly punitive, not preventative. Jusdafax 21:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
18. WillBeBack was accused of three things: dwelling on affiliations of editors, outing, and battleground conduct. None of them are without mitigating circumstance: ArbCom itself has blocked some editors and IP addresses associated with cults; the outing concerned COI, which for some editors at the time has been an effective excuse even when I thought it shouldn't be, and the battleground was not his alone. Above all, someone who enters conflict situations when acting as an admin may not do so when acting as a recently rehabilitated ordinary editor. I recognize that some other editors may have other reasons but they simply weren't raised in the case and they shouldn't be our concern now. They can be raised as issues if they are observed again. Wnt (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
19. Enthusiastic support. And this comes from somebody who has disagreed rather sharply with Will in the past. I always understood that he had good intentions, and that he had the best interests of the Wikipedia project in mind. He's served his sentence. Bring him back and give him a chance. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
20. Agree. I am not familiar with the editor in question but I have read the discussion and believe that Doc James is doing the right thing in asking that this editor be welcomed back to the community. Gandydancer (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
21. Agree. A year is a long time. I sure he has something positive to contribute. --rogerd (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
22. Agree and support. Clearly Will has eaten his humble pie and offered the requisite undertakings. It's time to let him return. Contrary to JClemens's line, there is absolutely no known reason to think "Arbcom has it right"--and plenty, in the flimsiness of the reasons they cited for Will's ban and the lack of any openness in upholding it, to think it more likely they have it wrong. Writegeist (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
23. Support - but I think the right thing to do is for ArbCom to decide if there is enough support for them to reconsider his appeal and make a decision not according to whether there is a consensus here but on whether or not he has met their conditions for being unbanned. Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
24. Agree and agree...Modernist (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
25. Support ArbCom decided, in Star Chamber, to reject WBB's request for reinstatement. It can hardly be heard to complain or to entertain complaints from other editors now about the choice of forum, having denied WBB a public forum. Rather than the community having to speculate about what WBB did or did not say in his request, and what, if anything the individual ArbCom members said in response, ArbCom should have made this a public case. I assume from what has been written so far that WBB is asking for permission to return as an editor, not as an administrator, and I see no indication that he is asking for the topicban to be lifted. It is inconceivable to me that this would not be allowed, but if ArbCom's members think that it should not, they should have the bare minimum of decency and integrity to say so, publicly, and state their reasons individually and with specificity. Fladrif (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
26. Process, shmosess. If he wants back, then I say let him back; he's no threat to anyone now. Of course, the only valid way for him to return is via ArbCom's consent, and that's why I sign my name here, so that they'll know the community consensus would be in favour of his return. Kurtis <sup>(talk)</sup> 22:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
27. Support - What's the harm in this? ps I LOVE the new spell check feature in the edit window, WAY over due. --Malerooster (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
28. Support - The project would benefit from his contributions. I hope arbcom will reconsider his appeal. Tom Harrison <sup>Talk</sup> 00:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
29. Support --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
30. Support His banning was one of the worst decision's I've seen ArbCom make. And that's saying something! ThemFromSpace 19:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
31. support its an unusual forum, but WP:IAR and WP:BUREAU tell us to consider what is best for the encyclopedia and not be hung up by process. (and if "end runs around the process" end up making the ArbCom more irrelevant/impotent in the process of effectively settling troublesome community disputes (is that even possible????) as many in the oppose section cite as their rationale, that would not necessarily be a bad thing given ArbCom's record at being able to accomplish what is supposedly their purview.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
32. Support without reservation, in light of Will Beback's statement of a few hours ago: [11]. —rybec 23:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
33. Support -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
34. Endorse Will Beback being allowed to return to editing. Irregardless of the correctness the original ban, it serves no purpose now. Blocks and bans are supposed to be preventative not punitive. Will be without any doubt act as an ethical, above board and first rate editor. FurrySings (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
35. Endorse He gave a very strong apology and he showed a lot of commitment. II | (t - c) 04:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
36. Strong support. Jayjg <sup>(talk)</sup> 18:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
37. Endorse: Clear admission of wrongdoing, sincere apology and credible promise to not repeat previous mistakes. The topic ban gives him the opportunity to demonstrate that he can be a productive editor in non-related areas. Well worth taking a chance on. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
38. Support - Upon reading Will Beback's statements on his talkpage, I am convinced that he has learned his lesson and is ready for a second chance. Command and Conquer Expert! <sup>speak to me...</sup><sub>review me...</sub> 02:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
39. Endorse. Unless convincing evidence (which I, for one, have not yet seen despite repeated requests) makes it clear that WBB is planning to edit disruptively and/or will be working off-wiki to intimidate editors or otherwise subvert Wikipedia, I believe it is time for the community to allow WBB back and to see if his promises to behave are genuine. I have held back on taking a clear position on this issue up till now, out of concerns that past on- and off-wiki contact with WBB (the last of which contacts was over a year ago) made me too involved to be fair and impartial about him. However, at this point, I do not see any harm in letting WBB return, given that he will still be subject to his ArbCom-imposed topic ban and will quickly exhaust any remaining community patience if he misbehaves in future. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
40. Support return. The current ArbCom has repeatedly shown that they are willing to go to ridiculous extremes to coddle COI-driven POV pushers. Will Beback is one of the few who stood up to that. 79.119.87.157 (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
41. Support'. WBB is passionate about neutrality and this leading to overzealousness was a case of too much of a good thing. Will has apologised for this and promised to raise no more COI allegations. Savlonn (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Users who oppose

1. If you don't like ArbCom's decision, elect people to ArbCom who will make different decisions. The turnover between then and now was non-trivial, yet there's no consensus to let him resume editing... why might that be? Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Arbcom said that he must appeal to ArbCom after 6 months. That's how this should be overturned, not some community discussion. Elect differnet Arbs if someone gets banned and wants to come back, don't try to circumvent an ArbCom decision. gwickwire<sup>talk</sup><sub>editing</sub> 01:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

   But mommy, everyone else gets bold strongly extreme adamant oppose in their comments! Further comments: Why are we overturning ArbCom? That's wrong. If we can just prance in and overturn ArbCom, who's stopping us from disbanding them and anarchizing everything. ArbCom exists for a reason, and it is the "supreme power" for a reason. Deal with it. Don't game the system to try to get him unblocked, because even if there were 100 supports and 0 opposes here ArbCom is under no obligation to unban this editor. gwickwire<sup>talk</sup><sub>editing</sub> 21:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

   I don't believe anyone here has suggested that ArbCom is under an obligation to lift the ban. Of course they're not. Being composed of a group of volunteers not unlike the rest of us, ArbCom is under no obligation to do anything at all. So what? The community is under no obligation to treat the Committee as some sort of infallible deity whose decisions are automatically beyond reproach. In fact, the community would be remiss to stay silent when it perceives possible failings in the actions of the Committee. Without such scrutiny, it would be pretty difficult to correct any abuses or injustices that occur, and they do occur—inevitably—even when every single member of the Committee acts with the best of intentions; such is governance in large, unwieldy institutions. I am troubled by the degree to which much of the community has embraced an authoritarian model of governance in recent years. Authority, or power, is not a problem as long as it is accompanied by accountability (and by sufficient transparency to facilitate accountability). But "supreme power", as you call it, sounds very much like absolute power, and that is never a good thing. Rivertorch (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

   VERY strongly oppose — Ched :  ?  01:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

3. Doing a RFC to propose unbanning of an editor that was banned by ArbCom is going down a slippery slope that is only going to get ugly. We don't need more drama right now. Secret <sup>account</sup> 03:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I do not agree with infinite bans. That being said, WBB could easily compose a statement to be posted here. I do not like third party appeals to the community.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
5. Firm Oppose, he should abide by the ArbCom decision, and per Risker below a proper venue for this kind of request is thataway. Trying to overturn an ArbCom decision with an RfC like this is a bad precedent and a slippery slope as Secret states above. This appears to be an attempt to perform an end run around our duly elected Arbitration Committee. And why hasn't WBB edited his own page with his request, his apology and 'lesson learned' statement that the author of this RFC has posted above, is he banned from editing his own talk page? Did WBB actually write ArbCom recently and ask to be unbanned, along with the necessary assurances of good behavior? The only things 'secret' in that ArbCom case were the personal identities of some of the involved; and WBB was not banned for "criticizing ArbCom", that's very clear from reading the case; claiming he was banned for criticizing ArbCom is just a twisting of the facts. Dreadstar ☥ 07:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
6. Oppose I have no dog in this fight, except as an editor of WP who respects the process of allowing people elected to a position to do their tasks as charged. This ArbCom decision seems to have occurred within the existing framework. Regardless of whether it's "allowed", this RFC seems like a waste of time for a group of volunteers who have enough to do, and I agree with Jclemens that the election will come around again. It's just WP - no one is in jail. -- Scray (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
7. Oppose I question if there's ever a good reason try an overturn an arbcom decision by any way other then election different arbcom members or changing policy universally (meaning not just affecting one person or case), but I've definitely seen nothing to suggest if there is, this is one of those cases. And a non neutral RFC in a third party user page is a rather weird place to discuss this anyway. Speaking of secrecy, is Will Beback even willing to have their appeal to arbcom made public (with any info arbcom feels compromises other participant removed)?(I struck this out as Will Beback has clarified.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
8. Oppose due to the process. I can see the benefits of this editor returning and support that idea in concept, but this is not the way to accomplish that. If we're going to have community RfCs overturning ArbCom decisions then what's the point in having the Arbitration Committee at all? Basalisk <sup>inspect damage</sup>⁄<sub>berate</sub> 16:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
9. Oppose The concept of using an RfC to overturn an ArbCom decision goes against any reasonable expectation of "how things work." I suggested in my ACE2012 page that ArbCom itself ought not make "U-turns". The number of editors who elect an arbitrator is pretty much guaranteed to be >> than any number participating in an RfC to overturn any specific decision. Thus any RfC is going to have far less a presumption of authority than the ArbCom has as a committee. That said, if one wishes to remove an arbitrator other than by election, the number required ought to be at least equal to the number of positive votes received by any such arbitrator - just in case anyone wishes to propose such an ability to "recall." Collect (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
10. This is a terribly one-sided summary of the events, as far as I can tell. I'd really like to see the whole story here, but with what's presented I can't help but get the feeling that a lot is missing, and as such I can't support it. --Conti|✉ 20:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
11. Oppose Will used incorrect information and did an end run around Wikipedia policies in an attempt to ban an opposing POV. This is a non-neutral end around in an attempt to whip up a faux-Outrage pitchfork and torches group. The fact that even with all the non-neutral items here (specific audience, non-neutral wording, etcetera we are very close to only a 50/50 view states full well that its supporters this is the only way they can appear to have the !votes on their side. Will has a path to be unbanned, and that is the only path available to him. SirFozzie (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
12. Strong oppose per above. --Rschen7754 21:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
13. Oppose - Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
14. Oppose --At present I have no opinion on whether WBB should be allowed to begin editing again or not as I don't know what transpired between WBB and ArbCom during his appeal. WBB has his given his version and Rogers Davies has expressed a different view of what transpired. However I do oppose this non-neutral psuedo-RfC which serves only to further alienate the community from ArbCom and from each other. Disclaimer: Both Jmh649 and I were named parties in the TM Arb Com and both he and I presented evidence in the Timid Guy case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
15. Oppose per all of the excellent reasons given above. That said, it might be useful if Arbcom made a short, collective public statement as to their ongoing concerns so that we are all brought up to speed. Montanabw<sup>(talk)</sup> 15:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

    I think this is something that both those who favor here and those who oppose here should be able to agree upon. Carrite (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

16. Strong Oppose for multiple reasons: This RfC is not neutrally worded even if an RfC could override the final DR forum on Wikipedia which it can't. 25 or so editors cannot override the arbitrators elected by the entire voting community. It is Will who has to address the concerns of the arbitrators, not Doc James or any other Will Beback supporter. So far comments strewn all over Wikipedia on behalf of Will are for the most part only partially true and are creating a false narrative about other editors. This isn't helping Will. To support an unblock I have to see that something has changed, that we have new information and I don't see that. I believe in giving editors a chance to correct behaviout that isn't conducive to good community functioning, but what I see here is an aura of negativity and attack surrounding a banned editor as soon as he appears, which is telling, and I can't support that. Note: I commented and presented evidence in the TG arbitration case.(olive (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC))
17. Oppose deciding in this venue, neutral on the concept as a whole If there was outing/harassment that cannot be availible for public review, then we're going to have to trust ArbCom on this one, for obvious reasons. If there was a serious outing issue, then obviously ArbCom cannot make that information public or they would be outing the selfsame person. I don't think that this is an issue that the community can decide because we don't have access to all of the evidence, and since it isn't possible for us to have that access. If ArbCom does decide to reinstate him, I would have no objections to that at all, but I don't think we can make a decision as a community without having full access to the evidence, and since we aren't going to have that access, we simply can't make that decision. --Jayron32 02:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

    A comment by one of our currently siting arbs that addresses this [12] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

    Still, even though the opinion of that Arb is public, the evidence itself still is not. If that Arb and others on the board agree to lift the ban based on his reasoning, I'd be fine with that. What I am not fine with is asking me (and others) to make a decision based on evidence we cannot see. Sure, he believes that the hidden evidence does not lead him to believe that the ban is valid, but I'm not going to make any decision based on a second-hand account of the evidence. If I can't see it myself, I can't decide one way or the other. --Jayron32 03:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

    Drafter of the case states " WBB was not banned on the basis of secret evidence but because of long-term no-holds-barred feuding" [13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

    Again, in the opinion of that arbitrator. If that arbitrator and his colleagues wish to lift the ban, I have no objections to them doing that. I don't think it just and proper for the community to decide this case if we can't see all of the evidence, and we cannot. That arb didn't think the evidence mattered. If we can't see the evidence, we can't decide that one way or the other. --Jayron32 20:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

18. Oppose trying to overturn an arbcom decision by community voting? That has bad idea written all over it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
19. Oppose per Andrew Lenahan. Also, making an RfC that is in actuality presented as a petition is a waste of community time/process/resources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
20. Oppose Throw out Arbcom if you don't like their decisions. Rumiton (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
21. 'Oppose. In Will's apology, he says the following: "I have come to realize that I have been overzealous in approaching COI issues." I find this to be disingenuous. Will's problem was never that of being "overzealous in approaching COI issues." His problem was that he would look at every policy in terms of how it might be gamed in order to win control of article content, especially by harming editors with an opposing POV. He was addicted to WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and his lack of candor in his so-called apology strongly suggests that nothing has changed. Waalkes (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
22. Oppose Agree with the above. It isn't an apology and WBB clearly hasn't changed. It's like the bigots who get caught expressing their true views by an open mike saying "Gays are filthy animals" and then think that an "apology" of "I misspoke and I'm sorry if my words caused offence" signifies they've had a Damascene conversion. They haven't and nor has WBB. His only interest is getting back onto Wikipedia and he will say anything to achieve that ends. I've been harassed, blocked and banned by WBB and his cronies for five years, he knows no other way.Momento (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
23. Oppose - I am uninvolved, but given the fact that WBB has not changed at all since his ban, I agree with all of the above concerns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Users who are neutral

Strong Oppose Will Beback very clearly showed that he cannot be trusted to edit neutrally nor act appropriately on Wikipedia. I fail to see how time will have changed this. In all likelihood, things would end up being even worse than before and no one wants to go through that headache again. Silverseren<sup>C</sup> 08:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That second comment is actually rather swaying. *sighs* I suppose another chance wouldn't be amiss, but I also agree with the others here that this RfC isn't the right process at all, so i'm just going to be neutral for now. Silverseren<sup>C</sup> 17:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Neutral Prior to being banned, Will Beback was far from being the biggest jackass [Audio (US)<sup>ⓘ</sup>] on Wikipedia. It didn't sit right with me for him be be banned while other users who were bigger jackasses were not banned. Given his assurances of good behavior, I expect that upon return, he wouldn't even make the top 10 jackasses, but I am at this time neutral. Uncle uncle uncle 23:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Users who object on RfC neutrality grounds

• Comment RfC statements are supposed to be neutral and brief. This RfC is not neutrally worded and needs to be restated in a neutral manner. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It's in userspace. Secret <sup>account</sup> 03:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with the neutrality? Feel free to add concerns about this user which could justify an indef ban. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Per RFC, the RFC statement should be neutral and brief, your RFC is neither; and adding an opposing POV as you suggest won't make it neutral either, it'll just make it worse. You need to take it to where it belongs, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. - Dreadstar ☥ 09:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This isn't an RFC, and does not use the RfC template; those rules do not apply to a general discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

So this is yet another end-run around Wikipedia policies and guidelines, creation of a "sort of" RFC, which has all the appearance of an RFC, advertised like an RFC, but can be as biased as all hell. Very....unusual, as several others have pointed out. A non-RFC RFC to overthrow ArbCom. Interesting. Dreadstar ☥ 18:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It's also forum shopping as an appeal by this editor was just rejected by ArbCom. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

All Doc James is doing is asking that Will Beback be welcomed back to the community. Any other discussion is off-topic. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I have more concerns over the neutrality of this RfC. The drafter appears to be an involved editor in this dispute. I don't see where this editor acknowledged their involvement in the RfC (but maybe I missed it?). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A user perceived problems with an ArbCom decision and opened an informal discussion about it in user space. I don't see anything inappropriate about that, nor do I see why anyone's "involved" status has any relevance to the validity of the discussion. What does neutrality have to do with it? Are editors with preexisting opinions now supposed to avoid initiating discussions? If this were a formal RfC, the wording would be inappropriate, but it isn't a formal RfC. Rivertorch (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you bring up another problem with this "RfC". It's not a real RfC. It should be closed down before it wastes anyone else's time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Have in fact acknowledged my involvement a number of times. Above I state "and was involved in the case in question" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you were, very involved. With all your knowledge of this case why did you write above "the so called "outing" which occurred was an off Wikipedia private email"? That statement is at least incorrect and at worst untrue. There were allegations of outing in the public evidence and edits by WBB were oversighted.  Roger Davies <sup>talk</sup> 14:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree comments such as this are inappropriate [14]. It however is not really any more inappropriate than the comments made by one user Roger Davies here [15] or his comments by private email to other admins "Finally, how does any of this equate to a greater degree of paid advocacy than, say, Doc James, who is paid a fat salary to cleave to orthodox medicine?". Will has at least said he was sorry for his comments and that he will not repeat them while Roger Davies when asked about his comments expounded upon the rightness of his position. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine)

Wow, that is so far beyond reaching that I can only resort to calling upon Plastic Man as a response, there's a world of difference between Roger's and Will's comments and behavior, even if we cherry pick statements like you're doing here, ignoring long-term patterns and history. Nice job of really reaching, I feel like we've been tossed into the Negative Zone . Dreadstar ☥ 17:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment--WBB was banned for persistent personal attacks, outing, harassment and battleground conduct as Doc has stated above. [16] However editors may want to look at all the full range of diffs provided by the Committee for each finding [17] rather than the selective list given above. Also, there are hundreds of other diffs provided on the evidence page which you can view here. The conditions for returning were: 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. It would appear that WBB was not able to convince either the new or the old Committee that his history of disruptive conduct would not continue and I'm wondering why this editor amongst the many other ArbCom sanctioned editors (also with high edit counts) deserves a public campaign to overthrow the judgements of the Committee, whom we elected to make just these kind of tough decisions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The issues around arbcom generally has been raised here [18] but that will be another discussion. While a board of directors picks a CEO, if they lose faith in the later they will occasionally overturn he or her decisions. When arbcom is elected they are not given a cart blanch to do whatever they like. The community hold ultimate authority and it might be a useful idea to put in place some oversight for this community. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Without wishing to pass comment on the merits of this particular case, I do think it would be sensible if ArbCom were to give some specific reason as to why a particular editor's appeal has been turned down. If the aim is to "rehabilitate" a blocked editor, providing them with some guidance on what they need to do to get unblocked would be worth doing. I don't think the door should be closed on an editor returning except in the most extreme and egregious cases. Prioryman (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

How is it possible to demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee that his history of disruptive conduct will not continue? It seems unreasonable to require proof of future behaviour without allowing future activity. • • • Peter (Southwood) <sup>(talk)</sup>: 05:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The usual yardstick is for the editor to demonstrate some insight into the original problem. Despite the "TimidGuy decision" being the "final binding decision" specified both in the ArbCom policy and Terms of Use, WBB wants the case substantially reheard on the same grounds that were extensively aired during the original case. Despite the topic ban, he wants to return to NRM topic. Despite the case, he seemingly has every intention of returning to COI allegations should the situation re-arise. None of this bodes well for the future.  Roger Davies <sup>talk</sup> 14:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• As a former Arbitrator with complete access to all of the previous discussions and none of the current ones, I have to say that in light of the 2013 ArbCom's penchant for pardoning folks, the turnover in arbitrators between 2012-2013, and the rather low bar set for Will Beback's return, it appears almost certain to me that the only reason Will Beback has not returned to editing is because he refused to admit the abusive nature of his past administrator conduct and agree to not engage in similar conduct in the future. I can comment a limited amount more if desired, but I think it's pretty clear that ArbCom has it right.

What concerns me more is the penchant for like-minded POV warriors to attack ArbCom (either past or current iterations), rather than admit that Will Beback deserved sanctions for his off-wiki behavior. Suspicion of COI, even if founded, is never justification for the behavior Will Beback engaged in--Wikipedia:COI#Avoid outing makes that clear. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

We are not a representative democracy so the comment to "elect different people to Arbcom" misses the point. Arbcom has not even been able to keep sock puppets from within its numbers and per the Signpost [19] it looks like the group is having ongoing serious issues. So yes we need oversight for arbcom decisions and that is what I am attempting to bring about here.

Also the decision was made in secret. How are we supposted to "know" who to "vote" for when we cannot determine their position? Jclemens as one of the drafter of the case in question how do you consider this an indef bannable comment? [20]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The decision was presumably communicated to WBB at some point. If you want to ask an arbitrator about his or her position... then ask him or her. As far as any particular comment... why do you ask? Need each comment referenced in evidence of a case that resolves in a ban be individually grounds for such a ban? Of course not. So please explain to me the point of your question. The fact that ArbCom has issues is far from news to me, by the way. Jclemens (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You placed "sanctions for his off-wiki behavior". Well that's an interesting development. IRWolfie- (talk)

Can you comment on the fact that Will Beback never outed anyone on Wikipedia? That the only "outing" was off Wikipedia and in fact the community does not consider off wiki private email communications outing? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

When a user is banned for lese majesty they should be unbanned, and the persons that banned them should be encouraged to learn how Wikipedia works. Rich Farmbrough, 03:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC).

You know, that's the one thing I really regret about the case--While all the then-arbitrators were aware of all the facts of the matter, in my vote to ban, I embellished the truth in order to try and downplay the political impact of ArbCom smacking Jimbo down in public, and it got picked up in the Signpost. (Not the last time I said something that ended up having farther reaching consequences than I intended, either. Sigh.) While everything I said about Will Beback's one-sided portrayal of evidence in his communications to Jimbo was entirely true, my own portrayal of those facts in my public statement was calculated to avoid unnecessarily casting Jimbo in a bad light. The fact is that Jimbo knew, or should have known, that no reasonable interpretation of the COI guideline as it stood then (vs. as he might have wished it to be) supported the ban--that's presumably why Will Beback had forum-shopped all the way to the top when no other venue would give him the desired result. I voted to ban Will Beback because I viewed his behavior as both Machiavellian and unrepentant, and don't regret doing that in the least. So the real reason Will Beback was banned was never making Jimbo look bad, it was for his actual behavior, and the former impression was an attempt at calculated damage control on my part. Jclemens (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No-one took seriously anything whatsoever you have ever written publicly about that decision after you tried to explain that WBB was banned for persecution of religious minorities. Fladrif (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I embellished the truth. I had trouble with that statement when I first read it. I'm having more trouble understanding its impact when I consider User:Flladrifs comment. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Arbcom exists to resolve problems that the community has demonstrated that it can't; if the community can solidly say "no return", we can mark WB as being community banned, or if the community can solidly say "yes, return", we can unblock WB. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, we can't unblock him. We can only indicate to Arbcom members, that the community wants it to be so. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I believe the page you were looking for, Jmh649 is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.Risker (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No I am wanting a community discussion not an arbcom discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Jmh649, you weren't a party to this specific case, but you were to the one that led to this one. I think there's valid reason to question your neutrality on this issue. For the record, I did not vote on Will Beback's unban request, and I opposed banning him in the original case. Risker (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I have openly stated that I was and am involved. I am asking the community to look at the issue themselves. They are more than welcome to determine the neutrality of all those involved including my own. The difficulty is that much was decided in secrecy and of course the prior relationships between the arbcom members who voted on this issue and Will Beback are unclear. He after making more than 100,000 edits would have had many interactions with all who got to officially weight in on the case. He also had some interactions which were less than positive with an arbcom member who was supported by the arbcom generally for a prolonged period of time who turned out to be a sockpuppet. Not a situation which instills confidence in this organization ability to make independent decisions regarding long term editors who deal with controversial subject matter. So to be clear yes I am insinuating that their are issues with arbcom but these will likely require a different discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The only arbitrator who "turned out to be a sockpuppet" left the committee in May 2009, which is 2.5 years before the case that resulted in Will Beback's ban. Please get your facts straight before you start throwing around allegations. Risker (talk) 06:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see where he implied that the 2 and a half year gap was otherwise. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You miss my point, IRWolfie. There was no such arbitrator on the committee during the TimidGuy/Will Beback case, and it is rather disturbing that Jmh649 would state that there was, since it is obviously untrue. Risker (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If you read the statement carefully, he doesn't say there was. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If you read the statement carefully, he does appear to state that strongly implies there was a sockpuppet arbitrator working on the case that resulted in WBB's ban; and why else would James even mention it, if not to try and link the two together in responder's minds. It's obvious. the implication, even if not directly stated. Dreadstar ☥ 20:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the more carefully I read the statement, James is outright saying a sockpuppet was on the committee that voted to ban WBB, very clearly " He also had some interactions which were less than positive with an arbcom member who was supported by the arbcom generally for a prolonged period of time who turned out to be a sockpuppet." That's certainly clear enough to me. Dreadstar ☥ 20:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Clear enough for you? He didn't say it occurred during the same period. You are inferring it, but that does not mean it was implied. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

He didn't say when it occurred at all, the natural progression of his comments directly lead one to conclude that it was during the same time period as the banning vote. And why mention it at all? What did it have to do with the banning case? Nothing, but the statement makes it look like it did. I can't see how that isn't clear to everyone who reads it. Dreadstar ☥ 21:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It's possible I could be reading it too literally. I've asked the Doc to respond, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No my statement does not mean that this person was on arbcom at the time of the decision in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Your statement pretty clearly says something you didn't intend, then. Please strike that part of it, since it is misleading and implies there was an arbitrator who was actively socking during the course of the case. Risker (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Risker, you should strike that part of your comment since it reads as something you did not intend. Dreadstar ☥ 23:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It was perfectly clear to me that DocJames was referring to disgraced ex-Arb Rlevese/VanishedUser/BarkingMoon/PumpkinSky and not to any member of ArbCom that was sitting at the time of the TimidGuy appeal case. Fladrif (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong again Fladrif; take your venomous falsehoods elsewhere. Dreadstar ☥ 23:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

My statement is only to reflection on the fact that arbcom is far from infallible. We are a project which believes that "with enough eyes all bugs are shallow". And yet there are many here who think we should allow small groups to make decisions regarding the functioning of the community behind closed doors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, the statement we've been discussing can in no way mean what you're claiming now; just to refresh your memory, that statement is "He also had some interactions which were less than positive with an arbcom member who was supported by the arbcom generally for a prolonged period of time who turned out to be a sockpuppet.", a statement which is impossible to ascribe to Rlevse. Dreadstar ☥ 16:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

To the contrary, it is impossible to ascribe Doc's statement to refer to anyone other then Rlevse, who: (i) had less than positive interaction with WBB while an ArbCom Member; (ii) was supported by ArbCom at least until he resigned in disgrace; and (iii) is indisputably a sockpuppet. He admits the sockpuppetry as to the VanishedUser and PumpkinSky accounts. He denies sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry as to the JoJo and BarkingMoon accounts, though the denials are less than credible, and in the former case involved abuse of his role as an Arb. Risker and Dreadstar are getting their panties in a twist over their misreading of Doc's statement as somehow referring to someone who was sitting on ArbCom at the time of the decision. He said no such thing. Fladrif (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Carefully re-read this sentence, "He also had some interactions which were less than positive with an arbcom member who was supported by the arbcom generally for a prolonged period of time who turned out to be a sockpuppet," it says "arbitrator who turned out to be a sockpuppet" not "an arbitrator who later became a sockpuppet", if indeed one believes your version of the truth and not reality where vanishing was invoked in such manner that a legitimate replacement account was created, and Rlevse wasn't JoJo or Barkingmoon, but feel free to believe all the fairy-tale falsehoods you can dream up. There actually was an active arbitrator who was a sock and had interactions with WBB, it certainly was not Rlevse. Nice try, but take your panties elsewhere and try to sell them to someone else, I ain't buying. Dreadstar ☥ 17:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• I looked at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Cirt] and saw where Will Beback reposted a comment by Off2riorob, dated 11:18, 9 December 2008, that gave personal details about another editor. The original comment by Off2riorob can still be seen at Talk:Bhagwan_Shree_Rajneesh/Archive_10#the_world_tour. A post about those same personal details was among Arbcom's public evidence against Will Beback for writing about other editors' affiliations. Was it also intended to be evidence of outing? The outing charge mentions "public material" but doesn't give specific examples. Reposting a comment that is visible to the world should not count as outing IMO.

In his posts on Sue Gardner's talk page, he is complaining that the policy on outing is too strict. It doesn't look to me as though he was posting there in order to harass someone—unless trying unsuccessfully to reach Sue Gardner is to be construed as harassing her—but rather because he wanted the policy changed. Are administrators allowed to suggest changes to policies? Is it possible for anyone to follow a policy without entirely agreeing with it?

I do see the combative tone in some of his posts. It seems most of the friction came from Will Beback's attempts at dealing with what he sees as POV edits by certain editors who he perceives to have a COI on one topic. Perhaps a demand that he avoid that topic and those editors would be in order. —rybec 02:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

He was topic banned from new religious movements and desysop'ed, as well as being banned. Editors would be well served by reading the entire case, rather than just a one-sided summary of it. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree going over the evidence presented by arbcom for the statements they make is interesting. Each person weighting in should definitely decide for themselves if the evidence provided is sufficient for the charges made.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what one sided summary you are referring to. The only summary I am aware of is the arbcom one. The evidence presented in the evidence page shows that TimidGuy was pushing a POV. You (plural) decided to desyop, topic ban, and ban the other guy on rather weak grounds with regards to what occured on-wiki. For Timid you just gave advice to adhere to the guidelines. IRWolfie- (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, I believe they're talking about this one-sided summary. Dreadstar ☥ 07:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• I am not going to express an opinion one way or the other regarding Will Beback's ban (I have had prior dealings with him which would probably require me to recuse myself if I were ever in a position to pass formal judgment on him). However, I have two general thoughts which I think are relevant here:

1. I do think it's reasonable and appropriate for members of the community to express themselves on this question. Quoting something I said last December in my unsuccessful ArbCom candidacy: "I am still not totally comfortable with the idea that rulings should be based more on popular opinion than on principle, but if a proposed sanction is widely and vocally opposed, that may sometimes be a reasonable indication that the sanction may not have been well thought out and should perhaps be reconsidered."
2. I am troubled by the idea that if the community doesn't like WB's ban, the solution is for us to elect a different set of arbs who will agree to unban him. During the last ArbCom election, much of the discussion focussed on whether candidates agreed with one specific ArbCom ruling (and some "voter's guide" authors evidently based their recommendations primarily on this one issue). While I accept that members of the community have a right to support or oppose ArbCom candidates based on pretty much whatever criteria they prefer to use, this particular thing seemed to me at the time to be overly divisive and confrontational, and I don't think it's a good idea to encourage it in future ArbCom elections. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The level of punishment far exceeds the crime. Is it necessary for Will to lay prone before the ArbCom committee and ask their forgiveness? This is not some hack that shows up and causes problems everywhere he goes. Will is, was and will be a quality editor that does quality work. He was not and, when he is allowed to return, will not be combative. This lack of understanding and compassion by an ArbCom in the midst of their own turmoil is cancerous. It is a slowly destructive evil that will spread thru the Body Wikipedia. It was one thing to ban him using questionable reasoning but to not allow his return is unconscionable. There has to be more here than Will's unwillingness to "toe the line". I edited many political talk pages at the same time as Will and always found him to be one of the best editors there was. Thoughtful, forceful, strident at times but never disrespectful. His detractors had a hard time with the quality of his problem solving capacity. He was able to cut thru the crap and get to the point. Many political articles have whatever quality they have because Will was there to safeguard the Encyclopedia. I really don't care why Will was banned. I do care why he is not allowed to return. Will deserves a public campaign to reinstate him because the editing environment needs him. It needs his insight and his leadership. And I would still like to know what the vote count was to maintain the ban? 8 to 4? 5 to 4 w/ 3 abstaining? Does anyone know?```Buster Seven Talk 06:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
• @Jclemens - are you sure there was a finding of Administrator misconduct? I can't find anything at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal. We need to be very careful that we present the facts correctly about Will's ban. I think we need a strong ArbCom with the ability to conduct some of its discussions in confidence, but I also agree with Buster7 on why we need Will reinstated as an editor. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment- I have no history with Will Beback and no opinion about whether he should welcomed back or not. However, I disagree with the rationale given by some of the opposers, namely that the community is not allowed to reach a consensus that overrules ArbCom. Of course we can. Reyk <sub>YO!</sub> 07:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment In reply to some of the opposes, telling arbitrators that they or their predecessors made a mistake is neither a slippery slope nor an end run. It is discussing an issue. Cardamon (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Out of curiosity, is there precedent for this? Seeing how admins get de-admined for overturning Arbcom blocks, I'm not seeing how...if this RfC were successful...an unblock would actually come about. An admin stepping up to do the deed would still technically be at risk for de-adminning. Tarc (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If there is community support I bet it is likely that some admin will do the unblock. I have one specific individual in mind who I bet would help out. Probably first though I would ask the blocking admin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It might be better to get the consensus, and then go to the Amendments page, and then publicly request the amendment striking the ban provisions. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. No Admin should unblock, no matter what the consensus is. Dougweller (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment(cross post from WBB's talk page) Hi Will. How would you feel if right now I started treating you the way you treated me: hounding me, trying to blackmail me, and accusing me of things I didn't do? Just how would a taste of you medicine go down right now? All this you totally ignored in your above statement. There were others besides TG that were negatively impacted too. What about them? I also see something I think I've never seen before: User:Jmh649/Will Beback, a ban appeal being hosted on a user subpage, but eh. Your ban was from AC and I suggest you appeal to them as an admin unblocking an AC ban without approval would engender its own problems and drama and could well result in that admin losing their bit. Due to our history I will not post in the support/oppose section but will cross post this onto Doc's subpage. PumpkinSky talk 14:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This isn't an appeal by Will Beback. Will already appealed. You just didn't hear about it because it was secret and it was rejected. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Then keeping in mind I am not an admin, arb, nor hold any other such bits, then I simply say that if AC has banned someone then turned down an AC unban request, any admin that then unblocks the user in question could be in for a serious drama fest. I've seen it before. PumpkinSky talk 16:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No one needs to do it. We send a message when a large amount of the community support it. Jclemen said "If you don't like ArbCom's decision, elect people to ArbCom who will make different decisions." Which is impossible considering the vote to keep him blocked was secret; we don't see what was happening in any of the deliberations. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

@SilverSeren: There was no findings of fact that Will BeBack's own edits to articles were in any way problematic. It was TimidGuy who had edits that did not conform to MEDRS: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal#Site_ban:_TimidGuy.27s_editing. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie, I think you might have innocently misread the Finding you have cited. It says: 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. There was no Finding that TimidGuy's edits "did not conform with MEDRS" Best wishes,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

From the findings of fact: 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. It is the very next sentence after the one you pasted. I also question the ability of ArbCom to judge the neutrality of a topic area that they have no apparent experience with. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

One of the arbitrators who supported the finding is a physician.  Roger Davies <sup>talk</sup> 19:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know which Arbcom member is a medical doctor, but I'm skeptical that you relied solely on her/his opinion of what was neutral. I should also add that I meant experience in the sense of editors who have edited a lot specifically in MEDRS covered areas. The evidence suggests you judged the neutrality yourself: [21]. There was no indication in the findings of fact that Will edited in a problematic way. On the other hand, you regarded [22] as negative, even though it still says you should use the treatment, and it ends with " Individuals with moderate symptoms were observed to benefit from the practice" [23]. The editing pattern was/is to make everything look like it's controversial but not specifically refuted [24][25][26]). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, my mistake regarding the sentence on MEDRS. I've amended my comment above. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I may not have been involved in the case myself, but I was around when it happened and I did read everything then. While Arbcom may not have wanted to go quite as far as to say his edits were problematic, it was quite evident that they were. It was just another situation of "long term editor, do we actually want to make a negative judgement against them". Anyone with eyes who saw Will Beback's editing in regards to Timidguy and even his editing elsewhere could clearly see the problem. And since this is meant to be a community RfC, members of the community and the opinion on the subject of unblocking him matters. Silverseren<sup>C</sup> 20:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I oppose this "RfC" on the grounds that: We have no new information beyond a short statement apparently by Will Beback and posted by someone else. How can we determine anything without information. An RfC cannot overturn ArbCom decisions. The facts of the TG Arbitration are not presented accurately, here. We have community-visible forums for appealing cases. If Will wants to return and wants to present his case on Wikipedia, he should present his appeal there? Further, we have elected an arbitration committee. These days, in general, it seems that there is a propensity to attack them whenever we don't agree with them, which seems less than productive.(olive (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC))

• Comment I have practically no knowledge of the background of this, so I don't really know if I should support or oppose. However, I would like ArbCom to handle this more out in the open, unless they have a reason for not doing so. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 17:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• "injured partY"? Erm. There were multiple ones here, not just TG, so what about the other apologies? KB, etc. He's never apologized for trying to blackmail me either. PumpkinSky talk 18:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Blackmail? In a word, horsehockey. You were hardly "injured" by WBB pointing out to you that it was painfully obvious to everyone paying attention that you were then using a family member's account as a sockpuppet/meatpuppet account to not only post but to also vote? Fladrif (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Only two 2012 arbitrators have "wikipedian physician" as a category on their user page. Was one of those the physician to whom Roger Davies was referring above? Mathsci (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Probably Jclemens. If I remember well, he was the driving force behind the Ban.--В и к и T 10:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Roger Davies is clearly referring to Calisber, whose homepage states that he is a psychiatrist. JClemens is not a doctor. Fladrif (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes but he opposed the outcome of this case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Calisber did support the finding that the evidence showed that TG was violating MEDRS. Calisber did not support the finding that TG's recent editing showed no systemic concerns or apparent advocacy. [27] He opposed the site ban of WBB, and did not support any other sanction against WBB other than admonishment. So, if Roger is suggesting that Calisber's opinion should carry greater weight because he is a doctor...draw your own conclusions. Fladrif (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

For those of you that may have missed it, banned User:Will Beback has made a second comment @ User talk:Will Beback. I have moved it here and placed it at the beginning of this page, under his previous "Plea for Mercy". User:PumpkinSky has commented there also. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Doc James saw the "private evidence" which ArbCom addressed in secret and on which they based the ban. He characterizes it as "so weak". [28] Concerning the secret reason(s) for upholding the ban now, JClemens, who participated in the process that led to its imposition in the first place, can offer only speculation and assumption: "...it appears almost certain to me that the only reason Will Beback has not returned to editing is because he refused to admit the abusive nature of his past administrator conduct and agree to not engage in similar conduct in the future [...] I think it's pretty clear Arbcom has it right"—when no such thing, of course, is clear.

The fact that arbs are elected does not make them infallible. Neither does it make them unaccountable to the community, or mean that we must bow unquestioningly to decisions arrived at in secret. Further, there is the uneven-handedness (cf. Will Beback and Timid Guy). Government, even elected government, without transparency is essentially oppressive and runs counter to the interests and needs of the governed. It's pathetic that this behaviour has not only been allowed in the governance of Wikipedia, but has even a modicum of active support.

The proposal here is that Will Beback be allowed back to edit. Yet numerous of the opposing comments are not, in fact, opposing this proposal. They just register some kind of dissatisfaction with the fact that the proposal is being made here at all--e.g. opposition #s 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16. Opposing an editor's return for no better reason than that you're dissatisfied with the venue or manner of the proposal suggests a punitive economy of rational thought that's really rather remarkable even by Wikipedia's standards. Writegeist (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

WOW! Eleven out of sixteen. Thats over 68%. I would hope that a few of the opposes might reconsider now that Will Beback's second statement is available and provides a little more insight...and updated remorse.```Buster Seven Talk 21:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

So far he's only eaten humble pie, donned sackcloth and ashes, and dragged a crucifix along the Via Dolorosa on his knees—woefully inadequate in Lent, when the penitent is also required to flagellate himself in full view of the arbs to prove his good faith. Writegeist (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to believe it and accept the apologies and promises, but it doesn't seem to jibe with this. The real problem is that this is not the venue or correct path for Will to be unbanned - it's so wrong on so many levels as outlined by many above; and sadly, I think this 'sort-of RFC' is doing Will more harm than good. This should be shut down, and Will should be encouraged to convince ArbCom that he understands the issues and will abide by their findings. Dreadstar ☥ 23:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry I do not see how a super majority supportive of Will's return does him "more harm than good" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS, not a supermajority; I assume you already know this, but since your pseudo-RfC isn't anywhere near generating consensus, you're just trying to make yet another end-run around Wikipedia Policy to get your own way. Sad, really. Dreadstar ☥ 18:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

@ Dreadstar. Will's second statement above may answer some of your doubts. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, his three apologetic statements do indeed relieve some of my doubts, but the big one remains: this attempt to overthrow ArbCom and bypass the Dispute Resolution process, which I believe would seriouisly undermine the authority placed in the hands of ArbCom, and is a slippery slope down the road of chaos, especially with Doc James goal of replacing WP:CONSENSUS with supermajority, a very compelling word that just means, "I got more than 50% of the vote, so go hang all of your policies, us 50.001% can do whatever we like." Dreadstar ☥ 18:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like an explanation from those editors who are simultaneously clamoring for Cla68 to be allowed to return to editing, even though he gave ArbCom the finger when asked to do nothing more than promise he wouldn't violate the Outing policy in the future, while vehemently insisting here that WBB not be permitted to return to editing, who has posted that he has learned a lot in the year + he's been banned and promised that he would change his behavior if allowed to return. You know who you are Explain why anyone confronted with the absurd inconsistency should not dismiss your comments in both fora as mere animus. Fladrif (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Assuming that ArbCom's assessment of WBB is correct, so assuming he has not understood why his behavior was problematic etc., then that would be a valid reason to not grant him back his Admin tools and keep him topic banned. Putting aside whether he also had to be banned for one year, one can also appreciate that being away for one year from Wikipedia will make the editor in question lose his urge to control the content of articles here. That urge was presumably the prime motivator that led to him to behave in the way he did. Then this means that while WBB may still not "get it", that issue may be a moot one, especially considering that he isn't going to be allowed to edit the problem areas for the time being. The benefits of allowing him back in other areas of Wikipedia is that other editors may give him feedback that he can accept because the focus is then on collaboratively editing some article, instead of arguing his side of the ArbCom case that he has strong feelings about. Count Iblis (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. To the person who said "It isn't an apology and WBB clearly hasn't changed.... His only interest is getting back onto Wikipedia and he will say anything to achieve that ends. I've been harassed, blocked and banned by WBB and his cronies for five years, he knows no other way." — It's not clear to me if this is really a valid basis to oppose. Consider the following:

1. You might (or might not) be right regarding WBB's motivations or the sincerity of his apology, but if he does get unbanned, he won't be an admin anymore, so you won't need to worry about being "blocked and banned" by him.
2. Any new instances of harassment by WBB (including actions violating his ongoing topic ban, or groundless efforts by him to get others to block or ban you) would presumably be dealt with promptly and harshly, so if he is still prone to his former misbehaviour, the worst we would be doing by unbanning him would be to give him enough rope to hang himself.
3. As for actions against you by his "cronies", whoever they might be, their ability to act wouldn't be affected one way or the other by whether WBB remains banned or not.

If there really is a good reason to keep him banned, and not even give him or ourselves a chance to see if he can behave himself or not, by all means let's consider that, but I'm not sure the above qualifies as such. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I have no faith in admins, ARB:COM or you to police WBB. The Prem Rawat article has been one of the most contentious articles on Wikipedia and yet no one lifted a finger to stop his obvious harassment despite five years of irrefutable evidence. I, on the other hand, and three other editors have recently been indefinitely topic banned for "persistent battle ground behaviour" without a shred of evidence by an admin who cannot tell the difference between "perpetrator" and "victim". Here's a test for you - have a look at the banning of Rainer P. [29], Rumiton [30] and me and tell me if we are not the victims of PatW "persistent battle ground behaviour" and the victims of yet another disgraceful miscarriage of Wikipedia justice [31]. Here's a start [32] Momento (talk) 07:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

@Momento: It appears to me that ArbCom decided to reclassify the Prem Rawat article under a newer, more generic sanctions regimen than the one under which you and the others were topic-banned, and that you and the others were encouraged to refile your appeal as an Arbitration Enforcement request. However, it doesn't look like anyone ever followed up on this. I'm not sure why ArbCom didn't just move the matter over to AE themselves — perhaps because it was near the end of the year — but I would certainly urge you to go do that on your own. The issue did seem to still be unresolved; several statements from the arbs expressed concern over the actions of the admin in question; and for what it may be worth, I note that PatW (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked for an alleged violation of the Outing policy. As for whether ArbCom or anyone else would be inclined to keep tabs on WBB in the event he were to be unbanned, I would point out again that even if WBB's site ban were lifted, he would still be under an indefinite topic ban "from pages related to new religious movements, broadly construed" — so any activity at all on his part, anywhere on Wikipedia, dealing even tangentially with Prem Rawat would surely be dealt with quickly. Additionally, even if WBB were allowed to return to Wikipedia, he is no longer an admin and (IMO) would stand no chance at all of regaining the mop in the foreseeable future. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

@ Momento and Richwales: I also am sorry the editors banned did not appeal. I came to the article as an uninvolved editor and felt that the ban was surprising given the progress and efforts editors had made in establishing non battle ground behaviour. The ban was out of sync with what was actually happening on the article talk page. (olive (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC))

Speaking strictly for myself, I have been too aghast to appeal. After watching PatW indulging himself in personal attacks and denigration almost daily for years, while WBB connived to get everyone else but him banned, then this outrageous "nuclear option" by Blade, the banning of everyone who was trying to help the article, which passed without a word of comment by any other admin or Arbcom member, and now this apparently widespread acceptance of WBB's "apology" for being "overzealous" ... is it surprising that not much faith remains in the system? Rumiton (talk) 03:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding WBB's continued exclusion from New Religious Movement articles, how will that help anything? His favourite MO in the past has not been to confront his opponents or show open incivility, but to privately e-mail his admin allies (which he clearly still has plenty of) and get editors topic banned without a given reason, while he stands aside and looks innocent. Let me remind you, he got away with that for YEARS. And what will prevent him from continuing to do that, banned or not? This is what I meant elsewhere by long lasting damage. When someone gets topic banned yet again for no given reason, as I recently was here [33] to what should I attribute it? Is it WBB acting behind the scenes again? Or is it just a result of other editors maintaining the battleground atmosphere that he (mostly) created? Rumiton (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

How is keeping him blocked preventing him from doing that now? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty much the point I was making; the damage cannot be quickly undone. But accepting his own self-estimation as merely "overzealous", and welcoming him back, is not sending out a healing message. Rumiton (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see how this line of reasoning can be productive here. If you have concrete evidence that WBB has been privately orchestrating topic bans and is continuing to do so now, you need to bring this to ArbCom's attention ASAP. The best (indeed, probably the only) way to do this is for you and the others to reopen the appeal of your current topic bans at WP:AE. If you fail to do this, there is simply no valid reason for anyone to give any weight to your allegations against WBB, TBotNL, or anyone else. I will point out once again that when this issue was last taken up, several arbs expressed concern about TBotNL's actions and seemed very open to investigating further. The ball is in your court. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to take up anymore time and I thank you for your interest but there are two important issues here. One is that you say unless I "appeal of (my) current topic ban at WP:AE there is simply no valid reason for anyone to give any weight to your allegations against WBB". I have brought irrefutable evidence of WBB's lies and deceit to ArbCom for five long years and been ignored. Here's me ringing the alarm in 2009 and being studiously ignored. [34] If a policeman is found out to be corrupt the normal procedure is to look back a previous cases where the actions of the corrupt policeman have been instrumental in securing a conviction and see if they are also corrupt. I have along history of blocks and bans that should never have happened and that influence the gullible to this day. I'm not suggesting that WBB instigated my current ban but the second issue is that this ban is part of a continuing harassment started by WBB and his cronies in 2008 where I have to waste my time and energy undoing an absurd action by admins like TBotNL when a blind man could see that I have done nothing wrong. Where is the mechanism for ArbCom or admins to say - "This ban is absurd and a grotesque breach of admin conduct. Momento is unbanned and TBotNL is de admined"? I'm not going to continue the banning conversation here, I will take it to AE even though I have been told that nothing has changed and it will likely fail. As for WBB, his recent words show he hasn't changed and I doubt he can.Momento (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Momento here. If Arbcom had looked at the situation themselves, or moved the matter over to AE and let RainerP's case proceed automatically, they would have made a strong statement. They didn't do that. Presented with strong evidence of injustice, they gave him faint encouragement and invited him to start the whole bureaucratic process afresh. I believe I can understand why he hasn't done so. Rumiton (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It's time to end this pseudo-RfC

Aside from the facts that:

1. This is a non-neutral RfC
2. This is in a non-standard venue
3. There is no consensus to overturn ArbCom's ban
4. A non-neutral, non-binding, pseudo-RfC cannot overturn an ArbCom ban

What admin would be willing to lose there bit by undoing an ArbCom ban? Sorry, guys, this is going nowhere. I suggest that we close this down before we waste anyone else's time. This 'RfC' is not worth the pixels on anyone's screen. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I was not surprised to see that you added to the drama by creating your very own section. (I hope that your aim was not to shut down discussion.) My understanding is that most of those agreeing (not really voting) view the informal RfC as a prelude to a formal request through normal arbcom channels, e.g. a request for amendment. Mathsci (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

AQFK - please stop refactoring other people's posts per WP:TPG. That is extremely rude. So please stop. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This proposal will be presented to arbcom once it has had a chance to run its course. They will be free to do with it as they like. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What this "pseudo-RfC" amounts to, more or less, is a bunch of editors picketing outside the Arbitration Committee Building in downtown Wikiland, hoping that the committee will look out their windows and notice us. And when they do, they will have to do something, don't ya think! So...until the cops come chase us off the lawn, I'm staying. For those worried about wasting precious pixels, thanks for the laugh. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if AQFK were correct about this being a waste of time, WP:Waste of Time is not official policy, so you can't invoke it to close this RFC. Count Iblis (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

As a Committee member I have no problems with people having a discussion in any venue regarding a Committee decision. I also feel it is appropriate in certain circumstances for the community to ask the Committee to review a decision.

As regards this particular issue: One of the factors that led to Will being banned, was that when he had a different point of view to another editor, and was in conflict with that editor, he acted inappropriately. This is something that has happened before in Will's editing history, and he has previously been twice admonished and once blocked for such POV conflicts. Will appears to have lost sense of perspective in this particular conflict, and after failing to get that user restricted through legitimate means, he gathered private data on that user and presented it secretly to Jimbo in a misleading argument that the user was engaged in paid advocacy. Jimbo accepted the evidence in good faith and on face value. Will asserted that he came upon the information accidently.

The private part of the ArbCom case was the Committee looking into the private information Will had collected, and finding there was no evidence in the assertions that paid advocacy was taking place. For me (I can't speak for the others), there was a certain amount of distaste at the lengths that Will went to to examine this other user's private life. If a user wishes to edit Wikipedia, and another editor gets into a content conflict with them, they should not feel concerned that their daily activity, their job, their life, will be hunted out and presented secretly to other users on Wikipedia.

Will has apologised for the distress he caused the other user, and that is a positive step. However, he does not acknowledge that engaging in the behaviour he did, constitutes battleground behaviour. The principle wording was "Prolonged and repetitive use of community processes to perpetuate ideological and/or content disputes is extremely disruptive and creates a toxic environment." Will went a bit further than than, because when the community processes did not achieve what he wanted, he got Jimbo to ban him through presentation of private information and his own theories of what that told him about the other user's life.

When Will appealed to us, we discussed it and held a vote and the consensus was to deny the appeal. That is our role. I voted to deny the appeal. Will asked for an explanation. My understanding is that I was the only one to respond. For me, one of the key things in banning a user is that they have a mind set (conscious or unconscious) which leads to inappropriate behaviour harmful to the project or the community. A ban, for me, is not a punishment, and there is no such thing as time served. A ban serves to keep away from the project a user who may be problematic. When considering an appeal, what I am looking for is understanding by the user of why they were banned, and a commitment to addressing those issues. For me, as long as a user is aware of the issues, they can make a reasonable attempt to avoid repeating the behaviour that led to the ban. I wrote to Will explaining that I didn't see evidence that he had understood why he was banned. He felt it was to do with paid advocacy, and didn't appear to accept that he was engaged in battleground behaviour. He argued the point with me, which dismayed me somewhat as he was responding with that blinkered, repetitive, won't let go attitude that was central to the behaviour I was concerned about. Scenario 1: "Why was my appeal turned down?" "You are argumentative." "No, I'm not!"; Scenario 2: "Why was my appeal turned down?" "You are argumentative." "I have difficulty accepting that, but I'll reflect on that to see how I can modify my behaviour not to give that impression in future."; Scenario 3: "Why was my appeal turned down?" "You are argumentative." "I'll stop doing that immediately. Can I be unblocked now?" For me, Scenarios 1 & 3 are not sufficient grounds for an unblock, while Scenario 2 is. A refusal to see there is a problem is a concern for me. And an empty promise to stop poor behaviour in order to get back into Wikipedia is also a concern. An honest attempt to address the issues will, however, get my support.

I hope this open explanation of my thinking is helpful. I understand that some people will disagree with my thinking. That is understandable. And that is why we have a Committee: so there are a range of views and opinions. I don't think the Committee is always right. But the Committee should produce a consensus of (hopefully) a representative cross-section of the community. There will be members of the Committee who would be willing to re-examine the appeal, and some who would not be. For me, I would need to be assured by Will that he understands the issues, and is willing to work on them. That he has been in three different ArbCom cases for the same issue, and still doesn't get it, is a cause for concern, so a sudden about face in line with Scenario 3 would not be acceptable. SilkTork <sup>✔Tea time</sup> 13:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record, WB didn't apologize to me. TimidGuy (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: WB has now apologized. TimidGuy (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I find SilkTork's explanation very helpful. I think Will's inability to see the seriousness of his behaviour stems from the fact that he still honestly believes his own negative view of eastern/new religious groups is the correct and neutral encyclopedic approach. Given this, he believes he has only been guilty of "over-zealousness" in exposing his opponents to closer than normal scrutiny. But by enlisting Jim Wales into his battle with what was apparently false information, he has confirmed this prejudice in the minds of editors on both sides of the divide. This is a toxic situation that will take a long time to resolve. I doubt if Will is capable of seeing how damaging his previous tactics have been. Rumiton (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

WBB states at the top of this page "I have apologized to Timid Guy" and yet Timid Guy says WBB has never apologized to him. I think that this is indicative of the kind of disconnect in WBB's mind between what he did and what he thinks he did. Silk Tork discusses this above and it may be that WBB isn't yet ready to come back without repeating his past mistakes, which wouldn't be good for WBB or the community. Ocaasi made, what I think is, a very astute comment on WBB's user page and I think it's worth repeating here.

Hi Will, haven't seen you since work on Aesthetic Realism back in 2009. Make this simple. Agree to follow the new religious movements topic ban. Acknowledge that you put the COI guideline above the Outing policy, and that it was against consensus to do so at the time. Agree to abide by the Outing policy so long as it remains consensus in its current form. Affirm that you were always trying to do what was best for Wikipedia. Commit to remaining civil and avoiding any on or off-Wikipedia behavior that could be seen as harassment or outing. Agree to seek redress through Wikipedia's native dispute resolution processes (up to and including ArbCom) rather than trying to go around them with backwater appeals to Jimbo. Accept that you're not above the rules and you'll work within the community's policies even if you don't always agree with them. Concede that you'll err on the side of conservatism in 'ignoring rules' at least until you have had the opportunity to reestablish your community standing. Make it your standard operating procedure to focus on the content not the contributor. Do this, and do it soon, so you can get back to work. [35] (Ocaasi, please feel free to delete this comment if you object to my "reprinting" your words here.)

I feel confident that if WBB approached ArbCom calmly, rather then in the context of this heated debate, and in the manner described by Ocaasi above, he would quickly be approved to begin editing again. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• The insistence that the culprit display remorse has always seemed to me to favor the hypocrites. Though I would judge the same as Silk Tork in his 3 examples, I disagree with the entire general approach of expecting a confession. I associate it with totalitarian political and religious regimes, though I do not mean to imply that arb com is such a regime or acting in such a manner, but rather that they are being remarkably naïve about it. The only way to judge what somebody will do is to give him a chance and judge by the results. But as to the actual issue at hand, as JClemens said, the original arb com decision was not meant to be a punitive as the current committee's approach to it's now twice the time they set originally for considering an unban. Now, I consider the original ban was probably correct (or more exactly, that I would have done the same), though I would have much more strongly sanctioned TimidGuy, but I cannot conceivably imagine I would have advocated continuing the ban now, I do not think a community vote incorrect: though I think it absurd that we literally consider it a vote to overturn; in reality, we are urging arb com to reconsider. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't you people have articles to edit? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes we should all get back to "work" and not question or even ask for transparency from the "supreme power".[36] This is Wikipedia and we get one say once every two years and that's it. If you do not like it your next chance to have a say is only one more year away. Till than everyone must shut up :-) But wait I am a volunteer at an open revolutionary project and I do not remember handing off decisions regarding how this project runs to a secret supreme counsel. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You forgot the rule of thumb about revolutions. 5.12.84.31 (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

That statement applies equally well to you. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

My gosh, you're right!! I forgot that my two (now three) comments here were the equivalent of the dozens of comments posted by other editors who should be improving the encyclopedia and not pretending that Wikipedia is some kind of experiment in building the ideal online community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I to tell you the truth have no idea what this means. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

A Back to Work request has been submitted by a fellow worker. In accordance with the Agreement between the WEIU (Wikipedia Employees International Union) and Wikepedia (EN) you and all other editors are on notice that you must return to "editing" within the next 48 hours or you will bw terminated from employment with Wikipedia. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ha, yes, I'd forgotten that this is a right-to-work encyclopedia. Oh, well, bring in the scabs and let them comb through the changes on my watchlist. They're welcome to my nonexistent paycheck (if the Supreme Power says it's okay, that is.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This is getting silly. Of course people have a right to discuss whether they think WBB's continued ban is appropriate or not; and we're not a fascist dictatorship, people certainly have a right to talk about whether they agree with ArbCom on this or any other issue. Maybe the discussion will accomplish nothing more than giving people a chance to let off steam — or maybe it'll prompt the arbs to reconsider whether WBB should be allowed back or not — or maybe what people say here will raise WBB's consciousness and bring him to the point where ArbCom becomes willing to lift his ban. Or maybe not. I don't think anyone here is seriously proposing a popular revolt, in which some brave-but-foolish admin would sacrifice his mop (or worse) by unblocking WBB in defiance of the current ban. The most that's likely to come of this conversation would be a formal request (on the Clarification and Amendment page, WP:ARCA) for ArbCom to reconsider the case — and if that happens, it seems pretty clear that a lot of people will support it, and a lot of people will oppose it, and only the arbs know whether such a request will make any difference to them. But if some people are offended by this current discussion for some reason or another, there is a simple solution: don't heckle, don't try over and over again to shout it down, don't participate at all — just go do other things. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I'll go a step further here and suggest that someone might as well submit a formal amendment request now. This informal discussion appears to have hashed out a lot of issues, and it may be time now to make it formal. I am personally not taking a position on whether WBB should be allowed back, but I do think the question merits formal consideration. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It is now time for someone to file a formal request at ARCA. Fladrif (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

And I would suggest that the formal request should be that ArbCom should either unban WBB (while keeping the other restrictions in place), or else disclose to the community the reasons behind their decision to keep the ban in effect (to the greatest extent reasonably possible without committing unacceptable violations of privacy). And FWIW, a two-pronged request of this sort is something I can support (despite my remaining neutral on whether WBB should remain banned or not) — if ArbCom sees convincing reasons not to let him back, I would find that completely acceptable as long as this decision is backed by as full a disclosure as possible of their reasons. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Do people want to collaboratively draw up a draft request in someones userspace? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This has been open for only 5 days. We should at least give it a week IMO before submitting. Would be happy to see someone start drawing up a draft. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine)

Would submitting a request on Easter Sunday be too symbolic?```Buster Seven Talk 15:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, maybe we should wait for another 9 days so it's a full two weeks? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• I started a request for the voting breakdown at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Ban_Appeals_Subcommittee#User:Will_Beback_appeal_voting_results. II | (t - c) 04:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

And SilkTork just posted a lengthy response there, and hopefully more arbs will be following suit. And just so there will be no confusion or misunderstanding, I would like to make it plain that I have not corresponded (on or off wiki) with WBB on this or any other subject in over a year. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

One more opinion that this is not a proper forum

I don't think that this pseudo-RFC is an appropriate vehicle for discussion of whether to lift the ban on this user. The user was banned by the ArbCom. I have seen numerous criticisms of the ArbCom, but I don't see a procedure for reversing an ArbCom action by "consensus", and it appears anyway that there isn't a consensus. I saw 40 votes Support and 23 votes Oppose, which is a majority Support of those who expressed one of thos opinions, but is hardly a consensus, a supermajority. I didn't count the number of comments opposing the use of this vehicle for this discussion, but it isn't a small number. The ArbCom evidently had and has access to privacy data to which we don't and shouldn't have access, and without that data we can't reasonably assess the seriousness of the offense. If he wants to come back, he should ask the ArbCom to reconsider. Since he is blocked/banned, he can ask one of his colleagues to ask the ArbCom to reconsider, or can ask. This RFC is, in my opinion, a waste of electrons. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems proper to me—gentlemen in black ties, ladies in evening dress, string quartet playing Mozart. Yes, one or two scruffs from the village, evidently clueless, came in through a window in the servants' quarters as a jape, I expect. Nothing to worry about. Oh sorry. You need the "Improper Forum" Complaints notice board over there in Boring Hall (aka "Bleat House"--contained lambing pens until the mid 19th century). Writegeist (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the village scruffs came in with an abacus. He is doing a recount of the Nays. His early figures show a much lower count than 23. More like 12. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbcom positions

Will try to tabulate arbcom positions.

For his return

• User:Newyorkbrad [37]
• User:NuclearWarfare (for release of arbcom members positions)

Against his return

• User:AGK [38] (for release of arbcom members positions)
• User:SilkTork Likely oppose [39] (against the release of arbcom positions)
• User:Courcelles [40]

Neutral

• User:Worm That Turned Neutral but mostly against. Okay with opinion being shown. [41]

No vote

• User:Risker "For the record, I did not vote on Will Beback's unban request, and I opposed banning him in the original case."[42]
• User:Timotheus Canens [43]
• User:Roger Davies didn't vote, but position is "pretty much per NewYorkBrad's" [44]
• User:Salvio giuliano (apparently did not vote per this discussion) [45] (against the release of arbcom positions)
• User:Kirill Lokshin [46]

Unclear

• User:David Fuchs unclear but likely opposed.[47] (against the release of arbcom positions)
• User:Carcharoth unclear but likely opposed.[48] (against the release of arbcom positions)