Misplaced Pages

User:Doc James/Will Beback: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User:Doc James Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:56, 26 March 2013 editAlanscottwalker (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers74,613 edits →Users who oppose: +← Previous edit Revision as of 14:02, 26 March 2013 edit undoTimidGuy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers11,259 edits →It's time to end this pseudo-RfC: commentNext edit →
Line 245: Line 245:


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. ''']''' ''']''' 13:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 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. ''']''' ''']''' 13:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Revision as of 14:02, 26 March 2013

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages between 2006 and 2012 often dealing with controversial topics. His top edits can be seen here . During his time editing he was involved in bring two articles to FA status and was awarded many barnstars by the community at large.

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

The so called "outing" which occurred was an off Misplaced Pages 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." Other comments are , , .

The evidence for "personal attacks" include evidence like this , , 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. Misplaced Pages 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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)


Proposal

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

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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(smalltalk) 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 Misplaced Pages, only in exceptional cases when there is a threat to Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages to someone who can contribute, which goes against Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 00:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  29. Support --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:48, 26 March 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. gwickwireediting 01:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  3. VERY strongly oppose — Ched :  ?  01:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  4. 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 03:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  5. 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)
  6. 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)
  7. 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)
  8. 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)
  9. 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 ⁄berate 16:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  10. 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)
  11. 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)
  12. Oppose Will used incorrect information and did an end run around Misplaced Pages 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)
  13. Strong oppose per above. --Rschen7754 21:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  14. Oppose - Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  15. 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)
  16. 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 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)
  17. Strong Oppose for multiple reasons: This RfC is not neutrally worded even if an RfC could override the final DR forum on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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))
  18. 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 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" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  19. 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)
  20. 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)

Users who are neutral

Strong Oppose Will Beback very clearly showed that he cannot be trusted to edit neutrally nor act appropriately on Misplaced Pages. 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 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 17:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  1. Neutral Prior to being banned, Will Beback was far from being the biggest jackass ,"framed":false,"icon":"volumeUp","label":{"html":"Audio (US)"},"data":{"ipa":"","text":"","lang":"en","wikibase":"","file":"En-us-jackass.ogg"},"classes":}">Audio (US)] on Misplaced Pages. 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 25 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 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, Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Comments

  • Comment--WBB was banned for persistent personal attacks, outing, harassment and battleground conduct as Doc has stated above. However editors may want to look at all the full range of diffs provided by the Committee for each finding 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 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) : 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 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--Misplaced Pages: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 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? . 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 Misplaced Pages? That the only "outing" was off Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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 that peoples 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)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 YO! 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: Misplaced Pages: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 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: . There was no indication in the findings of fact that Will edited in a problematic way. On the other hand, you regarded 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" . The editing pattern was/is to make everything look like it's controversial but not specifically refuted ). 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. 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". 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages'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)
@ Dreadstar. Will's second statement above may answer some of your doubts. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:11, 26 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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 13:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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