| Revision as of 23:36, 9 April 2013 editFladrif (talk | contribs)6,136 edits →User:Will Beback appeal voting results: ce← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:00, 12 January 2024 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,013 edits IAR edit: remove broken archive index template | ||
| (251 intermediate revisions by 42 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ombox|image=]|text=This page documents the decisions of an ] subcommittee. As this page is not widely watched, decisions posted here should not be discussed here; please use the ] instead. For instructions on appealing a block, see ].}}__FORCETOC__ | |||
| ==] unblock conditions== | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| Factocop is unblocked on the following terms: | |||
| | algo = old(45d) | |||
| | archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| | archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee/Archives/%(year)d | |||
| | minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| }}{{archive box |search=yes |title=] of this page: |bot= Lowercase sigmabot III |age=45 |index=Archives/Index | {{hlist|]|]|]|]}} | |||
| }}__TOC__ | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| 1) That Factocop is restricted to editing only from one account, and always when logged in. | |||
| 2) That Factocop does not use the revert tool (or any variation of it) at all - not even once, and not even to revert clear vandalism. For clarity: Factocop can make no actions as described in ], though can make an edit of a current version of a page and manually add sourced material, and/or remove inappropriate material, and/or amend current text in a constructive manner. After six months of successfully not reverting, Factocop may apply to the Committee to have this restriction lifted. | |||
| The above terms must remain displayed on Factocop's talkpage for a period of at least one month. The terms will also be placed on this page (Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee) - or any other project page or subpage as later felt appropriate (such as ]), so that admins are aware of the conditions; and the terms will remain on either this or a later decided page for as long as the restrictions are in place. | |||
| Concerns about possible violations of these terms should be discussed at ], and if consensus is that the terms have been violated, an appropriate sanction applied. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee. ''']''' ''']''' 09:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Unblocked by the Arbitration Committee == | |||
| The Arbitration Committee has approved the following motion, which decides your recent block appeal: | |||
| {{Ivmbox|1=On 3 April 2012, Russavia was blocked for six months and topic-banned from all pages and discussions relating to Eastern Europe across all namespaces. On 13 May 2012, the six month block was extended to one year on the basis that comment—made by Russavia on his talk page while he was blocked—violated his Eastern Europe topic ban. In January 2013, Russavia appealed his block and topic-ban to the Arbitration Committee. The Arbitration Committee accepts his appeal, vacates the six-month block and the one-year block that replaced it, but '''retains''' the Eastern Europe topic ban. We remind Russavia that, if he makes any further edits mentioning Polandball and similar cartoons (broadly construed), he will again be in violation of his topic ban and may be summarily re-blocked by any administrator in line with the usual methods of enforcing a discretionary sanction.}} | |||
| * Supporting motion: Coren, NuclearWarfare, Hersfold, SilkTork, AGK (proposing), David Fuchs, Courcelles, and Worm That Turned. | |||
| * Opposing: (none). | |||
| * Not voting: Carcharoth, Newyorkbrad, Kirill Lokshin, and Roger Davies. | |||
| * Inactive: Risker, Salvio guiliano. | |||
| * Recused: Timotheus Canens. | |||
| I have unblocked your account, but remind you (as explained in the motion) that your earlier topic ban remains in effect and that you may be blocked again if you violate that ban. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee,<br/>] ]] 14:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Original announcement: . --] ]] 11:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Will Beback appeal voting results == | |||
| Could we get the breakdown on the voting results of this unblock appeal? I think sufficient interest by the community has been expressed (see ]). ] | (] - ]) 03:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * previous post made by ]. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 04:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for this. I'll raise it with those who co-ordinated this. ] (]) 13:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is there any estimates in how long it will take for a reply? ] (]) 19:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::It appears to have been a less formal vote than I thought. More a discussion and show of hands regarding various options. So it isn't really possible to publish this. If you want more clarification from other arbitrators, I suggest you ask them direct, as not all arbitrators read this page (I only noticed this by chance and only checked back here when I was reminded about this). ] (]) 22:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::* Hi Jmh. I'll draw my colleagues' attention to this page, and we'll see if we can have some of us set out our thinking in public. ] ]] 22:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Great thanks. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* <small>That comment was actually supposed to read "Hi ImperfectlyInformed" but it was directed at you and everybody else, so no harm done. ] ]] 10:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::::<small>I thought you might have meant that, but thought it easier to just inform Jmh: . ] (]) 10:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
| I have already given my thinking behind why I opposed the initial appeal at the discussion linked above. We then had another discussion regarding Will, and this is some of what I said during that discussion: "My situation is that we heard the appeal, and we declined it. Will has since then been agitating both individual members of the Committee and other people by email to get the appeal in his favour. That behaviour, where he ignores consensus and continues to agitate, especially behind the scenes, is at the core of the issue I have with him.... Aggressive point pushers who ignore consensus and work behind the scenes are damaging to any community, and particularly the Misplaced Pages community where decisions can be made quickly by a handful of users who each are unaware that they have been individually manipulated in secret.... That is also quibbling over a finding that he engaged in battleground behaviour is a concern, because what he did is the most extreme example of battleground that I have encountered. Does anyone else know of a user who sought out private information, and assembled that information into a misleading allegation which he presents in private to Jimbo in order to get that user banned, purely because he disagreed with the user's efforts to move his own POV edits to a more neutral stance. Accusations of COI was simply the weapon he used, and asking him to put that weapon down doesn't mean he won't pick up a different one. Until Will clearly understands what he did (and at the moment he appears to be a long way away from that), I cannot vote to let him back in, even with restrictions on editing NRM articles. Until he understands what he did I cannot trust him not to engage in similar behaviour - his email agitation during this appeal underscores that he is quite capable of doing it again. I also think it might be helpful if we make it clearer to people what he did - I think there is still a lack of understanding of the case, and there are people who simply saw an experienced and civil admin desysopped and banned for some minor content dispute." | |||
| In response to an enquiry from a Committee member who didn't take part in the ArbCom case where Will was banned, I said: "WBB and TG were editing Transcendental Meditation articles. WBB was adding unsourced negative comments to those articles. TG was moving the articles to a sourced neutral position. They entered into a dispute. WBB attempted to discredit both TG's editing and TG himself. After not getting support for his discrediting of TG. WBB "accidently" found some personal information on TG. He then found out more and more information, and put that information together in secret and presented it to Jimbo as evidence of paid advocacy, so Jimbo banned him. The COI and paid advocacy were the weapons WBB used to remove TG from the TM articles in order to assert his negative view of that movement. This was extreme battleground behaviour. His appeal does not address that at all. His appeal misses the point, and focuses on the weapons he used, rather than why he used them. We can take away these weapons, but if he doesn't understand what he did wrong, then he can pick up different weapons. He appears to have a mind set where he firmly believes that he is right. It is possible that he genuinely believes his POV on TM is the right one, and that TG was a paid advocate. He may have been motivated for the "right" reasons. The problem, I see, is that until he recognises that he was engaged in battleground behaviour, he will do it again. To put a scenario to you: you are a lawyer. You come upon the Misplaced Pages article on lawyers. You note some negative unsourced information in the article: "Lawyers deliberately falsify the hours they work in order to charge more money". You start to improve the article to make it more neutral and factual. WBB starts edit warring with you. You enter into reasonable discussion with him. He attempts to discredit you. Then one day you wake up and find that without prior discussion you have been banned from Misplaced Pages by Jimbo Wales. When you appeal, it turns out that WBB has been searching for information on you, and found out where you work, went to school, what friends you have, who you play tennis with, and notes that you are a lawyer. He secretly writes to Jimbo Wales claiming that you are a paid advocate. The concern I have is that if we let WBB back without him acknowledging that he deliberately (even if unconsciously) went after TG, then such a scenario might occur again, though along different lines. WBB works through back channels, and he is very plausible and persuasive. You don't see WBB blocking TG. He gets Jimbo to ban him, out of sight. He has been manipulating matters backstage and out of sight during this appeal. We are becoming aware that he has been in contact individually with several Committee members, and with other users in regard to his appeal." | |||
| I hope that provides sufficient information. If there are any questions, please ask on my talkpage as I am not watching this page. ''']''' ''']''' 15:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Is this a joint statement to reflect the comments of the group? I don't think so but it's not quite clear. Is the door on Will Beback closed firmly shut or left partially open? I would hope it is the latter, especially given the latitude given to most people and the extent of Will Beback's good faith contributions and the good faith concerns that he had about conflicts of interest. Also, Will Beback issued 3 statements of apology at ] - have these been considered or will they be considered. Incidentally, I think more is sometimes less when you providing a summary. The example of a lawyer is fundamentally different from the situation here, which involves adherents to a (probably fair to call religious) movement and scientific claims. I think this summarizes my view. ] | (] - ]) 15:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think a more correct analogy is, "imagine you work for a fringe scientific institute, and someone tries to discredit that institute/their beliefs". I think that has the same implications under current policy. Also, as far as I am aware, there was no findings of fact that suggested Will Beback was edit warring controversial material into the article, or pushing a POV. ] (]) 16:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure why his position in relation to TM is relevant here, considering he will still be topic banned, ] (]) 16:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Silk, thank you for supplying this information. The problem I have when reading your posts is that they just don't describe Will in a way that would be recognized by Wikipedians who know him well. He just isn't like that, and the meme that's being created about him is making ordinary actions of his seem underhand and Machiavellian. If he has contacted individual committee members about his appeal, there's surely nothing wrong with that, given the lack of clarity around how he should proceed. | |||
| :The question now is what he needs to do to have the ban lifted. In three statements, he has apologized to TG and to other affected editors, has said he won't make COI allegations against individuals in the future, and that he won't edit the way he did in the past. And the NRM topic ban will still be in place. What additional assurances does he need to offer? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::<small>It's also not clear what Silk meant by non-arb editors being contacted: who? ] (]) 17:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC) </small> | |||
| ::I'd like to hear the answer to SlimVirgin's question, so pardon the interruption... but it seems from your comments that you're proceeding from a very strongly held belief that TimidGuy's edits were "neutral" and Will's were "POV". That's odd, because the Committee unanimously found that ].<p>I also broadly agree with SlimVirgin's concern: the Committee seemed to have bought very deeply into the idea that Will was being manipulative and Machiavellian in raising the COI concern in multiple venues. Ironically, while Will was castigated by the Committee for lacking even , you guys don't seem to have tried very hard to understand why Will acted as he did. Personally, it's not hard for me to imagine that he grew concerned that our articles on the medical claims associated with a religious movement were being edited heavily by members of that religious movement - and edited in a way which violated our standards for medical content, as the Committee noted. I don't think he got a satisfactory response in the usual venues, so he emailed Jimbo - which is a reasonable action if one is concerned that a serious threat to the project's integrity is being ignored, and an action I could see myself taking in similar circumstances.<p>Sorry for the interruption; like SlimVirgin, I'd like to know what additional assurances Will could offer, and whether he should bother. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * SilkTork, I wish you'd warned us so we could have put on our hip waders before reading that. Really? Asking ArbCom to reconsider and for other editors to support reconsideration is, in and of itself, battleground behavior. What kind of Catch-22 nonsense is this? I take it that in order for Will to be allowed to return he must first be assigned to a re-education camp until he is fully rehabilitated through indoctrination and labor and thereafter stands before the assembled masses and freely confesses his sins against Misplaced Pages while wearing a dunce cap with the Pillars of Wikpedia written on it in however many languages it's published in today. And, as MastCell points out, your assessment of who was pushing for neutrality is 100% at odds with what ArbCom actually found in the case. If this is an example of ArbCom's thinking in this process, it's no wonder you wanted it kept secret, because this level of dissembling and sophistry couldn't survive the light of day. I'm looking so forward to the rationale offered by the other ArbCom members, should they dare to post anything so absurd. ] (]) 18:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Will has posted a . ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * I would agree with the thrust of SilkTork's point that Will Beback's actions upon his appeal being declined are problematic. Will wrote to us when we sent our original decision concerning his appeal, to ask why we made the decision we made and to request we reconsider. He was completely entitled to do so, and I informed him we would give the supplementary comments he offered at that time the (and I quote myself) "''most earnest consideration''". Subsequently, a petition of sorts was made that called for Will's ban to be overturned. My own feeling is that there is an effort being co-ordinated to have Will unbanned through what, if I may say so, appears to be the applying of political pressure to ArbCom and its members. In response to Fladrif's remarks, I think this is all SilkTork meant.<p>I think MastCell's account of Will Beback's actions is greatly oversimplified, and I simply do not see any basis in fact to conclude that his actions were a series of misjudged, desperate attempts to protect the encyclopedia that, viewed with hindsight, looked very bad. I would also make the general point that the problem I see is not with Will's contributions to psuedoscience or religion, nor with any other particular topic area, but with his approach to controversial topics and to dealing with other editors. We cannot topic-ban somebody from editing "any area that is controversial", but that would be the only alternative to a topic ban that would prevent the problems detected in the ''TG ban appeal'' case from being repeated.<p>The more basic problem I have with the prospect that Will would return to the project is the extent to which he embarked on off-site, secretive efforts to undermine another contributor. SlimVirgin remarks that this is not the impression many people have of Will. While I agree that it may appear so, I would nonetheless respond that Will was banned essentially because he went to great lengths to hide what he was doing to TimidGuy from the Misplaced Pages community. In submitting an appeal to us, Will has argued that he would not repeat such conduct, and that, based on the length of time he has been gone from Misplaced Pages, we should accept his assurances. I'm sorry to say that, basically, I don't believe him. "Time served" does not mitigate the fact that Will has demonstrated himself to be capable of quite hideous treatment of another editor. Compounding the problem, in my mind, is the fact that the misconduct he is prone to cannot easily be detected by the Misplaced Pages community, ArbCom, or any other body that operates in the encyclopedia. Will's modus is to do the sort of things he did to TimidGuy out of sight and where it cannot be detected or stopped. I agreed with the TimidGuy ban appeal decision (though I did not vote on it), and at this stage I am of the opinion that "well, it was over a year ago, so I'll promise not to do it again, and let's forget about it" does not make a credible appeal. I would certainly not say I would never be minded to allow his appeal, nor indeed that I might not change my mind in the future and given evidence of successful, harassment-free contributions to another Wikimedia project. However, I am quite sure that I could not allow myself to accept Will's current appeal.<p>This appeal has clearly generated a lot of interest from Will's former colleagues and from other editors, so I'll watch this page, and try to respond in full to reasonably criticism of my thinking. As arbitrators, we are pathologically predisposed to think that we might have made a grievous mistake, so I should also state for the record that we are open to having our minds changed. However, I would encourage comments made here to focus on Will's appeal in general, rather than in particular procedural or factual issues (unless they are significant to the question of whether Will could be allowed to edit the encyclopedia). ] ]] 21:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ** I think the reason people are puzzled here is that you guys seem personally affronted by Will in a way that's far out of proportion to his actual activities. It's easy to think of editors who have treated their colleagues much more "hideously" than Will has, who have been deceptive, manipulative, and pathological to a degree that Will hasn't even approached (a certain misspelled French impressionist comes to mind)... and whom ArbCom has gone out of its way to treat more leniently.<p>Similarly, "time served" has often been considered as a factor in deciding to lift a ban, and many successful ban appeals have in fact boiled down to (as you put it): "it was over a year ago, so I'll promise not to do it again". You're not willing to consider it in Will's case, which is your prerogative, but once again it leaves the rest of us scratching our heads and wondering where this seemingly disproportionate animus toward Will comes from.<p>And for the record, I wasn't emailed by Will or anyone, nor did I interact much or at all with Will before his banning - so please stop using the fact that people are concerned about the handling of Will's appeal as evidence that he manipulates things behind the scenes. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just to add to that. I also have not personally interacted with the editor. I also had not interacted with any of the main characters involved (to the best of memory) until quite recently, nor had I edited in the topic area (as far as I remember) before becoming aware of this topic area and the specific issues quite recently. | |||
| :::What I see is mixed messages from different arbs. Some suggested it was about off-wiki , others talk about on-wiki activities. Some arbs (Roger Davies) appear to suggest the issue was that Will won't commit to not investigating COI in the future: "''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.''" SilkTork appears to suggest that there issues with COI was merely incidental in her comment above. There is no consistency, there is no clarity. What are you looking for? What does Will need to do? <small>As an aside, what does NRM stand for, new religious movements?</small> ] (]) 22:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *@AGK. What you claim to be your core concern is inconceivably misconceived and wrong-headed. The core of your concern is that WBB was hiding what he was doing from the Community and might continue to do thing in secret after being unbanned? He brought his COI concerns directly and privately to ArbCom and Jimbo instead of publicly, which is ''precisely'' what the COI/Outing policy required him to do. Do you recognize that that ArbCom has deliberately hidden its decision making process in this matter from Will and from the Community? When the Community questions how and why this decision was made, and why in secret - in stark contrast to the very public way the TimidGuy unban appeal was handled - you accuse him of politicizing the process? ArbCom ''ought'' to be accountable to the Community, and to complain about demands for accountability indicates a fundamental failure to understand ArbCom's function. I for one have never had any contact off-Wiki with any editor, and was not solicited by Will to say anything about this matter. You ought to be concerned about secrecy and a lack of transparency- but you have the concern about whose conduct raises those issues exactly backwards. I'd add that your position now seems in direct contradiction of what you wrote in response to questions at the 2011 ArbCom Election:''(2) Public discussions:' ArbCom needs to shake off the (rather sucky) notion that it is entitled to hold most of its discussion in private; a public mailing list or public discussion space should be created, because the us versus them mentality of some of the arbitrators that was evident in the recent leaks has undermined the community's confidence in the value of Arbcom-l.'' ] (]) 23:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:00, 12 January 2024
 | This page documents the decisions of an Arbitration Committee subcommittee. As this page is not widely watched, decisions posted here should not be discussed here; please use the committee noticeboard talk page instead. For instructions on appealing a block, see here. |
 Archives of this page: |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |