Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:44, 9 April 2013

User:Factocop unblock conditions

Factocop is unblocked on the following terms:

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 WP:Revert, 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 Misplaced Pages:General sanctions), 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, and if consensus is that the terms have been violated, an appropriate sanction applied.

For the Arbitration Committee. SilkTork 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:

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 this 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,
AGK 14:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Original announcement: . --AGK 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 User:Jmh649/Will_Beback). II | (t - c) 03:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• previous post made by User:ImperfectlyInformed. — Ched :  ?  04:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I'll raise it with those who co-ordinated this. Carcharoth (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there any estimates in how long it will take for a reply? IRWolfie- (talk) 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). Carcharoth (talk) 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. AGK 22:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Great thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• That comment was actually supposed to read "Hi ImperfectlyInformed" but it was directed at you and everybody else, so no harm done. AGK 10:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought you might have meant that, but thought it easier to just inform Jmh: . IRWolfie- (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

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. SilkTork 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 User_talk:Will_Beback - 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. II | (t - c) 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. IRWolfie- (talk) 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, IRWolfie- (talk) 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? SlimVirgin 17:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It's also not clear what Silk meant by non-arb editors being contacted: who? IRWolfie- (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

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 "some of TimidGuy's editing did not comply with the reliable sources (medicine) guideline.".

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 "a tiny shred of empathy", 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.

Sorry for the interruption; like SlimVirgin, I'd like to know what additional assurances Will could offer, and whether he should bother. MastCell  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. Fladrif (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Will has posted a reply to SilkTork. SlimVirgin 20:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)