Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:17, 7 March 2014

Template:Archive box collapsible

A beer for you!

Hope you come back one day. --evrik  23:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Will, I hope that ArbCom takes up your appeal and agrees to allow you to return to editing. Cullen Let's discuss it 01:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Appeals

2013 Appeal

Request 2/12/13

User: Will Beback (and user:Will Beback Auto)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal

I recognize my errors and would like another chance to contribute to Misplaced Pages. I apologize to TimidGuy for focusing on him excessively. I was mistaken to believe that paid advocacy was prohibited and, even if it was I should not have been so concerned about it. I recognize that I made a serious mistake. To avoid future problems I commit to never accuse any editors of COI issues again.

While I acknowledge my errors I believe that some aspects of the RFAR were incorrect, and I appeal those. Some findings were based, in my opinion, on mis-perception of the facts and mis-application of the policies. I request the ArbCom members re-read the policies and review the evidence. When they do, I believe they will see there was insufficient basis for the findings of "personal attacks", "battleground behavior", and "outing".

Personal attacks

The RFAR says that I made personal attacks by discussing COI in an RFC/U.

However, WP:NPA states that discussing editors' COI in an appropriate forum is not a personal attack. Here are the applicable passages:

• Similarly, discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (for example, the other editor's talk page, WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U

• Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum, (e.g. user's talk page or Misplaced Pages noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack.

• …pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack,…

The point is made three times: "Focus on the edits, not the editor" does not apply to RFC/U or other appropriate forums. My comments were not personal attacks. I ask the ArbCom to withdraw this finding.

Battleground conduct

The RFAR says I engaged in battleground behavior because I posted a generic response on Sue Gardner's user talk page to a comment she made in a public speech regarding COI issues. Gardner has no direct control over any Misplaced Pages policies or enforcement, and people make comments to her about Misplaced Pages all of the time.

The RFAR says I engaged in forum shopping by commenting on COI/N threads started by others. It's not forum 'shopping' if it's the same forum, and commenting on pre-existing threads isn't forum shopping either. The few noticeboard threads or formal complaints which I've initiated were not dilatory.

The RFAR says I engaged in battleground behavior by filing an SPI case, one which concluded that a group of editors with an identifiable POV were using a same small pool of IP addresses belonging to an associated institution. The results were so significant that the CU functionary himself requested an RFAR. I didn't file that RFAR.

My actions have not met the standard for battleground conduct. I request the ArbCom rescind this finding.

Outing

The RFAR says I outed TimidGuy by sending emails about him to two other admins. It doesn't say I posted his private information on Misplaced Pages or any other public forums. The outing policy does not cover private, limited distribution emails. This case did not involve the public disclosure, on- or off-Wiki, of any private information. No outing occurred. Jimmy Wales, who was CC'ed on virtually everything, said that there was no outing. I request that the ArbCom overturn this finding.

Other allegations

The RFAR says I conducted an unacceptable investigation of another editor. This is an issue not covered by existing policies. Do we prohibit investigations of editors involved in WMUK and Gibraltapedia, or investigations of editors/sources/notables such as Jimmy Wales, Chip Berlet, Philip Roth, Christopher Monckton, Fae, Essjay, Kohser, Merkey, Benjiboi, Mantanmoreland, Jossi, JarlaxleArtemis, Paroxysm, Amorrow, and he-who-shall-not-be-named?

Do IP geolocation and WHOIS queries violate Misplaced Pages standards? Is Wikiscanner a massive violation? Are investigations of problem editors, socks, repeat vandals, et al., now limited to functionaries?

On the other hand, should Misplaced Pages forbid investigations into subjects or sources who might be Misplaced Pages editors? If the notable topic of an article is also an editor are we limited to what they've written about themselves on their user page? If an editor's published writings are potential sources for an article, are we prohibited from evaluating their credibility or value? Right now, those are routine 'investigations' conducted by all classes and sorts of users, on- and off-Wiki, and they do not seem to be prohibited by any policy.

My emails to other admins simply asked for a review of a proposed ArbCom complaint, and did not seek any actions, only comments. They did not involve canvassing, coordination, collusion, or anything of that sort. I was doing the responsible thing by asking feedback from trusted peers before filing a formal complaint.

Topic ban

The RFAR says I am banned from editing articles on new religious movements (NRMs) because of an unexplained admonition I was given in April 2009, presumably due to my involvement in editing disputes in October 2008 and January 2009, and a short block resulting from that RFAR. I've avoided any edit warring since then.

My editing has brought a moderating, relatively neutral influence to NRM articles. I'd like to write new articles and bring existing ones to FA. Given the extent and benefits of my editing in this often contentious topic and the minimal editing problems I've caused, this ban is out of proportion and counterproductive to the project. I request that the topic ban be lifted.

Site Ban

I respect Misplaced Pages and its policies. I am sorry for discomforting a good faith editor and apologize sincerely to TimidGuy. I have learned my lesson and the actions which led to his case will not be repeated. I haven’t violated my site ban by making even a single edit. Nor have I made battleground-ish accusations about any topics or editors off-Wiki, in forums or blogs, as so many banned editors do.

I’ve been one of the most active contributors to Misplaced Pages, making over 100,000 edits since 2004. My efforts as an administrator have been almost entirely uncontroversial. The two admonitions and one block I've received over a seven year period have changed my behavior – I haven't repeated the same problems. Being away from Misplaced Pages for eleven months has given me new perspective and now I’d like to return to contributing. I commit to never accusing editors of COI again. I request that the site ban be removed.

ArbCom reply 3/5/13

Dear Will Beback,

The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered your ban appeal, but a majority of active arbitrators have voted to dismiss your appeal. I therefore regret to inform you that your appeal is unsuccessful. You may not submit another appeal until six months have elapsed.

2014 Appeal

Request 1/16/14

I am very sorry for my previous errors. I have respected the sanctions. I would like to return to editing Misplaced Pages. Please accept my appeal.

Sincerely, Will Beback

ArbCom reply

None yet.

Current status

Waiting for the ArbCom to make a decision.   Will Beback  talk  01:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)