Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doc James (talk | contribs) at 01:07, 24 March 2013 (→Proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Decussion regarding Arbcom decision with respect to Will Beback

Background

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.

Proposal

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

Users who endorse

• ```Buster Seven Talk 12:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• As drafter Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Users who oppose

• 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)
• Arbcom said that he must appeal to ArbCom after 6 months. That's how this should be overturned, not some community discussion. Elect differnet Arbs if someone gets banned and wants to come back, don't try to circumvent an ArbCom decision. gwickwire_editing 01:01, 24 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)

• 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)