Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fladrif (talk | contribs) at 02:40, 10 April 2013 (It's standard procedure, as you should know). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

• 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.

  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.

  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.

  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). AGK 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.

    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.

    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. MastCell  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? As an aside, what does NRM stand for, new religious movements? IRWolfie- (talk) 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. Fladrif (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Statements by Will Beback

This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Arbitration Committee has not edited Misplaced Pages since March 2014. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Revision list
Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006 
March 2006 
April 2006 
May 2006  
June 2006  
July 2006 
August 2006 
September 2006 
October 2006 
November 2006 
December 2006 
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011 
June 2011 
July 2011 
August 2011 
September 2011 
October 2011 
Nov/Dec 2011 
January 2012

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)

Current status

redacted

Have restored this content. No reason to delete it without going through proper channels. Arbcom is free to not comment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

handling of unblock request

At Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#change_to_block_of_User:Will_Beback I've asked the Arbitration Committee about its response to the unblock request. —rybec 21:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I hope that you can soon continue the necessary, good work that you did if you can promise not be overzealous again and promise not to out people again. Andries (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Will Beback ban appeal

The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, suspended Will Beback's ("WBB") site-ban on the following terms:

1. Suspension of ban
   1. WBB's indefinite site-ban is suspended subject to his unconditional acceptance of and continuing compliance with the terms below, the purpose of which is to enable him to return to active content work. Failure to comply fully with the letter and spirit of these terms may result in the committee revoking the suspension without warning and reinstating the indefinite ban.
   2. For purposes of enforcement, "on-wiki" refers to any edit in any namespace on the English Misplaced Pages or on any Project or mailing list or email system hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation or in any IRC channel with "wikipedia" or "wikimedia" in the channel name.
2. One-way interaction ban
   1. WBB is directed to immediately cease commenting directly or indirectly on-wiki about User:TimidGuy and User:Keithbob. WBB also agrees to not communicate with the above editors, to not contact either their places of work or their colleagues, and to not seek sanctions for them, by any means.
   2. Administrators who receive requests for sanctions are requested to inform the Arbitration Committee by email.
3. Topic ban: new religious movements
   1. WBB is indefinitely topic-banned from making any edit on-wiki about, or any edit to any page relating to, new religious movements, broadly construed.
   2. This restriction replaces WBB's existing new religious movements topic ban.
4. Topic ban: conflicts of interest/paid advocacy; real-world identities
   1. WBB is indefinitely topic-banned from making any edit on-wiki relating to conflicts of interest, paid advocacy or the real-world identity of any editor, broadly construed.
   2. WBB agrees to not become involved in any investigation broadly construed, either on- or off-wiki, into the real-world identity of any editor or into their real-world interests and affiliations.
5. Reconsideration of restrictions
   1. The original 2012 case has been carefully and extensively reviewed by the 2013 and 2014 Arbitration Committees, who have seen no reason to disturb it. No further review of the case will take place.
   2. No request for reconsideration of these restrictions may be made until at least twelve months have elapsed since the date on which the suspension of the ban comes into effect.

The record of the vote on the motion can be seen here. For the Arbitration Committee, Carcharoth (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back, Will!

Live long and prosper! Cullen Let's discuss it 03:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back from me too! TFD (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

What they said. Writegeist (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, welcome back! Herostratus (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Great news. I personally really missed you in the areas where I edit. I'm sure you'll find enough to do outside your topic ban areas to keep you busy! Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Winter's over and Will's back? It's a good week for RL and WP. Rivertorch (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back. Andries (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I hereby join the chorus of people happy to see you back. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Just saw this today! It always makes me happy to see an act of justice such as this, although the restriction prohibiting policy discussion is still pretty absurd. Welcome back! ThemFromSpace 20:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

O! Happy Day! Will is Back! ```Buster Seven Talk 05:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I check your pages every couple of months to see the progress of your exile, and now, finally, you are back! Misplaced Pages is better for it. Welcome back to the Monkey House. Randy Kryn 18:46 22 May 2014 (UTC)

welcome back Will, the name truly fits, will be back :) look forward to seeing you in all the old places. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

What happened to the "List of people who have learned Transcendental Meditation"? It's gone! What to do?! I've spent a lot of time updating it, as I suppose you have too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.41.49.93 (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Suspension of site ban

I've unblocked you per the motion suspending your site ban and will be sending a final e-mail to conclude the appeal process. I removed the tags from your user page and user talk page and reduced the protection level on your user page to allow you to edit it. Please feel free to archive your talk page in due course, though you should keep a copy of the restrictions available to refer to. Additionally, as you requested by e-mail, I'm stating here that the terms of your unban do not permit you to discuss or comment on the case that led to your ban. If you have any further questions relating to your restrictions, please e-mail us (the Arbitration Committee) in the first instance. Carcharoth (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

So...

I was gonna say, it's a true test of a person to take his lumps and get back on the horse. I assumed that that you were about to pass that test since you went to the trouble of applying for reinstatement. But you haven't edited since your reinstatement after all, so dunno.

Of course maybe you're burned out or disgusted or disappointed or whatever. Of course it's 100% OK not to edit anymore, it's all purely voluntary here.

I know what I'd do though. I was kicked out of the admin corps for (IMO) insufficient reason and some people figured that I'd leave in a huff. I didn't and I like that about myself. It's a hard-knock world after all.

Everybody's different though. No criticism implied. It's entirely possible that editing doesn't work for you anymore and it's important to do what works for oneself. Best wishes whatever you do. Herostratus (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I second the motion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

September 11, 2011 attacks listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect September 11, 2011 attacks. Since you had some involvement with the September 11, 2011 attacks redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

File:GuruDevtint.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GuruDevtint.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:GuruDevtint.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:GuruDevtint.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk Page Protection

I have unprotected your talk page per WP:PP. Indefinite protections of talk pages are rarely used now and when talk pages are protected, should be accompanied by an unprotected subpage. If you continue to experience persistent vandalism, you may request a short term protection of your page at WP:RFPP. Mkdw 14:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Jay8962/Fair Oaks Pharmacy and Soda Fountain

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Jay8962/Fair Oaks Pharmacy and Soda Fountain, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Whpq (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion

A case (Transcendental Meditation movement) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Clintogate listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Clintogate. Since you had some involvement with the Clintogate redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix 21:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

5 Million: We celebrate your contribution

I just hope you know

That sardonic quip at the Armenian fellow who was banned a while back about belonging to Conservapedia was lovely, considering, you know, Conservapedia bans dissenters of the hivemind, which you did because of your own commonplace belief.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 22:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Tourism in Cumberland, Maryland for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tourism in Cumberland, Maryland is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tourism in Cumberland, Maryland until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TaylorMoore2 (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Fifth Helena Drive listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fifth Helena Drive. Since you had some involvement with the Fifth Helena Drive redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

About Roy Cizek

As you suggested to me, I've done! https://en.wikipedia.org/Roy_Cizek https://en.wikipedia.org/The_Cizek_Model_One THX! --Paolippe (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Teardrop trailer (truck) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Teardrop trailer (truck) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Teardrop trailer (truck) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nordic Nightfury 15:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Beatles at Rishikesh.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:The Beatles at Rishikesh.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

In appreciation of your tactful handling of the obvious COI at the page for A&F. Nuff said. Rags (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

When I say this hopped that Will Was Back. Unfortunately he has not made an edit since 2014. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Jessica Taylor (The Platters) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jessica Taylor (The Platters). Since you had some involvement with the Jessica Taylor (The Platters) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Anomalocaris (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Reflections of an American Political Prisoner.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Reflections of an American Political Prisoner.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Retitle the L.A. Task Force

Your attention is called to the discussion here, suggesting retitling Los Angeles Task Force to Los Angeles County Task Force. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

MERU, Holland listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MERU, Holland. Since you had some involvement with the MERU, Holland redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Checking the list

Hello. I am WP:boldly culling the membership list of the Los Angeles Area Task Force. Some people don’t participate any more. Because you joined more than ten years ago, I am asking if you still want to be listed as a participant. I’ll be deleting those who say no or don’t answer, and then we can move merrily forward. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Backpacking

You're invited to be a part of WikiProject Backpacking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to backpacking. To accept this invitation, click here!

Please consider returning to the project. —philoserf (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery
• Wikipedians who opt out of template messages