Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee/Archives/2013

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[User talk:Russavia] 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: [1]. --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)

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)
  • 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: [2]. 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 Wikipedia 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 [he] 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: [Suppose] you are a lawyer. You come upon the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ✔Tea time 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, [3][4][5] 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 (talk) 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 Talk 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 Wikipedia 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)
This is a reply to SilkTork's posting.[6]
  • 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....
My questions about why the appeal was denied and how I can make a successful appeal are characterized by ST as "agitation". The original appeal was rejected without any explanation whatsoever. On Wikipedia, trying to change a consensus is not the same thing as igonoring a consensus. I don't know how ST would like me to communicate other than email, as that is what the BASC instructions require. No one on the ArbCom has suggested any other, more public, way of communicating with the committee.
  • Aggressive point pushers who ignore consensus and work behind the scenes are damaging to any community, and particularly the Wikipedia community where decisions can be made quickly by a handful of users who each are unaware that they have been individually manipulated in secret....
All of the appeal process has been secretive and behind the scenes. I cannot even get basic information, such as who voted to deny the appeal. (I was told there was a vote, but now Carcharoth writes above that there was never even a vote - so it's very unclear what the procedure is for handling appeals.) As a banned user, I have no way of communicating with the ArbCom or other community members other than email or posting to my talk page. I am not aware of any decisions in this matter which have been made quickly by a handful of users.
  • That [he] 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.
The case listed 11 examples of my battleground behavior: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. I assume that the case was carefully drafted and so those are the best examples available. However I do not see how they demonstrate extreme battleground behavior. Most of them date back several years, and some involve threads in which I made minimal contributions. ST seems to consider my questions about this evidence as proof of my guilt and cluelessness.
  • 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.
The information was submitted privately because it involved personaly identifiable information. It was presented to Jimbo, to the ArbCom, and to TG at the same time. At the time, no one on the ArbCom objected to it. Any errors in the submission were unintentional and were not an attempt to mislead Wales or the ArbCom.
  • 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.
This is a gross mischaracterization which is contrary to the facts. I got involved in the TM articles in response to repeated COIN postings complaining about editing by TG and others. My concern about his COI predated any significant involvement in the topic. No one has presented any evidence that I added unsourced negative comments or that TG was making the TM articles more neutral. No particular content dispute was identified in the ArbCom case. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal
  • 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.
The information on TG's apparent COI was found by me accidentally, but it was almost unavoidable to anyone doing research on the topic because of the nature of TG's involvement in the organization. ST does not identify any negative material I was trying to add which TG was opposing. I made no special effort to discredit TG as an editor, other than his specific COI issue and a general problem with some editors of the TM topic.[18]
  • 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.
There is no evidence that I engaged in POV pushing on TM articles. ST himself granted GA status to an article on a TM-related article which I largely rewrote.[19]
  • To put a scenario to you: [Suppose] you are a lawyer. You come upon the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.
This scenario is not based on any actual evidence. There was no allegation of edit warring. TG published many details of his private and professional life on Wikipedia, although he omitted the nature of his work for the TM organization. Again, I did not write "secretly" write to Wales - my communication included TG and the ArbCom. TG had the opportunity to respond to every allegation before Wales decided to impose a ban.
  • 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."
Is it a violation of some Wikipedia rule for a banned user to contact ArbCom members in order to ask why an appeal was rejected or how it could succeed? How is that manipulative? I invite ST to publish any emails of mine to the ArbCom or to individual members which show evidence of attempts to improperly manipulate the committee. As for "going after" TG, I have acknowledged my error in focusing excessively on his COI, have apologized to him for it, and have committed to never "go after" another editor because of COI concerns.
General comment:
When TG appealed his ban, the matter was handled publicly according to normal arbitration procedures. When I appealed my ban, it was handled secretly without any open review of the evidence, any vote, or any explanation of the outcome. In on- and off-Wiki comments since the ban was placed, individual committee members have presented varying reasons for it, some of which do not seem to be based on the facts of the case. The lack of transparent process and the conflicting justifications make it difficult for me to understand how to ever get the ban lifted.
For more than seven years, and across over 100,000 edits, I contributed to making Wikipedia a better reference work. I would like to return to editing. I have tried to make amends for my errors and to apologize to the individuals I may have discomforted. I have honored the ban and will honor any restrictions placed on my future editing.   Will Beback  talk  20:20, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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)

* What follows is WBB's reply, copied from Will Beback's talk page  Roger Davies talk 10:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a reply to AGK's posting.[20]
  • 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 Wikipedia community.
This is the first time I've heard this version: that I was banned because I went to "great lengths to hide what I was doing to TimidGuy." I had repeatedly asked AGK for feedback on the appeal and he never mentioned this. It isn't in the case that led to my ban. Since the matter involved personally identifiable issues, there was never any way of handling it all publicly. Numerous issues are routinely sent directly to the ArbCom via email without any public discussion. The ArbCom discussed the case in the email threads I was privy to, and there were some conflicting opinions about whether the matter should be handled on or off-Wiki. I had asked for advice from user:Atama, who suggested it should be dealt with off-Wiki.[21] The ArbCom, Jimmy Wales, or TimidGuy himself all could have made some sort of reference to it on-Wiki if they chose to. I made no effort, much less "great lengths", to prevent it from being handled or discussed on-Wiki. I'd request that AGK explain what actions of mine he is referring to.
  • 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.
The TG matter was not out of sight of the ArbCom. I am not aware of any allegations of other activities that I have done out of sight. I request that AGK please substantiate this accusation.
  • 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.
Again, this is the first time any ArbCom member has suggested that this is why I was banned. The case which led to my ban did not include any findings of general problems with my editing, or even with my editing of the TM topic. This is another unsubstantiated accusation.
As I wrote elsewhere, individual ArbCom members each seem to have their own, often conflicting views of the "real" reason I was banned, many of which do not seem to be based on the facts presented in the arbitration case.   Will Beback  talk  22:24, 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 Talk 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 [22], 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)
Piling on about the lack of involvement - I never really interacted with Will Beback, on or off-wiki, and we didn't really edit the same articles that I can recall. However, I will admit there may be a common interest in science, although honestly there's a dcecent chance that Will Beback and I would come into conflict as I've tended to be more open to alternative medicine such as meditation. I just don't see that as a reason for banning. II | (t - c) 04:00, 11 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] Fladrif (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I will reiterate one of my original points more plainly. It is inaccurate to say that Will isn't exerting political pressure on the committee, but it would also be inaccurate to say that Will's appeal was declined because of that pressure. The fact that pressure is being exerted on us is simply a secondary observation that has compounded the discomfort of individual arbitrators with the prospect of allowing Will's current appeal. A disproportionate number of words have been written above about the fact that there is a userspace RFC, about that Will has had at least something to do with that RFC, and about the extent to which Will has been involved with that RFC.

    Even if Will submitted a one-man appeal and told nobody except committee about it, the basic problem would still not have been resolved. The problem is this: Will's past misconduct has not been merely disruptive editing (which comprise the vast majority of appeals), but with a very unusual blend of long-term off-site manipulation. Time does not resolve the fact that he is predisposed to using such off-site manipulation, so why is it safe to let him edit now when it was previously not? AGK [•] 11:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Presumably, if WBB was engaging in off-site manipulation of still-active editors before he was site-banned, he could just as easily be doing it now, regardless of whether he himself is allowed to edit or not. But is ArbCom in possession of convincing evidence that WBB is in fact still doing this? I, for one, am really not comfortable with a line of reasoning that says we should assume he is still pulling strings off-wiki because we have no way of proving that he is not. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It would appear that AGK's unsubstantiated accusation that WBB engaged in off-Wiki agitation to bring about the RFC and this discussion so as to bring political pressure on ArbCom is all in his imagination and made up out of whole cloth. All the likely suspects have flatly denied that WBB contacted them, asked them, or encouraged them in any way to do so. And disgraced ex-Arb Rlevse/VanishedUser/BarkingMoon/PumpkinSky's claims have been exposed as laughable hyperbole. Apologies and retractions are in order now that these baseless personal attacks have been exposed for what they are. Fladrif (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • First, it was SilkTork's accusation, not just mine. Second, we are well aware that there has been off-wiki co-ordination of this appeal; this is a fact based on our own evidence, not a notion we invented out of thin air. Third, please do not come to this page to engage in rhetoric and chest-beating, and please try to establish the facts before you launch into a vicious denunciation of any contributor (arbitrator or not). We are trying to have a serious conversation, and your comment was both insulting and a tremendous distraction. I confess myself disappointed, Fladrif. AGK [•] 14:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • No, I am the one disappointed. As are, I expect, many other members of the Community. Well, actually, I take that back. I'm not disappointed at all; I'm not the least bit surprised that a mere child lacks the judgment and maturity to do this job. You leveled a specious charge (doubly specious, because (i) there is absolutely no reason why an editor could or should not communicate with other editors off Wiki and (ii) the fact is that, although there would be nothing wrong with it whatsoever, there was no off-wiki coordination of this appeal) without any basis other than your suspicions. When the accusation is shown to be utterly specious and untrue, you try to hide behind SilkTork's skirts, and repeat it in a brazen effort to bluff your way through. Implicitly, you accuse WBB and unnamed editors of lying about this to the Community. If you are "aware" of off-wiki coordination, when the editors you imply are involved in that coordination have stated there is none, I suggest you owe it to the Community to either post your proof and be prepared to defend it. Otherwise retract your statement and issue an apology as the last thing you do before resigning ArbCom, surrendering all your tools, and permanently retiring as an editor. Fladrif (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I find it very concerning that Fladrif is allowed to continue making personal attacks and am quite surprised he has not been blocked yet. Perhaps the civility restriction placed on Fladrif by ArbCom should be re-instated, he has obviously not learned that personal attacks are not welcome on Wikipedia - he is a long-term offender, continuing to add to his long history of personal attacks and incivility. Dreadstar ☥ 00:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I find it very concerning that Arbitrators and ex-arbs are making demonstrably false accusations, implying without evidence that named and unnamed editors are lying to the community, repeating those accusations when confronted with the fact that they are falsehoods. and that when an editor demands that they either prove it or apologize and retract, they are accused of making a personal attack. I am also fascinated by the fact that WBB is being excoriated by some ArbCom members for allegedly using off-wiki communication to coordinate this appeal, while other editors - Dreadstar, Ched, TimidGuy, Olive - have posted on wiki the past couple of days evidence of their off-wiki communication to coordinate opposition to this appeal and to individual editors that have written in support of it, and to threaten sanctions against editors with whom they disagree, without apparent repercussion. Interesting. Care to explain why one thing is not like the other? Fladrif (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, fun, now we have Fladrif calling ArbCom members liars. I'd like to see some proof where I "have posted on wiki the past couple of days evidence of their off-wiki communication". I'd really like to know why Fladrif has not been indefinitely blocked, if not at least short-term blocked for his continued personal attacks. Dreadstar ☥ 01:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
You have made it abundantly clear that you communicate regularly with TimidGuy, Olive, etc, have solicited emails relative to this matter, and Ched has been less than discrete about his having private correspondence with other editors actively involved in this matter opposing WPP. [24][25][26] just for starters Fladrif (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand or are just twisting facts to suit your own personal and false narrative. Yes I did solicit emails on where any attempted outing may be, but I asked that because I did not want to perpetuate any further outing - and I have not yet received a single email from that solicitation. And your other two diffs have absolutely nothing to do with me, obviously Ched has been observing this situation and took action on his own. Absolultely none of your so-called 'evidence' shows that I "have posted on wiki the past couple of days evidence of their off-wiki communication". This is yet another distortion by Fladrif, and sings very closely to a personal attack. And if you look closer at some of the edit history, you'll clearly see where WBB has indeed attempted to manipulate via off-wiki communications. Get your story straight before you start making false accusations. again. Dreadstar ☥ 02:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Please submit such information to the Arbitration Committee. We will take measures to ensure the authenticity of the information before acting on it. NW (Talk) 03:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I and others have email(s) from Will where he's trying to manipulate things offline. Shall I post mine onwiki orsend will you take my word if I send it to arbcom? I am pretty others have sent their recent "Will" emails to AC. PumpkinSky talk 21:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Please don't post such material on-wiki. And don't send it to me. But if you believe ArbCom has not seen what you have, I would recommend you send it to their e-mail list. If the arbs have in fact seen recent e-mail of this sort from WBB, I certainly hope they will tell us (the community) that they have seen such e-mail, and possibly a highly summarized description of its content, though I would not expect ArbCom to step over the privacy line by reposting private correspondence. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
How could the authenticity of such an email be verified? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Email headers, which techy types know how to check. Wolfie, you're not seriously suggesting I'd fake such an email are you? PumpkinSky talk 22:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Email headers can be easily faked. I don't know who you are, so I don't know and don't want to speculate. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
He just posted it on his talk page. Still question it? PumpkinSky talk 00:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
But how does that email show Will attempting to "manipulate things offline"? MastCell Talk 00:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
You could ask Will if you could post his email to you online. Pumpkin sent me a couple of emails but this does not mean he is trying to manipulate me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I frankly do not see where the rest of my colleagues are coming from in the slightest and would overturn that whole case. Settling for less, I voted to unban. NW (Talk) 03:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The only problem with this bit "Second, we are well aware that there has been off-wiki co-ordination of this appeal; this is a fact based on our own evidence" is that it is not true. This appeal was not coordinated off wiki but on wiki. These sorts of comments are disappointing as they show some members of arbcom are happy just to make stuff up or at least embellish on them extensively. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight...Doc James is calling current members of ArbCom liars. Dreadstar ☥ 01:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Break

Reply to AGK's comments. Yes would agree that there are a group of Wikipedians "applying political pressure to ArbCom and its members". What we want is a more open arbcom process and maybe greater responsiveness to those that elected them. I am not sure how people expect to be able to decide who would be a good arbcom member if much is done in secret. To clarify Will had nothing to do with the RfC. It was my idea.

This bit is fascinating "he went to great lengths to hide what he was doing to TimidGuy from the Wikipedia community". So first some stated that he was banned for outing (which would imply that the identity was given out on Wikipedia). Than it finally come out that the concern was dealt with off line in private emails directed to arbcom. So the fact the Will brought concerns to arbcom and Jimmy plus another admin he was blocked. So if he did not "hide" his concerns from the community he would have been legitimately banned for outing as he didn't bring his concerns to the community he is "hiding" his concerns from the community and thus was banned. Sort of a lose-lose situation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

  • AGK, thanks for the detailed response. Something has gone wrong with the way Will is being perceived, and it's hard to know what to do to correct those impressions. Suffice to say there is a strong disconnect between the way I think Will would be described by those who know him (as an honest person and a very good researcher), and the very negative way he is seen by the people opposing his appeal. I have some ideas about why that disconnect has occurred, but I'd prefer to focus on the practical issues for now.

    In particular, I'm still confused about the appeals procedure that was used. Was the appeal considered by the whole committee, or only by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee (i.e. by SilkTork, Timotheus Canens, David Fuchs and yourself)? If the latter, what can be done to have the appeal heard and voted on in public by the whole committee? The current situation is that the appeal was handled in private, we don't know who was involved in it, the process has been somewhat protracted, and Will still doesn't know what he needs to do to get unblocked, so that is not a good way to leave things. Can you advise how best to move forward in a transparent way? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

  • The appeal was handled by the full Committee. I don't know the proper procedure on the other parts of your question, only having been on the Committee for three months. I will ask the rest of the Committee whether there is objection to me sharing their votes with the public. NW (Talk) 04:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • As you know, NW, there wasn't a formal straight up/straight down vote as such. Instead there were comments/shows of hands for various options. These were part of deliberations, which are private. Overall, consensus was to decline the appeal.  Roger Davies talk 05:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's breaking any confidentiality to say that there were a number of positions considered, ultimately ranging to "accept appeal without condition" to "decline appeal". It may not have been structured in our formal motion language, but had we twelve, in some hypothetical world, all said that we would "accept appeal without condition", we would have just gone ahead and unblocked. My post to the list requested consent from everyone to waive the normal confidentiality with respect to the votes for the "decline appeal" choice. Frankly, I'm not sure why that would even be confidential; one ought to have a right to know who voted to dismiss one's appeal. NW (Talk) 05:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It's simple: opinions expressed with the expectation of privacy should remain private. And why should one know who has voted to dismiss an appeal? That's an extraordinary - and very dangerous precedent - to set,  Roger Davies talk 05:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • @Roger Davies: I am utterly baffled by this statement. Of course the Community has a right to know how the individual Arbs voted in an appeal. They have a right to know why as well. What misguided sense of entitlement would make any rational person think otherwise? What is the danger in the precedent, other than having unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious decision making brought to the light of day? That isn't a bad thing. The sense of lèse-majesté emanating from some of the members who imagine themselves to have been forced to descend from the throne and peer out over the battlements at the howling mob at the outer gate to discern where the noise is coming from is disturbing. Who do you think you are? You are accountable to this Community, whether you like it or not. Own up to your own responsibilities. Fladrif (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • No, it's not like that at all. The community has always been comfortable with deliberations being held in private; it's been in policy for eight or so years. Straw polls - to see which ways the wind is blowing - are part of the deliberative process. For the danger aspects, you may not be aware but functionaries are regularly targetted for severe off-wiki harassment and opening up deliberations on request may well expose individuals to risk. In this particular instance, there is no such risk but there remains the issue that opinions expressed with an expectation of privacy should remain private.  Roger Davies talk 18:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
As the most sued Wikipedian I am well aware of the risk of editing here. Functionaries risks are no greater than that of many content editors. So I do not see this as sufficient excuse for secrecy for abrcom but not the rest of us. AGK actually stated that Will's sending of an email to arbcom is secrecy and thus one of the continually changing justifications for his ban. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
"Severe off-wiki harassment" goes considerably further than legal risks. And yes AGK is right, per policy, emails sent to ArbCom are confidential.  Roger Davies talk 06:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, NW. As several people have expressed concern that Will sends out emails about (or to) other editors, I've suggested to SilkTork (who has asked me to post to him on his talk page about this, rather than here) that the committee could restrict Will from seeking sanctions against other editors off-wiki. So the editing restrictions he would have to agree to would be:
  1. He is restricted from making COI allegations against individual editors;
  2. he remains topic-banned from articles related to new religious movements;
  3. he must not engage in off-wiki discussion about other editors with a view to seeking sanctions or restrictions against them, or persuading them to disengage from Wikipedia; any such discussion must take place on-wiki within the framework of formal dispute resolution;
  4. he must agree to make efforts to be less rigid in his approach to other editors and points of view that he disagrees with.
Would this help? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that, SV. Responses in your order. (1) What you propose here is probably too open to gaming, a complete topic ban on COI would work better. (2) That's fine, though noting here that WBB wants it lifted to work on NRM articles(!). (3) & (4) could use a little fine-tuning but they do address a certain grim relentless, which has been worrying me. I'd also add (5) "prohibited in engaging in any conduct that is, or reasonably could be construed as, posting non-public identifying information about another editor (with "non-public" for this purpose being defined as 'not having been voluntarily disclosed by the editor concerned on the English Wikipedia')" and (6) "may not request reconsideration or review of these restrictions for at least a year from the date on which [WBB] is unblocked".  Roger Davies talk 05:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Roger, your (5) and (6) sound reasonable to me. Re (2), I think Will said somewhere that he would stick to the topic ban, so hopefully that won't be an issue. Re (1), could wording be found to allow him to discuss COI at the policy/general-discussion level? Will isn't someone who would exploit a loophole; if he agrees to something he will stick to it. I confess to having a personal interest here, in that I also see paid advocacy as a big problem for WP, and Will was one of the first to articulate it years ago, so it would be a shame to lose that voice and institutional memory.

Would something like this work for (1)? "He is restricted from discussing conflict of interest issues regarding particular editors, groups of editors, or articles, but may take part in general discussions about COI on Wikipedia, including at the COI guideline, RfCs, and similar." SlimVirgin (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This really doesn't strike me as a very good idea at all and I would not support it.  Roger Davies talk 06:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
In that case, would you support if he agreed to a complete ban on discussing COI, together with (2) to (6)? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Responding down here to a few points that have been raised in this thread.

  • (i) I don't think arbitrators should necessarily be expected to explain their reasoning in full for an appeal like this, but some explanation does help.
  • (ii) BASC discussions sometimes see participation by the entire committee as all arbitrators are subscribed to that mailing list, and that is what happened in this case, though the vast majority of appeals are dealt with by a few active BASC regulars.
  • (iii) In the informal BASC discussion referenced above (which took place on the arbwiki), I opposed remanding this to the community (though see quote below) and I opposed accepting an appeal without conditions, and I was undecided between accepting an appeal with conditions and rejecting the appeal. I was still undecided at the time the appeal was rejected.
  • (iv) What I said at the time was: "we should be able to explain if asked why this can't be heard by the community. What aspects of the case require arbitrators to decide this? I think know the answer, but it needs to be articulated by one of the arbitrators who actually participated in the case at the time."
  • (v) Leading on from that, it is difficult to appreciate quite how hard it is for arbitrators who did not participate in a case to review a case sufficiently to be happy with voting on an appeal. Looking back over on-wiki case discussions is as time-consuming as participating in the original case, and looking back over past e-mail discussions in the archives (a couple of hours reading) is also time-consuming, and gives a different perspective (including the order in which e-mails are read) to those who received the e-mails at the time.
  • (vi) The subsequent userspace RfC and reports from various sources that Will had e-mailed them, reinforced my impressions here - I think the userspace RfC may have done more damage than good - I tried to do my best to keep the subsequent discussion of the appeal (Will's request for more guidance on why the appeal was declined) separate from what was being said at the userspace RfC, but couldn't divest myself of the nagging feeling that the userspace RfC had somehow compromised the process. Some arbitrators are wary of being unduly influenced by opinions, rather than evidence.

I hope that all helps make some things clearer. Carcharoth (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

@Charcharoth. I think that is useful, but perhaps I am missing something. You stated that ArbCom needed to be prepared to explain why the appeal can't be heard by the Community; you think you know why, but someone who participated in the prior case itself needs to explain why. I don't think I've read a credible explanation from any member as to why the appeal can't be heard publicly; just statements that it wasn't. I am fascinated by the inconsistency that TG's unban request was hear publicly (with some evidence received privately due to outing concerns) but that WBB's unban request, which involves no need to receive evidence privately, because it implicates no outing concerns whatsoever, wasn't. I'd be interested in someone explaining the inconsistency, but the inconsistency is actually irrelevant to the question you posed yourself: What about this appeal requires that it be handled entirely in private? I don't think you need to have sat on the prior case to conclude that there is, in fact, no such reason. Fladrif (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think any serious person would expect or demand that ArbCom's deliberations about this ban appeal be made public. On the other hand, I think the community has a reasonable expectation to know the final vote tally - that is, which Arbs voted which way. If there was no formal vote, then a brief summary of the informal "show of hands" would be useful. I don't see how this opens up Arbs to any sort of meaningful repercussions, and it seems like a very basic level of accountability - certainly no more than the average admin is expected to display on a daily basis. MastCell Talk 01:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I think the request for a vote tally is reasonable as you say. The question is how should it be obtained? As Roger Davies has mentioned, comments or votes made in private should not be made public without the permission of each individual and I think that if the Committee was in total agreement with the request, then the results of the private voting on the various options considered in regard to WBB would have been posted. So far NW, Silk Tork, Carcharoth, AGK and Roger Davies have posted extensive statements about where they stand on the issue and why they opposed/supported WBB's appeal. I think the intelligent thing to do at this point is to approach the remaining Committee members that have not taken a public stand on the issue and make that request on their individual talk page(s). Badgering those that have responded to community requests and made their views known seems to be counterproductive and sends the wrong message to those that have stepped forward.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
      • MastCell, I'll ask my colleagues to authorise the tally to be released. I personally think the tally should be released, but I cannot speak for the other arbitrators (who may feel it would set a bad precedent for "shows of hands" as well as formal "votes" to be released upon request). Kiethbob, very well said. AGK [•] 08:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
        • OK, thank you. Please let me/us know what the response is to your request. MastCell Talk 21:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm disturbed by Silk Tork's implication that WBB deliberately misled Jimbo and the committee when he claimed that TG was a paid advocate. Has that been established? I'm disturbed by Roger Davies's thought that it would be extraordinary and dangerous for the community to know how the votes fell on an appeal. I'm disturbed that we still have no explanation as to why this appeal was heard in secret. Mostly I'm disturbed by comments to the effect that there is something improper or illegitimate about the community discussing a committee decision. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought I'd clarified that remark sufficiently in my subsequent statement: I had specific circumstances in mind. You probably missed it.

For what it's worth, I don't think there's anything improper about the community discussing a committee decision. Per policy, appeals are usually conducted by email. For information, when I was coordinating BASC most people preferred to have their appeals handled privately and there are often factors which make public discussions undesirable. All that said, I'd personally be delighted if the whole appeal apparatus was handed off to another body. It's time-consuming and a great drain on ArbCom resources. However, so far, the practical difficulties have proved insurmountable (rather like reform of RFA I suppose).  Roger Davies talk 06:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I haven't followed any ban appeals before. If they're usually conducted off-wiki, then I'm no longer disturbed about that :). And if a discussion has occurred in confidence, no one should expect the participants to later agree to disclose their part in it. Though it's not unreasonable to ask, where there is no perceived risk of harassment, and I wouldn't consider it extraordinary for arbitrators to elect to do so, regarding their own contributions and votes. I didn't have you in mind as someone questioning the right of the community to discuss whatever it wants to discuss. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I also agree that there should be voting breakdowns published as a matter of routine. Arbitrators need to be accountable to the community for their positions, and if they all hide behind a, so to speak, per curium decision, not only do they evade responsibility, but also there is a risk of ascribing to individual arbitrators support for a decision which they do in fact not hold, but may be limited in defense if they are so blamed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from. Appeals are usually handed out by email. Having never been involved in a BASC ban appeal (I am not an arbitrator, nor an administrator either), I am not disturbed if the appeals are conducted off wiki. Then again, I agree with Roger and AGK's comments that emails to the ArbCom are to be confidential of course. And during this ongoing issue with WBB (which I am not involved in, fortunately), Dreadstar has retired over issues with another editor...? I find that to be very devastating for the project as a whole when an administrator is driven off of Wikipedia by an abusive editor... Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

break

Three weeks ago I asked And I would still like to know what the vote count was to maintain the ban? 8 to 4? 5 to 4 w/ 3 abstaining? Does anyone know? Others have also asked, not for a show of hands...just a simple result. Why the delay? ```Buster Seven Talk 13:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd also be interested in the answer to this question. MastCell Talk 17:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
On a different note, Dreadstar is back! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Who woulda thunk it? MastCell Talk 03:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that was a case of Don't feed the divas obviously. And the voting results by ArbCom are what we should really get back to discussing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I only became aware of WBB's ban appeal today and having just read through this page wish to offer my opinion. I'm a very occasional wikipedia contributer, with my most active involvement having been with the "Prem Rawat" article between 2008-2010, at which time WBB was also involved.

Will Beeback was to me everything an ideal committed wikeipedian should have been, with a committment to article neutrality. However, I had no knowledge or awareness of his "off-wiki" behind the scenes canvassing and detective work that I understand was a leading cause for his banning.

I saw Will Beeback as a passionate person who was deeply concerned about editors owning articles or being paid advocates of organizations which had an interest in or were the subject of articles. I can understand how he became overzealous in his hunting down of perceived COI, to the point where unfair accusations were made by him against some editors.

Around 2008-2009 when I first started editing Wikipedia, the Prem Rawat biography was effectively owned by a small group of pro-Rawat editors, led by Jossi, who was an administrator at the time and was eventually banned from Wikiepedia. This ownership and thus pro-Rawat bias of the biography for so long was a great frustration those of us trying to restore a sense of neturality, including WBB. To me, this background provides context, but not justification for Will's future behavior.

I can empathise with AGK's concern that Will's continued practice right now of using email and other off-wiki methods to attempt to regain his editing rights is problematic, however I consider this to be a minor behavorial issue that can be addressed as suggested by Slim Virgin that Will's return would be subject to using only public, on-wiki means of communication. Will has apologised (on several ocassions) for his overzealousness, and has shown genuine remorse. Given his previously high standard of contributions, surely the beneifts of his return in a moderated way would outweigh any remaining concerns about his use of private emails and other off-wiki canvassing behavior?

If this is sole remaining concern about Will's fitness to return, then if he a)states that he understands the concern about gaming behaviour and commits to only use transparent, public communication and b) sticks to his existing promise to never raise COI allegations or edit in New Religion topics, then I believe that an acceptance of his appeal would be the for the beneift of Wikipedia. Savlonn (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments on transclusion

Resolved by copying instead of transcluding. Dreadstar ☥ 14:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm not even sure where to place my comments now that Fladrif has transcluded WBB's talkpage, but here is my objection: [27]. Dreadstar ☥ 03:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Despite my reservations, I have fixed the transclusion so it retained the rest of the content of WBB's talkpage. Dreadstar ☥ 04:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
This doesn't need transcluding at all. I've simply copied over WBB's responses is sufficient. When copying over please state so clearly in the edit summary.  Roger Davies talk 08:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
D'oh! So simple! Thanks Roger! Dreadstar ☥ 14:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attacks by Fladrif

(IAR close) AGK is not willing to participate further for the reasons he gave, we can respect his wishes by not commenting further in this section and creating more drama. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I had hoped this discussion would be productive and give us arbitrators extensive, useful advice to bear in mind when re-evaluating Will's appeal. However, Fladrif's comment to me above, at 21:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC), is an utter disgrace. Ridiculous as it was (a "mere child"?), I'm not prepared to be subjected to such venom. Arbs are volunteers and people too. I'm now withdrawing from this discussion. AGK [•] 12:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

There's also the issue of his ill-advised attacks on PumpkinSky, BarkingMoon, Ched, and others.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I hope you don't assume that I support Fladrif's comments just because I opened this inquiry and want the vote tally to made public. Thanks for participating as much as you did. I found Fladrif's comments and tone extremely off-putting pretty much from beginning. I'm also disturbed by how that editor wipes commentary from the talkpage. While I understand this is the policy (altho historically debated) I think certain users should be prohibited from doing it until admins have a better tracking system in place for problematic users. II | (t - c) 19:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
"Off-putting"?? Fladrif should have been blocked by now, his personal attacks here are beyond the pale. I'm absolutely stunned he's allowed to get away with his continued stream of vicious personal attacks. Fladrif's personal attacks go way back and he was placed on Civility parole, yet he continues his vicious attacks on others. I'm frankly disgusted by this allowance given to Fladrif and I really don't understand it. AGK, sorry this happened to you, but welcome to the world of venom the so-called "TM editors" are exposed to on a daily basis. Dreadstar ☥ 20:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Dreadstar has made his fair share of personal attack inappropriate comments. Just look at this comment here [28] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Unless I have suddenly acquired the magical ability to transport myself ~1,000 miles/1,500 km a minute, it wasn't me. And, no, I have no idea how some folks simultaneously appear to post from opposite sides of the world, though I understand it can be done. Just not by me. There are many examples of similar personal attacks and improper threats by Dreadstar against many editors over many years, but in light of his surrender of the mop and resignation from the project, there is no reason to document them here. Fladrif (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Doc bug off.. What the hell is wrong with some of you people. When do you stop with all the crap. What the hell is wrong with you.(olive (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC))
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legacy of Will Beback

Closing as unproductive; not a forum for general lists of grievances.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Agree with the above. Fladrif's behaviour is one of WBB's legacies. A whole generation of editors have grown up in an environment where attacks on NRMs have been tolerated and shielded by WBB and his supporters. I, and others, have been subjected to a constant stream of invective from user PatW for years. His talk page has been visited 18 times by editors asking him to stop his "battleground behaviour", not to mention the countless times he has been asked to stop on article talk pages and yet he was allowed to continue year after year despite over whelming evidence of "battle ground behaviour" and gross "incivility".[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] Removing WBB back from Wikipedia is just the beginning. There is a long list of admins and editors who still believe that they can block, ban and harass non anti-NRM editors with impunity. Take a look at Rumiton's appeal at Arbitration Requests and Enforcements.[47] Indefinitely topic banned by The Blade of the Northern Lights without a single diff of evidence and having trouble getting the ban lifted despite a six to one majority in his favour. MOMENTO 21:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that you share JClemens' position[48] that what these cases are really about have nothing whatsoever to do with any of the findings that were made, nor with any of the evidence presented, in any of the series of cases that have brought us here. What they are really about is the persecution of NRM-affiliated editors as religious minorities. Or, putting it differently, making sure that any editor questioning whether there is promotional editing of NRM-related articles is removed from the Community for persecuting those editors. If that's what these cases are really about, definitely let's put that on the table, shine a light on it, dispense with all the misdirection, and have the Community decide how it should be resolved once and for all. Fladrif (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I do agree with Jclemens that "religious minorities were being persecuted by those of a different POV, using the COI policy". And would add that WBB also used his admin powers, collusion with like minded editors, selective use of Wiki policies and guidelines, lies and deceit to further his POV. He used every trick in the book including allowing people like you and PatW to insult and badger editors he considered his opponents unhindered. Fortunately WBB is gone and over the coming months editors who think they can insult, block, ban and sanction editors with corrupted or no evidence will follow. MOMENTO 22:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
So, who else is on your Enemies List for removal from the project? And why should they be treated differently from any other editor who questions the promotional editing of any other article by an employee or PR representative of a business or organization. What makes questioning such editing in a NRM-related article "vicious persecution" worthy of banning, when it is completely unremarkable in any other context? Fladrif (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I said "editors who think they can insult, block, ban and sanction editors with corrupted or no evidence will follow", I made no reference to their POV. I don't care what they believe, I just believe that "editors who think they can insult, block, ban and sanction editors with corrupted or no evidence" have no place in Wikipedia. If you disagree, please take it to my talk page. MOMENTO 23:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
So, who else is on the hit list? Fladrif (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Summary and vote or public revote

Our original request remains unfulfilled (breakdown of the voting results). At the poll by Doc James, currently (24 April 2013) it is 40 (63.4%) in support of Will Beback's return and 23 (36.5%) in opposition, with several opposes commenting on procedure rather than merits. Unfortunately it seems this discussion was hijacked by dramatic heckling which nobody had the balls to rein in, but I really don't plan to give up on this. The arbitrators which have commented (SilkTork, Roger Davies, Carcharoth, AGK, and NuclearWarfare) above have indicated their positions as follows (feel free to correct these):

  • SilkTork supports ban; provided a lengthy statement posted 26 March on User:Jmh649/Will_Beback; followed up that on 9 April above mentioning a second ArbCom discussion
  • AGK supports ban but also supports making the vote tally public; no longer participating in the discussion due to insults and heckling by Fladrif
  • Carcharoth provided the following on 08:03, 11 April: "I opposed remanding this to the community (though see quote below) and I opposed accepting an appeal without conditions, and I was undecided between accepting an appeal with conditions and rejecting the appeal" and then also quoted himself from the "deliberations" as saying: "we should be able to explain if asked why this can't be heard by the community. What aspects of the case require arbitrators to decide this? I think know the answer, but it needs to be articulated by one of the arbitrators who actually participated in the case at the time"
  • Roger Davies: supports ban (unclear, see below); also 06:30, 13 April commented negatively on SlimVirgin compromise proposals
  • NuclearWarfare opposes ban per 03:25 11 April comment; only one indicating opposition to upholding the ban; was told not to reveal more details by Roger Davies (who said "there wasn't a formal straight up/straight down vote as such. Instead there were comments/shows of hands for various options. These were part of deliberations, which are private").

Independent commentators such as MastCell, Wehwalt, and Keithbob (as well as myself and a few others) have agreed that vote tallies should be made public, and indeed it's not clear that anyone is willing to boldly argue the opposite, except perhaps Roger Davies who argues that these are private deliberations. As someone who has been involved in a few deliberative bodies over the years, I don't see the vote tallies as private deliberations at all and I think this odd view needs to be discarded for the future. As Wehwalt notes, this is equivalent to a per curiam decision and is not typical for major decisions in modern legislatures or common law judicial systems and for similar reasons is not appropriate for ArbCom. As a compromise, how about just doing another vote, this time in public, and note for future reference that your votes will be publicly-accessible if requested? I will be providing a notice of this request at WT:ARBCOM (at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Disclosure_of_Will_Beback_ban_appeal_votes). Note: I am not soliciting comments from users who have already commented above. If you are an arbitrator or can speak for ArbCom or really think you have something new and important to add, feel free, but what we have above is a major TL;DR partly due to impulsive users repeating themselves.

Update: While the vote tally is the simpler request, at the end of the day the goal is Will Beback's return. Carcharoth notes that he was undecided about accepting Will's return with conditions. SlimVirgin suggested various conditions as a compromise. If arbitrators may be willing to accept Will's return if there are conditions on the return, please propose the harshest conditions you feel comfortable. II | (t - c) 03:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi II; It's not clear to me what you think is bizarre. Each organisation has its own standing rules, so what's true for one may not be true for another. In this instance, our standing rule (ratified by community referendum with 87% support) is that deliberations are confidential. This is an important principle, especially when things are said with the expectation of privacy. The committee handles too much sensitive stuff to establish a precedent that it should disclose deliberations lock, stock and barrel whenever the torches and pitchforks come out. On the other hand, there has never been a problem with individual arbitrators stating, should they wish to do, what their position is on a particular issue. So, while in the grand scheme of things the show of hands regarding WBB isn't really very important, the principle about confidentiality is. I see that you've (mis)characterised my position as a veto; it's not, it's a statement of where policy stands and has stood for eight years.

Otherwise, you've speculated about my position regarding the WBB ban and got it dramatically wrong.  Roger Davies talk 19:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Roger: I didn't say anything was bizarre; I just said it was odd that votes are not published. I don't think not publishing votes is bizarre, but I do think it's not appropriate for Wikipedia's ArbCom. I reasoned that you supported the ban because you briefly considered conditions on Will's appeal (writing "What you propose here is probably too open to gaming, a complete topic ban on COI would work better") and then rejected SlimVirgin's compromise proposal ("This really doesn't strike me as a very good idea at all and I would not support it"). If you could point to this standing rule and ratification, I would appreciate it. I don't think we're asking for deliberations "lock, stock, and barrel". We're just asking for the votes themselves, which are of an appeal for a ban which occurred in public with a large amount of publicly-presented evidence. Bans on Wikipedia happen in public largely based on public information. Non-public information is the exception and typically leaks out to become widely-known long before any appeal. That's why I think the secrecy is odd. I also think it is odd given that ArbCom is elected. As the principals of the ArbCom, we need to know their votes to make informed votes ourselves. II | (t - c) 20:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
We do publish formal off-wiki votes regularly. These are flagged as such in advance. There is though a world of difference between these formal votes, intended for publication, and straw polls conducted to see how the wind is blowing to assist deliberations. To think otherwise, it is to elevate straw polls to a greater significance than they deserve. Confidentiality of deliberations is here; a recent statement on confidentiality is here. I suggest incidentally that you wouldn't be making any kind of informed decision if it was based on an after-the-event boil-down to Yes/No as that is not how it actually happened.  Roger Davies talk 21:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Do so few arbs usaully respond to requests? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
My personal approach is to try to engage fully, within reason. However, experience shows that it usually doesn't achieve very much. You either end up getting cast as the villain of the piece or insulted, or both. If the atmosphere were perhaps more, convivial more arbitrators would participate.  Roger Davies talk 19:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
No idea. It's possible it's just being missed on watchlists. I sent an email just now, which I should have done originally. II | (t - c) 01:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
For me personally, e-mail or user talk page notification is best. I follow the main arbitration pages through the "related change" link in the ArbComOpenTasks template, but not all relevant pages are linked from there. There are a number of less-trafficked arbitration pages and talk pages (including this one) where my response (and those of my colleagues) will tend to be slower, as not all of us have all the pages watchlisted (we arguably should, but that's something to raise separately). The e-mail to the mailing list has arrived safely, II, thanks for that. I need to deal with some other things over the weekend, but should be able to comment on the substance of this by Monday. Carcharoth (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I favour more openness by the Committee, and would welcome most discussions taking place on Wikipedia. However, I do understand the reasons why there are objections to posting publicly material that was intended to be private. I would not welcome any move to coerce any Committee member to make public statements or positions that they regarded as being private at the time. That there is unrest regarding this appeal may be partly due to it being held in camera, or it may be the result of other factors. The case for Will's banning was complex in itself as it involved actions that were hidden from the community, and involved private material. That the Committee have not adequately explained the reasons for the ban is a lesson to be learned. I have, I hope, explained clearly enough the reasons why I supported a ban, and have opposed allowing Will back in. I'll explain briefly again: Will secretly got an editor banned by assembling private material to make inappropriate claims of paid advocacy. He did this because he had different views on how to edit TD articles. Now, we all make mistakes, and most of us tend to get a little stressed at times when editing Wikipedia, especially on contentious topics. And sometimes we think we are working with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, when actually we are not. Will has made assurances on some aspects of his behaviour, and proposals have been explored both here on-Wiki and in discussion in the Committee as to how to monitor and restrict Will's editing so that there is no chance he will do such a thing again. But at the heart of all this is that Will himself should reflect on what happened and accept that what he was engaged in was battleground behaviour - removing an editor whose views did not match his own. At the moment Will rejects this, and feels that a number of findings in the case were wrong. As long as he is justifying what he did as acceptable, it would be inappropriate for us to allow him back in. There are two ways back in for Will - either 1) he accepts the case findings, and assures the community and/or the Committee that he will manage his behaviour, so when he becomes stressed during content conflicts, he doesn't feel tempted to undermine other editors; or 2) we have an entire review of the case, and overturn the findings as inaccurate. As regards Will's assurances, he can do that when (if) he appeals again in six months. A fairly busy aspect of the Committee's work is dealing with block/ban appeals. We allow an appeal once every six months, and that stretches our resources. Allowing people to re-apply immediately would swamp us, and some users would just keep on and on appealing - so it's appropriate to have a limit, and to apply that limit evenly to everyone, and not allow some people to bend the rules. I think there is a lot to be said for a separate body handling ban/block appeals so that appeals such as this one can be seen to be independent of the body who made the ban in the first place. I do not have this page watched, so if there are queries arising out of this comment, please contact me on my talkpage, and I will respond there. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think any of us are asking for "material that was intended to be private". This thread centers around an incredibly simple request: to release the actual vote (or hand-count, or whatever) by which this appeal was rejected. That request does not involve any privacy concerns, and a clear and concise response doesn't seem like too much to ask. MastCell Talk 18:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I wonder whether the best way forward would be to file a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that the committee hear Will Beback's appeal now and in public. I believe that only one Arb has to agree to this. WP:BASC says: "Once we decide an appeal, we will not revisit it earlier than six months except at the request of a sitting arbitrator." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't think it likely that there will be any appetite for any appeal hearing (public or private) unless Will himself initiates it and indicates that it wont just be a rerun of the one just completed. Based on the statements in this thread, that doesn't seem likely. Far better to just wait the 6 months to avoid appeal fatigue. I remember a case where someone made so many appeals that their right to do so was restricted to once a year or maybe less I wondered whether it was Everyking, but I'm sure it was more recent than 2006. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
      To clarify: my question is not about this particular appeal, but rather about how the ArbCom deals with appeals and other matters in general. I brought up Will's appeal only as an example because I have strong reasons to believe that the conduct of the arbitrators is inappropriate in most situations. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Yeah I get that, I was responding to SlimVirgin's comment not yours. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • To answer SlimVirgin's point, the best way to get a formal response from the full committee, if not satisfied with what is said here, is indeed to post at WP:ARCA. This option was, I believe, raised at the end of the userspace RfC. I'm not entirely sure why those who stated there that they were intending to file a clarification request never did so, but that's by the by now. I have also just finished reading some of what has just transpired at WP:ANI, with at least two of the editors above involved there. I really hope that's not connected in any way to this. Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • While I have a sinking feeling that I'm being asked to fetch a shrubbery, I have filed a formal request for clarification here. I will individually notify editors who have commented in this subthread as well. MastCell Talk 18:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Re. ImperfectlyInformed's "At the poll by Doc James, currently (24 April 2013) it is 40 (63.4%) in support of Will Beback's return and 23 (36.5%) in opposition, with several opposes commenting on procedure rather than merits." At the time of writing (4 May) I see a total of 49 responses to the Doc James poll/draft RfC's actual proposal. (14 additional contributors oppose the RfC itself. These "opposes" can be discounted. They're irrelevant to the question the RfC asks, namely should WB be allowed back.) Of those 49, 40 support WB's return and 9 oppose it—i.e. 81.6% support and 18.3% oppose. Writegeist (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

[User talk:Maxviwe] Unblocked

BASC has unblocked Maxviwe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), subject to the following conditions:

  1. You may not edit from any Wikipedia account other than "Maxviwe", nor edit anonymously, without the express prior permission of ArbCom or a checkuser.
  2. For one year after we unblock you, if you edit disruptively at any time (particularly if you are given a legitimate block by an administrator), you will be blocked indefinitely. This would include creating fake WMF accounts or breaching the first condition (that you may only use one account).
These conditions would be posted to your user talk page (at which point you would be unable to remove them for one month, so that they are clearly visible to any editors who view your talk page during your transition back to contributing). These conditions would also be announced at the "WT:BASC" Wikipedia page, and a link to them would be included in the block/unblock log for your account.

For the subcommittee, AGK [•] 12:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Sirrussellott Unblocked

BASC has unblocked Sirrussellott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), subject to the following conditions:

  • He is topic banned from editing any article related to Curling.
  • He is restricted to editing from his primary account, User:Sirrussellott

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:AlexLibman unblocked

Following a successful appeal, AlexLibman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been unblocked on the following condition:

  • He is topic banned from editing any article related to Global Warming.
  • That he only edit from the account, User:AlexLibman.

SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Katarighe unblocked

Following a successful appeal, BASC has unblocked Katarighe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). NW (Talk) 01:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:HexaChord unblocked

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has elected to unblock HexaChord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with the condition that he refrain from using any other account. NW (Talk) 01:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:JustBerry unblocked

JustBerry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is unblocked and is required to abide by a one-account restriction. NW (Talk) 21:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Mohitsharma911 unblocked

Mohitsharma911 (talk · contribs) has been unblocked. NW (Talk) 16:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Bruestle2 unblocked

Bruestle2 (talk · contribs) was blocked for sockpuppetry after having been stopped by the abuse filter. The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has looked into the block and determined that it was not valid. It has been lifted. NW (Talk) 12:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User:History1221 unblocked

BASC has unblocked History1221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), subject to the conditions explained in the message posted on his talk page a moment ago:

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has considered your appeal, and decided to unblock you under the terms of Wikipedia's standard offer. You are unblocked on condition that you edit from this account (User:History1221) only; if you deliberately edit anonymously, or edit from any other account, without permission from the Wikipedia community or this subcommittee, you may be summarily and indefinitely reblocked by any uninvolved administrator.

For the subcommittee, AGK [•] 11:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Dannyboy1209 unblocked

BASC has unblocked Dannyboy1209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), subject to the conditions explained in this message posted on his talk page a moment ago:

  • You must edit only from this account (User:Dannyboy1209) only. If you deliberately edit anonymously, or edit from any other account, without permission from the Wikipedia community or this subcommittee, you may be summarily and indefinitely reblocked by any uninvolved administrator.
  • For three months from the date of this message, if you (in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator) edit in a disruptive manner, you may be summarily, indefinitely reblocked with no further warning.

For the subcommittee, AGK [•] 12:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Frequency of appeals

This is a minor concern, but the current statement in point 1 of the procedure section that "We never accept appeals from one editor more often than once in every six months.", is contradicted by the third bullet of point 6 of the procedure which says that the appellant may be directed to file "a new request after a specified amount of time has passed, or after satisfying other specified conditions.". There are also examples of the committee declaring that appeals may be made no more frequently than once per year.

Obviously the intention is to stop users abusing the appeals process by submitting overly many requests, and that should not be changed. However I think it is worth removing the contradiction. I suggest for consideration the alternative wording below:

One editor may make no more than one appeal in any six month period. Appeals made more frequently than this, unless explicitly authorised by the committee or subcommittee, will be automatically rejected. The committee or subcommittee may also increase the minimum time between appeals by any individual editor at their discretion.

This is obviously more complex than the existing wording, and so I'm more than open to improvements. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware that there are any recent examples of editors being prohibited from appealing less frequently than once in every six months. Currently, there are a small number of cases where a banned editor can only appeal once a year, and there are a couple of editors banned by ArbCom during an arbitration case who cannot submit their first appeal until one year has passed (though thereafter they may appeal twice a year). However, in the vast majority of cases, no additional restrictions are set on appeals – so the subcommittee's default position (once per half year) would apply. I'm not sure it'd be worthwhile to complicate the instructions on the BASC page in order to accommodate the small number of appeals where the default position on appeal frequency is contradicted by the conditions of the original sanction. AGK [•] 14:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The language says "We never accept appeals from one editor more often than once in every six months. Once we decide an appeal, we will not revisit it earlier than six months except at the request of a sitting arbitrator". This is part of the standard practice documented 11 March. II | (t - c) 06:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The standard practices are things that the subcommittee typically does, not that it is required to do. Once again, I do not think the simplified wording on the subcommittee information page is causing any confusion, is it? AGK [•] 10:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Well the first sentence is not really necessary with the presence of the second. I think we can just remove the first sentence, which should satisfy II's concerns. NW (Talk) 12:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • We could, except that we don't accept appeals more often than the stipulated minimum period before re-appealing – per the ban appeals committee procedure. My point is basically that these concerns are not very important in a practical sense. AGK [•] 15:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I noticed this response but didn't bother responding (pinging User:NuclearWarfare and User:AGK). I guess I don't really understand. The time limit is 6 months, except if a sitting arbitrator wants to speed it up. So why have two contradictory statements? I also wonder how this plays out in practice. I'm thinking of the Will Beback episode, where it seemed that an arbitrator may have been willing to have a more transparent do-over. At the time I didn't realize that the option was on the table. I promised in that incident that at some point I would propose some changes to the procedure, specifically allowing someone whose ban appeal is rejected to have the vote tally recorded publicly at their request. Would that pose problems? Would it be possible to settle on something, or would it be better to do a Request for Comment? II | (t - c) 21:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Some Arbs would tell you that the WBB unban request was a discussion, not a vote, but I don't care to revisit that right now. The other issue with the WBB situation is that it was not a BASC matter, it was handled by the Arbitration Committee en banc. ArbCom follows a different procedure than BASC. I wouldn't have a problem with a vote tally being provided upon request, but then again, I supported the WBB appeal (@Roger Davies:).

    BASC is often handled in a different fashion than the rest of the Arbitration Committee's business, with maybe three Arbitrators commenting on even a successful request and even fewer commenting on an unsuccessful one. The provision that any Arbitrator may reopen a request is a safety valve. It's not often (ever?) invoked, but it allows for the full Committee to revisit a case in the event that there is disagreement with respect to the actions of the Arbitrator(s) who are acting on behalf of the whole Committee. NW (Talk) 00:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to require that ArbCom take a formal vote in every case, but if someone demands it, I think it should be available and made public. I'd like to work with ArbCom to see if some sort of compromise can be made rather than having a high-profile and potentially ugly debate. II | (t - c) 03:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Seems fair, but we ought to talk about it at WT:AC. NW (Talk) 03:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Samofi unblocked

BASC has unblocked Samofi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), subject to the conditions explained in the message posted on his talk page a moment ago:

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has considered your appeal, and decided to unblock you under the terms of Wikipedia's standard offer. You are unblocked on condition that you edit from this account (User:Samofi) only; if you deliberately edit anonymously, or edit from any other account, without permission from the Wikipedia community or this subcommittee, you may be summarily and indefinitely reblocked by any uninvolved administrator.

For the subcommittee, WormTT(talk) 12:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Nabil rais2008 block shortened

On account of his honest and forthcoming appeal, the Ban Appeals Subcommittee has decided to reduce the length of Nabil rais2008 (talk · contribs)'s block from indefinite to 3 months. This decision is made without prejudice to the appellant being re-blocked for further sockpuppetry or for other disruptive edits. For the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, AGK [•] 20:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The block log shows Nabil rais2008 was originally blocked on indefinitely on 12 August, but the new expiry is 17 November or 3 months 5 days after the original block. Is this intentional? Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Sorry for the delayed reply! Yes, this was deliberate. The subcommittee's decision was to shorten the length of the block from indefinite to three months (without time served). The 17 November expiry date is therefore correct. Regards, AGK [•] 12:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Wow, that is a rather belated response! It does exactly answer the question though, so thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Status for November–December 2013

I have added a notice to the top of the subcommittee appeals page which says:

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee is operating at reduced capacity through November and December 2013. New appeals may not be promptly acknowledged. Acknowledged appeals are likely to take several weeks before being decided. Thank you for your patience.

I'll remove it when we're back working at our usual pace. AGK [•] 20:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Danielone unblocked

BASC has unblocked Danielone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), subject to the conditions explained in the message posted on his talk page a moment ago:

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has considered your appeal, and decided to unblock you with the following conditions:

  1. You are topic banned from the subject of MAPCIS
  2. You may not interact with User:Paul H.

The terms will also be placed on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee - or any other project page or subpage as later felt appropriate (such as Wikipedia: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. The conditions may be appealed after a period no less than 6 months. Should you violate either of these conditions, you may be summarily and indefinitely reblocked by any uninvolved administrator.

For the subcommittee, WormTT(talk) 13:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Stats

"All appeals may be included in the statistics we periodically release. We would not include confidential information in these statistics."

I didn't see a link to any statistics you might have released in the past or a link to any listing of previous cases you've considered. Where can I find this information?

Thanks! Liz Let's Talk 12:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Successful appeals are logged on this page, or previously in the archive of WP:AC/N. Statistics on all appeals have been released three times in the past: 2010; 2011; and 2013. Hope this helps, AGK [•] 12:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I intend to compile stats for the rest of 2013 early next year as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Saígúrun unblocked

Saígúrun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been unblocked. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Ban_Appeals_Subcommittee/Archives/2013&oldid=1142540998"