Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 15 active arbitrators. 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	8
2–3	7
4–5	6

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Jurisdiction[edit]

1) The Arbitration Committee's duties and responsibilities include:

• the hearing of appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users;
• the handling of requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools; and
• the resolution of private matters unsuitable for public discussion.

Support:

1. From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope and responsibilities,  Roger Davies ^talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. PhilKnight (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mixing up the first principle? Crazy talk! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Risker (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Form of appeal[edit]

2) When hearing ban appeals, the Committee may – at its discretion – take evidence afresh and make a new determination. By default, the Committee hears proceedings in public and examines the conduct of all parties. Where significant privacy or harassment issues are involved, the Committee may hold a hearing in private and parties are given a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them before a decision is made. Aspects of the present case relating to privacy and harassment were heard in private.

Support:

1. Per usual practice,  Roger Davies ^talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Per comments below, I've changed "When determining ban appeals, the Committee may hear evidence" > "When hearing ban appeals, the Committee may – at its discretion – take evidence",  Roger Davies ^talk 06:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. PhilKnight (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Risker (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

• I'm not sure this doesn't require slight clarification. Cases by default are heard in public to the extent possible and appropriate, but appeals from banned (or long-term-blocked) users are often resolved (either by the full Committee or by BASC on the mailing list. The decision that an appeal should be addressed via a case, rather than in another fashion, involves the exercise of our discretion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that clarification works for me. Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Needs NYB's clarification --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I thought this was adequately covered by "may hear" but to clarify that I've changed it too: "hearing ban appeals, the Committee may – at its discretion – take evidence".  Roger Davies ^talk 06:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur with that change. Courcelles 06:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks Roger! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of a ban made by Jimbo Wales[edit]

3) The banning policy states: "Jimbo Wales retains the authority to ban editors".

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. PhilKnight (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. This is interesting, in that is one of the few direct powers that Jimbo still maintains as founder, most of the rest having been given up over the past few years. It's also interesting to note that the original version of the policy that enumerates this power contained a clause that this was a theoretical power not intended for use, which was later removed. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. If I recall correctly, Jimbo Wales indicated some time ago that he would no longer exercise his authority as an administrator to block users. This case reflects that he is regarding his authority to ban (in his special capacity) as distinct from that. I think it would be generally agreed that this reserved power should be exercised sparingly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Risker (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Lack of further appeal[edit]

4) Since this case involves a ban placed by Jimbo Wales, no party in this case may appeal its outcome to Jimbo Wales, per Wikipedia:ARBPOL#Appeal of decisions.

Support:

1. This happens so infrequently, it's probably appropriate to remind all parties of this up front. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Needs to be said, although the enforcement section may not be the best place for it. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. More a principle than a enforcement provision, but it needs to be said somewhere. Courcelles 19:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree with this. Also, concur this should be moved. PhilKnight (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. When it was decided (with Jimbo Wales' concurrence) that his actions involving individual users (e.g. to ban or desysop) were subject to review by this Committee, it was also decided that Jimbo Wales' reserved power to review this Committee's decisions could not apply where we reviewed one of his own rulings. The formulation in the Arbitration Policy is broader (as applied in this case it would apply to a theoretical appeal from a remedy involving Will Beback as opposed to a remedy involving TimidGuy, who was the subject of the original action that sparked this case), but it seems reasonable. As a copyedit, however, I would prefer a more positive wording: Perhaps "As provided in the Arbitration Policy, decisions of the Arbitration Committee may be appealed to Jimbo Wales, except when an action or decision by Jimbo Wales is itself under review" or similar. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Risker (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

• I'm willing to have this go into principles. The reason I put it here in "enforcement" is that it concerns the possible actions after the case closes. Jclemens (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• @Newyorkbrad. Thanks for the comment but that too has a slight element of instruction creep to it. The actual policy wording is "Remedies may be appealed to, and amended by, Jimbo Wales, unless the case involves Jimbo Wales' own actions". If there is to a copy-edit, I suggest it incorporates policy verbatim.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Roger on this copyedit. Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burden of proof and personal attacks[edit]

5) When editors request or place sanctions in whatever forum on Wikipedia, the onus is on the editors requesting or placing those sanctions to provide the evidence to prove their claims. Failing to do so may constitute a personal attack. The longstanding "No Personal Attacks" policy states that "serious accusations require serious evidence".

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. PhilKnight (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. The principle as stated is correct as far as it goes, although I see a major difference between "personal attacks" as in "good-faith but excessive or unwarranted allegations of misconduct taken a step too far", as opposed to "personal attacks" how it is usually taken as synonymous with "unwarranted abusive name-calling." The important point is that (as I believe we've stated in the past), repeatedly making insufficiently supported allegations of serious misconduct is disruptive and is damaging to the editing environment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Risker (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

• I assume the thinking here is that we require evidence of wrong doing rather than the suspicion of it. One of the difficulties with COI is that there is an immediate assumption an editor will be violating NPOV, and so there is an atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust around an editor who has connections with an article, even when that editor declares their interest. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. Even though editing with a COI is not actionable absent other editing violations, making accusations of COI absent appropriate evidence is still a personal attack. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of interest[edit]

6) Editing with a conflict of interest ("COI") is discouraged but not prohibited. This is because conflicts of interest can lead to violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and copyright compliance.

Support:

1. From the current guideline,  Roger Davies ^talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. PhilKnight (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. This is how it currently is. Not as, perhaps it could be, or even should be. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. technically yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. True as a general statement. As is evident from this case and our other cases involving conflict-of-interest issues, there are many types of COI, of varying degrees of seriousness, and our response to COI editing needs to be based in part on a sense of proportionality. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Per Newyorkbrad. Our current guideline, as written, means that every professional writing in their field of expertise (including physicians and university scholars) could be considered in conflict of interest, whilst editors with a strong personal viewpoint could probably be considered exempt. This is unsatisfactory. Risker (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Our current guideline uses the expression "Conflict of Interest/COI" to mean both "having the potential for a conflict of interest to arise" and "editing in such a way as to put other interests before those of the project". This is why at one point it says that editing with COI is permitted, and in another place that it will lead to a sanction. I cannot support a principle which fails to recognise this issue. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Investigating conflicts of interest[edit]

7) When investigating possible cases of COI editing, editors must comply fully with the outing policy. Editors repeatedly seeking private information (either via on-wiki questioning or via off-wiki investigations) contribute to a hostile editing environment, which may rise to the level of harassment. Wikipedia's policy against harassment and outing takes precedence over the COI guideline.

Support:

1. Per longstanding principle, policy takes precedence over guidelines.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. PhilKnight (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Risker (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. much of this in essence is true, but is oversimplified. I mean if it were completely literally true then WP:SPI is verboten....isn't it? The interplay between problematic editing and what we do about it contra privacy policy is not as simple. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• This statement, like the previous one, is generally true, but it may require some rewording, per Casliber. Actually, I don't think that the SPI board would be problematic in light of the principle, so much as that many discussions on the conflicts of interest noticeboard might be. Fred Bauder put it well in a principle that he wrote in a decision several years ago (I am paraphrasing slightly here): based on fundamental decisions that the community has made about how Wikipedia is to operate, there is tension between allowing anonymous editing and discouraging conflicts of interest that of necessity is imperfectly resolved. And often we address the most obvious, yet least harmful, conflicts of interest with the greatest force. Clearly, as reflected in the last remedy, this whole subject needs some rethinking by the community—yet for myself, I am not sure that much can change within the (on balance positive) constraints of how Wikipedia works. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• @Casliber: Perhaps the essential distinction is that WP:COI is a guideline and WP:SOCK is a policy. The WP:SPI apparatus is not verboten because it is specifically permitted in policy and has elaborate procedures (including a probable cause provision) in place to prevent abuse and gaming.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In which case sentence two needs to be tweaked to incorporate this. As it reads it misrepresents the bigger picture but cherrypicking guidelines. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the key is that investigations involving personal information, however obtained, alleged or proven, are the domain of functionaries who have been vetted by the committee and the community, and personally identified themselves to the WMF. I support a copyedit along those lines. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to accusations of conflicts of interest[edit]

8) Editors accused of having a conflict of interest are not required to disclose private information by way of defence.

Support:

1. From the "COI" guideline,  Roger Davies ^talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. PhilKnight (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Also agreeing with SilkTork's comment below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. I too agree with SilkTork. Risker (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. As SilkTork said --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

• COI encourages editors to "declare an interest" which may lead people into revealing unnecessary private information, or even to trap admins into asking for inappropriate information with questions such as: "Do you work for XYZ company", "What is your connection with Joe Blogs", "Are you the author of ...". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on the edits not the editor[edit]

9) Per policy, "as a matter of … effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done. The usual exception to this principle is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   In response to various comments below, I've tweaked the principle by adding: "The usual exception is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process". Please revert if you disagree. Roger Davies ^talk 19:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. I'm prepared to go along with this, however, perhaps a copyedit is needed. For example, in a Request for Comment on user conduct it's not only acceptable, but expected, to indicate in which areas a user's conduct has been problematic. PhilKnight (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. We focus on the edits until there is concern about the editor. It should be that we don't comment on the editor until there is a genuine reason for concern. However, I accept the general principle. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per PhilKnight, this should not be regarded as prohibiting comments regarding an editor's conduct made within a legitimate dispute resolution process. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. The nice part of "focus on the edits" is that it provides a level playing field, with no advantage to doing "opposition research" on people, and no penalties for those who appropriately disclose their own conflicts of interest. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Courcelles 21:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. In general, yes. But with provisos per Silktork and PhilKnight. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Per SilkTork, PhilKnight, and Kirill. I won't insist on it, but a copyedit to reflect their comments might be useful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Concurring with the comments of my colleagues. Risker (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

• COI encourages us to focus on the editor. If the concern is if an editor has a connection with the topic, then people are looking at the editor not the edits. We need to ensure articles are robust and trustworthy, and I understand the concerns people have regarding editors who have a close connection with an article, though we should look for robustness in the edits and the sources as that is where it matters. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment[edit]

10) It is prohibited by policy to disrupt other editors' enjoyment of Wikipedia by making threats, making repeated unwanted contacts, making repeat personal attacks, engaging in intimidation, or posting personal information. (From: "This Page in a Nutshell", Wikipedia:Harassment)

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. I couldn't agree more. This applies to on and off wiki harassment. PhilKnight (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. It is worth reiterating the general rule that while our including a principle in a decision obviously suggests that the Committee finds the principle relevant to the case, it does not by itself represent a finding that a party to the case violated the principle. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Risker (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Comments:

Battleground conduct[edit]

11) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Prolonged and repetitive use of community processes to perpetuate ideological and/or content disputes is extremely disruptive and creates a toxic environment.

Support:

1. Longstanding principle:  Roger Davies ^talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Again, I couldn't agree more. PhilKnight (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Although as we discussed in another recent case, there is a fine line between legitimately pursuing a concern until it is resolved, and pursuing it to an excessive extent reflecting a loss of one's sense of perspective. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. It is important to understand that there is a difference between conflicts that are unresolved, and conflicts that are resolved despite one or more party being dissatisfied with the resolution. Risker (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Conduct unbecoming an administrator[edit]

12) Policy states: [while] administrators are not expected to be perfect... sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status".

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. PhilKnight (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Risker (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Evidence in cases involving private information[edit]

13) In accordance with the Arbitration policies on transparency and confidentiality and admissibility of evidence, cases involving credible allegations of inappropriate on-wiki posting of non-public information will be conducted in a manner designed to minimize the repetition of such information. Evidence of alleged misuse will be communicated to all parties to the case, but the scope of the case and number of parties will be carefully managed to minimize the unnecessary spread of such information, and every effort will be made to avoid publicly reposting such information in the course of a case.

Support:

1. Proposed. Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 09:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. PhilKnight (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Precisely why this case is not TM 2, even if such a beast may be needed Courcelles 15:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Risker (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

• Prompted by some discussions on the mailing list, this is designed to articulate how we've already decided to handle this case, and set it as a norm for other similar cases, should they arise in the future. Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

14) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Locus and nature of dispute[edit]

1) This dispute concerns the conduct of two editors - Will Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and TimidGuy (talk · contribs) - and has as its broad background the articles in the Transcendental Meditation movement ("TM") category. These articles have been the subject of numerous content disputes in which TimidGuy and Will Beback have been regular adversaries. Along with disputes about sources and verifiability, a recurrent long-running theme has been conflicts of interest.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. PhilKnight (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jclemens (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Risker (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Conflict of Interest guideline[edit]

2) Many issues concerning paid editing, anonymous editing, outing and harassment, are unresolved. Our policies and guidelines are complicated and sometimes contradictory. Investigating, sanctioning and/or exonerating editors on the basis of who they are or what they do in real life is not only controversial but often impossible. Furthermore, extreme cases apart, there is no consensus about the extent that editors may edit articles on topics with which they are personally involved. Hence, of necessity, review must focus primarily on the editing patterns of those editors about whom problems are claimed.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. In other words, our role is to focus on the on-wiki activity, and not to investigate, or intrude into people's personal lives. PhilKnight (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yes. In order to ensure that articles are robust and trustworthy we must focus on the edits and the sources, not on the editor. Indeed, to ensure robustness we should ignore the editor altogether, regardless of who they are. We must not be seduced into accepting or rejecting material from someone purely because of their standing either in real life or on Wikipedia. I am disappointed when I see GA reviewers accepting "on good faith" print sources they have not checked. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Not to mention that amateur investigations are entirely likely to result in improper conclusions, which can cause real world harm to people falsely accused. There is a defined investigations process for issues, which is limited by design to functionaries who have identified to the Wikimedia Foundation and vetted by the committee and/or community, or employees of the WMF who have their own vetting process. In no circumstances are non-functionary admins encouraged to try and do the work of functionaries sans tools. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. See also my comments on the principles. (As a sidenote, I don't necessarily agree with SilkTork about GA reviews, but let's not get into that here.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Risker (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

TimidGuy: Background[edit]

TimidGuy: account history[edit]

3.1) TimidGuy (talk · contribs) created the account on 1 September 2006 and has made just under 8000 edits, mostly but not entirely within the TM topic.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. PhilKnight (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Risker (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

TimidGuy: disclosure of COI[edit]

3.2) TimidGuy has disclosed that he has a conflict of interest regarding TM. The first instance was on 8 Dec 2006. Other instances include: 31 Mar 2007, 25 Jan 2008, 22 Feb 2010 and 1 Aug 2010.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. PhilKnight (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. It is also worth noting that the allegation made that TimidGuy was being paid for editing TM articles was based on these disclosures, and not on any additional evidence submitted privately. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. This is one of the keys here. TG has been upfront of his CoI and it has been used as a hammer against him. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Proposed copyedit: after "has a conflict of interest", add "on the subject of transcendental meditation". Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Good call. Added,  Roger Davies ^talk 18:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Risker (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

TimidGuy: previously topic-banned[edit]

3.3) On 9 August 2010, TimidGuy was topic-banned at Arbitration Enforcement from TM-related articles for two months. The topic-ban expired on 9 October 2010. A revert restriction was imposed at the same time: this was withdrawn in December 2010.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. This turned out to be highly relevant to the case as there was very little problematic editing since the topic ban. PhilKnight (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 17:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Background info. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Risker (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Will Beback: background[edit]

Will Beback: editing history[edit]

4.1) Will Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is a very experienced editor and administrator, having made well over 100,000 edits. He has been an administrator since June 2005.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Courcelles 17:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Risker (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recuse:

1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Will Beback: admonishments and block[edit]

4.2) Will Beback was admonished in 2005 (then editing as User:Willmcw) and again in 2009. This later admonishment concerned a new religious movement, originating in India and focused on meditation, Prem Rawat. Will Beback was subsequently briefly blocked at Arbitration Enforcement for breaching an editing restriction.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Courcelles 17:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Note that the previous account was disclosed publicly in Will Beback's 2006 run for Arbcom. Jclemens (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Risker (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recuse:

1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• I've linked to his first admonishment, revert if you like. Courcelles 17:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The link is appropriate; and, as Jclemens notes, Will Beback has disclosed that previous account. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (I'm going to hold off on voting on the remaining items re Will Beback until I have a chance to review some of the evidence again, which will be on Thursday or Friday.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ban appeal[edit]

Site ban: background[edit]

5.1) On 30 August 2011, Will Beback participated in a discussion on Jimmy Wales's talk page about paid editing: [1], [2], [3]. He subsequently emailed Jimmy Wales, on 2 September 2011, copying the committee and others, making various allegations in respect of TimidGuy. Will Beback followed this up, on 8 September 2011, with more detailed allegations. Very shortly afterwards, Jimmy Wales responded by email, site-banning TimidGuy from the English Wikipedia.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. PhilKnight (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Courcelles 17:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. The email correspondence, obviously, is available to the parties and the committee, but not to the public. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Risker (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Site ban: TimidGuy's editing[edit]

5.2a) Analyses by arbitrators of TimidGuy's edits since October 2010, when the two-month topic ban elapsed, do not appear to have detected any significant systemic concerns or apparent advocacy.[4],[5]

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree there were only relatively minor problems since the topic ban. PhilKnight (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Courcelles 17:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. This is important. The committee has asked repeatedly for evidence of continued problems since the topic ban, and no significant issues were found or brought to the attention of the Committee. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. It has been claimed that it is in the accumulation of minor edits over a prolonged time that we see the bias, though that hasn't been proved. We tend to see TimidGuy removing negative bias rather than adding positive bias. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. We are not saying (at least I am not saying) that TimidGuy's editing has been perfect. But within the months leading up to the ban, no one has found a pattern of biased or conflicted editing that would have been likely to result in sanctions had the matter been addressed on-wiki through our normal processes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Risker (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. placeholder. need to come back to this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

5.2b) During the course of the review, evidence was presented which demonstrated that some of TimidGuy's editing did not comply with the reliable sources (medicine) guideline.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sure, this happened. Not entirely convinced this is the best way to phrase this. Perhaps, 'During the case evidence was presented which demonstrated that some of TimidGuy's editing did not comply with reliable sources (medicine) guideline.' PhilKnight (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm equally fine with this, too. I've tweaked the wording per your suggestion,  Roger Davies ^talk 17:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support PhilKnight's wording Courcelles 17:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Not normally significant enough for a finding, but to make it clear that there is still room for improvement. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Agree with the copyedit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Risker (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

• To be clear, we're not handling these as opposed/mutually exclusive findings. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Site ban: advocacy allegation[edit]

5.3) Since the sanctions elapsed, TimidGuy has made at least two edits which are inconsistent with the notion he was engaging in advocacy. In December 2010, he added "negative" material about TM "Contraindications". In February 2011, he removed " favourable" material about TM, because it was improperly sourced to press releases and a blog ("Yikes"). Will Beback was aware of both these edits at the time and commented on them: "Contraindications" response and "Yikes" response.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Perhaps 'inconsistent with the notion he was engaging in advocacy'. PhilKnight (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm okay with this, too, and I've made it so,  Roger Davies ^talk 17:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 18:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Technically true, and shows both parties can interact collaboratively. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Edits contrary to a perceived point of view don't always mean that the editor isn't engaged in POV editing, as they might be tactical, or intended to create a record. However, I don't see any evidence of that in this instance and therefore can support the finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Risker (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Site ban: analysis of editing times[edit]

5.4) Analysis of TimidGuy's contributions since 14 February 2010 shows that the vast majority of his edits are made between 05:00 and 07:00, his local time.

Support:

1. This is consistent with someone who edits before work rather than during work.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. For the avoidance of doubt, this is being commented on as it is directly relevant to the ban appeal. PhilKnight (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Note that this is entirely consistent with TimidGuy's disclosure of 22 Feb 2010, linked in finding 3.2 above. Jclemens (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 18:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. True and arguably relevant—although, at some theoretical level, I'm not sure that this isn't the same sort of analysis that elsewhere in the decision, we are encouraging other editors not to engage in....... Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Risker (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Site ban: conclusion[edit]

5.5) For this appeal, in addition to the public material, the committee has examined private statements from Will Beback and from TimidGuy. The committee notes that some of the material submitted is unsupported assertion and some is inaccurate and has thus on occasion made its own enquiries. Based on the evidence before it, the committee is not persuaded that TimidGuy is paid to edit or to advocate on Wikipedia.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I've copy-edited this to reflect the comments. The before/after text is in Comments, below. Please revert if you disagree,  Roger Davies ^talk 05:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. I'll go along with this, but it's put in slightly stronger language than I would prefer. From my perspective, the case against TimidGuy failed to materialize. That is, a great deal of evidence was presented, both publicly and privately, however relatively little evidence demonstrated his involvement in Wikipedia was problematic. PhilKnight (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support new wording. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Agree with the comments and copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Courcelles 19:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Risker (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Not thrilled on the idea of speculating here, given we're taking others to task for doing so. Agree some of material submitted appears to have been exaggerated, yet finding is irrelevant given we are concentrating on edits not editors. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• I've not seen evidence that TimidGuy is paid to edit or to advocate on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure about drawing conclusions from that about how likely or unlikely it is. I think I would be more comfortable saying that there wasn't enough evidence to get TimidGuy banned as a paid advocate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I think it goes sufficiently far beyond that such that I feel comfortable with the "unlikely" wording. Still, if not enough of the committee are convinced to that level, I would support a copyedit along those lines, since the lesser level of assurance would not materially change the conclusions or outcome. Jclemens (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Cas and @SilkTork. Funnily enough the existing text ("Taking all the evidence before it into account, the committee concludes that it is unlikely TimidGuy is paid to edit or to advocate on Wikipedia.") is supposed to be stating a probability but I've probably phrased it clumsily. On looking at this again, it can be read as an exoneration finding, which we traditionally don't do. I've copy-edited it to read "Based on the evidence before it, the committee is not persuaded that TimidGuy is paid to edit or to advocate on Wikipedia", which should resolve your concerns.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it is better, but am concerned we're now judging or commenting on what we are criticising others for. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I don't really see the concern here, I'm afraid. Most of our cases, including this one, involve questions of fact and we (arbitrators) are elected to make findings about them.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I. We're elected to discharge the duties assigned to us by the community in the arbitration policy, using the powers appropriate to that position, have a community-represented audit function, and the sheer number of different arbs and functionaries to keep an eye on each other serves to discourage and detect inappropriate use of those tools. That's a far cry from lone administrators launching investigations on their own. Those powers and responsibilities are reserved to a more select group that is more closely watched for a very good reason. Jclemens (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback: conduct issues[edit]

Will Beback: affiliations of other editors[edit]

6.1) In apparent violation of the "No Personal Attacks" policy, Will Beback has persistently dwelt on editors' affiliations and has seemingly used the "affiliations [of others] as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". (Extract from "What is considered to be a personal attack?") Examples: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   These diffs do indeed come from a divisive discussion, the Cirt RFC. That though does not excuse them as it has never been acceptable to systemically add fuel to an already heated debate, especially when the person seemingly doing so is an administrator.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Courcelles 19:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. There have been times when Will Beback has been quite correct in questioning the appropriateness of editing by various accounts; however, he has too frequently crossed over into excessive personalization of disputes. Risker (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I'll pay battleground, but in all these cases the discussion wasn't groundless. There was generally some form of conflict, acrimonious debate or unusual editing going on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Recuse:

1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• I did look again at this evidence, and find that this statement, which focuses on imagined motives of others rather than on the issue at hand, to be inappropriate regardless of the prior conflict, so the finding is pertinent. That it mentions TimidGuy, and that the venue is a discussion regarding POV editing on new religious movement articles, is also pertinent. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback: outing / harassment[edit]

6.2) Will Beback has repeatedly engaged in conduct inconsistent with the Outing and Harassment policies by focusing on personal information and real life identities. (Private evidence and public material)

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Courcelles 19:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7. Yes, there is material that would have been better forwarded privately in the TM case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Risker (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. placeholder - I've seen three diffs and not convinced they unequivocally represent outing. Just need to review some evidence again. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse:

1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Reviewing the outing evidence. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback: battleground conduct[edit]

6.3) Will Beback has either initiated or been an active participant in many discussions concerning TimidGuy and COI on noticeboard boards and high-profile talk pages. The frequency of participation is suggestive of battleground conduct and/or harassment. Examples include: COIN Feb 2009, COIN Aug 2009, COIN Aug 2009, COIN Jan 2010, SPI Jan 2010, ArbCom June 2010, AE Jul 2010, Jimbo Wales' talk page Aug 2011, Jimbo Wales' talk page Aug 2011, Sue Gardner's talk page Dec 2011, Sue Gardner's talk page Dec 2011.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Copy-edit to remove "forum-shopping and/or" per John Vandenberg, below.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Courcelles 19:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. He has enlisted as many people as possible in his crusade against other editors. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6. Now that this is focused on the "battleground conduct" principle, this is correct. Will has been disproportionately focused on taking TimidGuy out of the 'game'. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC) Reviewed, and returning to supporting this finding. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Some of these are appropriate venues to raise issues, although there is justifiable concern that the same issues keep being raised despite having been resolved in the past. Risker (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. All of these (bar the last two) predate the arbitration case, subsequent to which several of the TM editors were placed under sanctions. The appropriate noticeboard (COIN) for discussion was used. Concerns about editing were expressed by a number of other editors. The comments at Jimmy Wales and Sue Gardner's talk pages were general statements of facts and concern about some issues surrounding advocacy which create dilemmas which have been discussed widely. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Recuse:

1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Perhaps a way to get these diffs into perspective is to look at them as if they were allegations of socking. I don't suppose the community would tolerate so many separate reiterations of essentially the same issue in so many places and over so much time.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Roger, this subject area resulted in an arbitration case and topic bans for some of the TM advocates. And it seemed to take several step before (thankfully) editing improved. It didn't arise de novo. What we're proposing here is that a small group of like-minded editors could feasibly own and subvert material and cry "forum shopping" any time they were scrutinised. So, no, I don't think that is beneficial to the long-term production of a neutral encyclopedia. If someone edits outside of guidelines then it needs scrutiny. as for the comments on Sue and Jimbo's page, various editors generalise all the time based on specific problems they have - we see them complain generally of incivility, copyvio, OR, FRINGE, BLP or whatever and often there is a specific antecedent the editor is concerned about. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's true that a small group could cry forum shopping (though on the present facts they'd need to wait three years to have the diffs to do so) but conversely posting multiple messages of the same issue in many fora over a long time posting results in well poisoning on a grand scale. Regarding scrutiny, I have noticed that a very common feature of this type of dispute is the use of a particular interpretation of a guideline to exert control over content.
  Regarding the previous case, it is worth bearing in mind that a great deal of its focus was socking (it was a referral from SPI), with a great deal of smoke and not a lot of fire. The only sock detected incidentally was an anti-TM advocate. I do regret now that we didn't review the AE action in the workshop, as it had very little scrutiny/attention at the time.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm liking this less the more I think about it. We dont have a principle for "forum shopping". Wikipedia:Forum shopping is defined as part of Wikipedia:Consensus so I think we need to have evidence that Will's engagement in these threads was against WP:Consensus. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed the title to "battleground conduct", and I am happy to support this if we can drop the "forum-shopping" as that clouds that decision and we havent created a principle for that. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, that makes it more clearly focused so I've tweaked accordingly.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• reviewing evidence. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first Jimbo Wales' talk page Aug 2011 link appears to link to a statement by Jimbo rather than Will Beback. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed,  Roger Davies ^talk 15:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second COIN Aug 2009 link is to the "User:Littleoliveoil and TM-related articles" section in which Will Beback is neutrally responding to a query about earlier comments he made, which are already provided in the COIN Feb 2009 link. Was the purpose of the second COIN Aug 2009 link to show a useful summary of the Feb comments? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is also worth bearing in mind that with the change of focus of this finding (ie the forum shopping bit has gone) it can deal with conduct more broadly related to battleground conduct. While they are in the public domain, many aren't really suited to public discussion. To avoid highlighting them, I'll deal with them privately.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Looking at the history of Will Beback's involvement with TimidGuy and TM articles it does appear to me that initially Will Beback was neutral, then felt he had a genuine concern regarding POV editing, but that developed into a battleground attitude where he became antagonistic rather than open minded, and became fairly set in his mind that there was a campaign by a group of editors to present a positively biased image of TM. What is concerning is that it appears he based his suspicion toward TimidGuy not so much on his editing, but on his declaration of a COI, thus putting off any future editors from declaring such an interest in case they get treated the same. Also of note in this is that Will Beback displayed POV attitudes toward TM articles - here for example, where his description is all negative and alarmist. I don't think Will Beback is quite aware of how involved he had got; however, as there are similar concerns being raised about him (POV editing, and getting over involved to the point of harrasment) going back to 2005, it is unfortunate that Will has not reflected deeply enough about those concerns, and has not heeded the admonishments. What I'd like to see happen is that editors work collaboratively toward achieving informative and neutral articles without fear of being blocked or banned because they have a different perspective. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually OK with the forum shopping bit. While we normally think of forum shopping as asking a bunch of different venues in rapid succession hoping for a different outcome, switching from a more appropriate venue to a less appropriate venue when one hasn't gotten the desired result from the previous outcomes at the proper venue is no less forum shopping. It may be a bit less obvious and more subtle, but appealing to Jimbo to do something that the other competent authorities have failed to do is indeed forum shopping. Sue, who lacks any traditional oversight role or defined powers, traditional or enumerated, on en.wiki, doubly so. I realize that creates a double standard, in that it is perfectly OK to appeal a sanction on one's self to an N+1st level, but NOT OK to do the same thing to appeal the non-imposition of a sanction, and I would welcome some more refinement to balance this out, but I know that what I've seen in this case is not what I want to see happening. I dislike the idea of "standing" to bring an action, because every Wikipedian has an interest in things being handled appropriately, but something on those lines (appealing sanctions on you OK, appealing someone else getting off too light NOT OK) seems appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

TimidGuy: remedies[edit]

1) Note: the proposed remedies are accumulative, not alternate, unless otherwise stated.

TimidGuy: site ban vacated[edit]

1.1) Jimbo Wales' ban of TimidGuy is vacated.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes. At the very most, the evidence against him would add up to a 3 month block, which he has already served. PhilKnight (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Courcelles 19:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. I would say that commuting it to time served is good, I doubt that a 3 month block would be on the table even if the evidence was viewed in the worst possible light for TimidGuy. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. All in all, I think the editing had improved and there was possibly a mellowing post arb case. I still have concerns but the pages are scrutinised and I have faith that TimidGuy is happy to discuss content he adds, subtracts, sources etc. So I think there is scope for a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Per PhilKnight. - Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Risker (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

TimidGuy: advised[edit]

1.2) TimidGuy is advised to adhere closely to the reliable sources (medicine) guideline in any edit he makes within the Transcendental Meditation topic.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. PhilKnight (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. TimidGuy remains subject, as do all editors within the topic area, to the discretionary sanctions provided for in a prior decision. Courcelles 19:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. It's useful for everyone to be advised to follow that guideline when editing any article related to health or health claims. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Goes without saying...which...well, which everyone should be doing anyway really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. TimidGuy is not untouchable if he edits badly in the future --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Per my colleagues. Risker (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Will Beback: remedies[edit]

2) Note: the proposed remedies are accumulative, not alternate, unless otherwise stated.

Will Beback: desysopped[edit]

2.1) For conduct unbecoming an administrator, Will Beback is desysopped and may only regain the tools via a new Request for Adminship.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Courcelles 19:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. For specifically losing sight of Wikipedia's norms and policies in his attempt to fight what he considered an attempt to slant articles. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Risker (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recuse:

1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• It was more difficult for me to support this proposed remedy than I expected it would be. Will Beback has demonstrated an excessive degree of personalization of disputes, in particular, which warrants removal of administrator permissions. I do note, however, that many of the concerning behaviours that Will Beback has exhibited were tolerated in the earlier days of the project, when he was first made an administrator. (That is not to say they were considered praiseworthy even back then.) Will Beback has not modified his behaviour in the face of changing expectations on administrators over the course of years, and this lack of recognition that standards and expectations have changed has brought us to this point. Risker (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback: admonished[edit]

2.2) Will Beback is admonished to adhere scrupulously to the harassment/outing and related policies.

Support:

Others may wish to add other options,  Roger Davies ^talk 15:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Over the top, with the other remedies passing,  Roger Davies ^talk 13:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Support, though it strikes me as useless should one of the substantive remedies (above or below, or both) pass. Courcelles 19:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Pointless given what else is passing in this section. Courcelles 17:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. IFF no site ban passes. Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support, although it's relatively harmless if any of the substantial remedies pass. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree that erring on the side of discretion is prudent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if there's a point to this....--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Striking as the ban is passing. Definitely pointless. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recuse:

1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• I think the admonishment is mooted by the site ban, which is currently passing. I've just made my support contingent on such passage, but unless three or four other editors do something similar in the next 24 hours, it looks like we'll be both admonishing and banning an editor, which others have observed is somewhat pointless if not outright excessive. Jclemens (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback: new religious movements topic ban[edit]

2.3) Will Beback is indefinitely topic banned from pages related to new religious movements, broadly construed.

Support:

1. I believe that the links in Finding of Fact 6.1 demonstrate that this conduct problem extends beyond just the area of TM. Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. I think it's time Will step away from the topic area. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Prefer the site ban, but this is necessary either after that expires or should that not pass. Courcelles 19:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Risker (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recuse:

1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• There is no time specifier - should it say "indefinitely"? as I guess that is what is meant? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's what I meant. Indefinite meaning until successfully appealed. Copyedit to add "indefinitely" made. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback: banned[edit]

2.4) Will Beback is indefinitely banned from English Wikipedia. After six months, he may appeal his ban to the Arbitration Committee, provided he is able to demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee that his history of disruptive conduct will not continue.

Support:

1. I don't see all these as alternatives, but the evidence in this case strikes me that if Will Beback was not a sysop, the ban would be the only remedy being considered. A mere desysop here exemplifies the "Super Mario Problem" where editors with no advanced permissions get banned, and those with such permissions merely get them taken away. This is unacceptable, and the conduct here is so bad that it, in my mind, calls for this. Courcelles 19:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. In my mind, the most serious offense Will Beback has engaged in is lese-majesty. As I look at the case, what I see is that through careful selection of evidence provided to Jimbo, Will Beback essentially misled Jimbo into a ban not supported by the totality of the evidence, and there's no way we can both provide justice for TimidGuy and not say this. My personal belief is that Will Beback used Jimbo's statements in WP:RFC/PAID ("I will personally block any cases that I am shown"), in which he also participated, as a basis to obtain action, tailored his presentation to that desired result, and manipulated Jimbo into an inappropriate ban. In my opinion, that's the worst possible sort of gaming the system around. Jclemens (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. With two previous admonishments related to negative behaviour to other users, a third case involving negative behaviour - this time leading to a user being inappropriately banned - must result in a ban. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Courcelles makes a convincing argument here; being an administrator should not, in and of itself, shield a misbehaving user from sanctions that would ordinarily be imposed in response to their conduct. While there exist certain offenses which may be regarded differently when committed by an administrator than when committed by a non-administrator—"conduct unbecoming an administrator" is not necessarily interchangeable with "conduct unbecoming a Wikipedian"—the principal concerns in this case are not among them; harassment remains harassment regardless of what privileges its perpetrator might hold. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Courcelles,  Roger Davies ^talk 18:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Second choice. Unfortunately, Will only concedes that he has been too keen on COI. In private discussions between the arbitrators and the parties, and in response to the questions I've asked on the /Workshop and PD talk page, Will has shown no interest in admitting he was wrong. It seems pretty clear that he disagrees with the findings of facts, especially those relating to a) the misleading evidence provided to Jimbo, and b) outing and harassment.
   I really dont like the proposal that Will needs to appeal to Arbcom; time-limited bans of up to a year are less work for all involved. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per Courcelles and Kirill. - Mailer Diablo 18:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. On the basis that he used the COI argument in the way that he did to gain an advantage in an ideological dispute --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I think a de-admin and a topic ban is enough. Leaving aside the Super Mario Problem Courcelles mentions, I think that there's enough good outside of the NRM area that it would be a net positive to retain Will outside the areas where he's problematic. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Six months is too long, and requiring an appeal is not useful. Three months, no appeal, and I would support. That is closer to how long TimidGuy was banned without merit based on Will's faulty evidence. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. per SirFozzie really. I've seen other editors baited or goaded into indefblocks with no reaction whatsoever elsewhere. There was an arb case and a ban and a lingering battlefield mentality which had shown signs of thawing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree with Fozzie on this one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per SirFozzie. Risker (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Recuse:

1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Will Beback: banned (2)[edit]

2.5) Will Beback is banned from English Wikipedia for three months.

Support:

1. Proposed.(first choice) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Distant second choice, as I hate time-limited bans, but the conduct here is so egregious that I feel some form of ban is required. Courcelles 18:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second choice. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 09:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Also a distant second,  Roger Davies ^talk 18:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Iff 2.4 does not pass. - Mailer Diablo 18:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I do not support time-limited bans. Either what Will Beback has done is sufficiently egregious and inappropriate that a ban must be appealed successfully, by which I mean he must develop and demonstrate at least a tiny shred of empathy for the editors he has harassed, or it should not be applied at all. While there is some surface karmic balance to banning him for a few months (although TimidGuy's ban will have been for closer to six months than three), I am not convinced that that sort of mirroring represents genuine protection of the encyclopedia, vs. simple retribution. Should any of the other remedies pass, Will Beback will be under sufficient scrutiny that he will be rapidly facing this sort of sanction should he not take the conduct expectations reiterated in this case to heart. Note that my assessment of Will Beback's conduct incorporates his conduct in email to the committee not part of the public record, although not (in my estimation) especially different from his on-wiki arguments in his own defense. Jclemens (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. For the same reasons as 2.4 above. SirFozzie (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Ditto. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. I understand the thinking behind this, as there is much to admire about Will Beback, and I am reluctant to remove an otherwise decent editor for a long period purely because he gets over involved; however, this does feel more like a punishment than a remedy. Part of the reason we are considering a full ban is because Will has been previously admonished twice, and in this case has not shown any understanding of why we are concerned at his behaviour. Until he can, through an appropriate appeal, show that he understands that it is not in the best interests of Wikipedia to engage in hostile suspicion, that we do not search out (or even record if offered or stumbled upon) details of editors' real life identities without just cause, and that we do not seek to get editors banned or blocked unless there is clear evidence of wrong doing, then we cannot allow him to continue editing on the project. If there is a problem, let us discuss it openly and honestly. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Meaninglessly short --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Recuse:

1. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I'll recuse from the aspects of this case which focus solely on Will Beback, because we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• For clarity, I believe the two 'ban' proposals, 2.4 and 2.5, are the only remedies that are alternatives to each other. If anyone believes differently, please speak up before the case closes. Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, and I think this should have been labeled as 2.4.1, rather than 2.5. (No need to do it now, but that's how I think it was meant) Courcelles 02:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That they be alternatives was my intention. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on the "Conflicts of Interest" guideline[edit]

3) The community is encouraged to open a Request for comment on the "Conflicts of Interest" guideline with a view to reconciling some of the apparent contradictions discussed in the applicable finding of fact above.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. PhilKnight (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Courcelles 19:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Note that policy is currently informed by the 2009 RfC at WP:RFC/PAID, which at over two and a half years old, is quite aged for the importance of the topic and the evolution of Wikipedia's popularity. Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Look. I will be blunt. I can't say that leaving TG editing in the area doesn't concern me. But the Committee and its members have to deal with policies as they are, not as we want them to be. I don't think there's support amongst my fellow arbs for moving TG to editing from the talk page where he can have an indirect say in the article rather than a direct say.. there's just not enough evidence for us. So, this remedy to ask the community to resolve the contradictions and smooth this area out and make our life easier when dealing with this SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. As it is, the guidelines use lots of words like, "discouraged" or "strongly discouraged" - which are likely to dissuade the more honorably-intentioned editors and not the less honorably-intentioned ones. Need more clarity. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Risker (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template[edit]

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template[edit]

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. We need an enforcement provision, since a topic ban looks likely to pass. Courcelles 20:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. If the topic ban passes. PhilKnight (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Standard. - Mailer Diablo 18:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Risker (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Review of editing within the TM topic[edit]

2) Per Remedy 5 of the 2010 TM case, the committee will review the conduct of editors within the TM topic once the "COI" RFC has concluded.

Support:

1. This puts everyone editing with the topic on immediate notice that their conduct will be reviewed once the thorny COI guideline has been clarified.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. This case has been appropriately focused on the TimidGuy ban. However, a broad review would be worthwhile to address any other issues since the last TM case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Seeing things on the talk page of this PD, there are a couple people on that talk page who probably could use a time out from the area via the already existing Discretionary Sanctions . SirFozzie (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. The topic area needs a review. Courcelles 00:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I don't see the need to dig up a case from two years ago sua sponte. If, having concluded the RFC, the community desires that we review editors' conduct in this area, they can make a request to that effect; absent such a request, I see no reason to assume that editor conduct in this area is not being adequately managed by the discretionary sanctions authorized for it. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. In hearing this case, we've just reviewed multiple parties' conduct in the area for compliance to the current guidelines, I see no reason to re-review things when and if new COI guidelines are adopted. Such a position assumes that editors there are not competent to take the guidance in this case and/or the RFC without us looking over their shoulder. While I admit the possibility that they will not, I think it prudent to let them try and fail before babysitting them. Jclemens (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Kirill and Jclemens. PhilKnight (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Surely Wikipedia:Arbitration Enforcement is the locale for this? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Kirill. - Mailer Diablo 18:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. No. Fix COI and the community can decide whether there is a problem with editing in this (or any other) area --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. There are behavioural issues within the topic area (including some exhibited on the talk page of this proposed decision) which may warrant further review; however, I would hope that editors work on modifying their own behaviour in line with this decision rather than jumping in to sort the whole thing out right this minute. Let's give a bit of time for the impact of this decision to settle in. Risker (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

• The Committee, by that remedy, can conduct a review at any time - I'm not sure of the need to bring it into this case. If there is a valid reason, then I'm OK to support, otherwise I'm inclined to oppose as not neccessary. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template[edit]

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

General[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 07:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Jurisdiction	14	0	0		·
2	Form of appeal	12	0	0		·
3	Review of a ban made by Jimbo Wales	14	0	0		·
4	Lack of further appeal	12	0	0		·
5	Burden of proof and personal attacks	14	0	0		·
6	Conflicts of interest	13	1	0		·
7	Investigating conflicts of interest	12	0	1		·
8	Responding to accusations of conflicts of interest	13	0	0		·
9	Focus on the edits not the editor	14	0	0		·
10	Harassment	14	0	0		·
11	Battleground conduct	14	0	0		·
12	Conduct unbecoming an administrator	14	0	0		·
13	Evidence in cases involving private information	13	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Locus and nature of dispute	14	0	0		·
2	Conflict of interest guideline	14	0	0		·
3.1	TimidGuy: account history	13	0	0		·
3.2	TimidGuy: disclosure of COI	14	0	0		·
3.3	TimidGuy: previously topic-banned	14	0	0		·
4.1	Will Beback: editing history	13	0	0		·
4.2	Will Beback: admonishments and block	12	0	0		·
5.1	Site ban: background	14	0	0		·
5.2a	Site ban: TimidGuy's editing	13	0	1		·
5.2b	Site ban: TimidGuy's editing	12	0	0		·
5.3	Site ban: advocacy allegation	13	0	0		·
5.4	Site ban: analysis of editing times	14	0	0		·
5.5	Site ban: conclusion	13	0	1		·
6.1	Will Beback: affiliations of other editors	11	1	0		·
6.2	Will Beback: outing / harassment	11	0	0		·
6.3	Will Beback: battleground conduct	11	1	0		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1.1	TimidGuy: site ban vacated	13	0	0		·
1.2	TimidGuy: advised	13	0	0		·
2.1	Will Beback: desysopped	11	0	0		·
2.2	Will Beback: admonished	6	0	0		2	Jclemens' support vote is dependent on no site ban passing and is therefore discounted.
2.3	Will Beback: new religious movements topic ban	11	0	0		·
2.4	Will Beback: banned	8	4	0		·
2.5	Will Beback: banned (2)	5	6	0		3
3	RFC on the "Conflicts of Interest" guideline	13	0	0		·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Enforcement by block	11	0	0		·
2	Review of editing within the TM topic	4	8	0		Cannot pass

Notes

Clerk note: barring any last minute changes in the motion below, I will close this case at 00:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC). --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

1. On the arb mailing list there has been some discussion about possibly adding some further proposals. However, unless this happens, it would appear that we can close this case now. PhilKnight (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Am I the last man home? Ban remedy is now passing. Think its a wrap unless NYB wants to add something. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. What's going to pass here currently is. Courcelles 00:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. All active arbs except Coren appear to have participated, and the unanimity on most items is such that even if he doesn't manage to get around to voting, no matters appear to hinge on his vote. Let's start the clock. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Risker (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Finally. - Mailer Diablo 06:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments