Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case
Active:
 * 1) Casliber
 * 2) Courcelles
 * 3) Coren
 * 4) David Fuchs
 * 5) Elen of the Roads
 * 6) Jclemens
 * 7) John Vandenberg
 * 8) Kirill Lokshin
 * 9) Mailer diablo
 * 10) Newyorkbrad
 * 11) PhilKnight
 * 12) Risker
 * 13) Roger Davies
 * 14) SilkTork
 * 15) SirFozzie

Inactive:
 * 1) AGK (Case was accepted before the 2012 committee began, and this new arbitrator chose to be inactive.)
 * 2) Hersfold (Case was accepted before the 2012 committee began, and this new arbitrator chose to be inactive.)
 * 3) Xeno

Deadlines extensions
Per request from drafting arbitrator User:Roger Davies, the deadline for evidence submission is extended to 23:59 (UTC) 2 January 2012. Consequently the workshop deadline and proposed decision date are also extended to 9 January and 16 January respectively. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * With 3 drafting arbs plus extension and this still seems overdue. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's normal for decisions to take awhile. I'd rather them take their time and get it right than rush something out that doesn't fully address all the issues at hand. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Note about recusal
I'm active on this case overall, however I'm recused in regard to Will Beback as we were involved in an editing disagreement some time ago. PhilKnight (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Delay in posting proposed decision
The proposed decision is scheduled for posting in the next day or two, but I'm heading out this weekend. I've asked if the posting can be rescheduled until after the weekend.  Will Beback   talk    04:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would the proposed decision need to be delayed if you are out this weekend? It will still be here when you get back. Cla68 (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no problem in delaying this when one of the parties to the case is available to comment; as can be seen on the other current case, voting can sometimes move very quickly. There is no harm in showing some degree of deference to those who are most likely to be affected by a decision. Monday is fine as far as I am concerned.  Risker (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just confirming that I have no problem with this either and that I have adjusted the timetable accordingly.  Roger Davies  talk 15:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Does TimidGuy mind waiting another couple of days on the decision while Will goes on vacation? Cla68 (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I honestly think an extra two/three days is not something to fret about. :-) Lord Roem (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that TimidGuy's opinion doesn't factor in, can you guess what the proposed decision is going to be at least in some respects, Mr. Press Correspondent? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't really followed this case, so please forgive my ignorance; but why would one party's opinion (or request) be given preference over another's? — Ched : ?  12:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to Cla68, if TimidGuy asked for a brief delay in posting the decision, I am sure the Committee would have granted it. We have done this on many occasions. Risker (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is, this is TimidGuy's ban appeal. If the ban is lifted, TimidGuy is able to resume editing of the TM articles.  So, if I were him, I would wonder whmy ban decision has to wait a couple more days while Will Beback is on vacation, when it isn't Will Beback who is making the decision. Cla68 (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that the proposed decision is posted, I presume it is more clear why we honored Will Beback's request. Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (Nod). Cla68 (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

COI/Outing RfC
Interesting remedy. Unlike the 1st/2nd mover blocking dramaz, the COI vs. outing issue is perhaps one that actually defines the Wikipedia editing model. I'm not optimistic that a RfC can succeed in bringing any substantive change after Wikipedia turned 10. At least some Arbs are frank about what they would like to see. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Will Beback
The proposed decision does not make any acknowledgement that I have apologized, both in private and in public, for placing undue emphasis on COI issues in the past. I have committed, publicly and privately, to avoiding any further mention of COI issues for at least the past a year. The proposed decision seems to ignore the fact that I have learned from this matter. Editors and admins make mistakes, and I intend to do better in the future. I have not misused any of the admin tools, I have not outed anyone, and I have not intentionally harassed anyone. I would request that the remedy be changed to allowing re-sysoping based on an appeal to the ArbCom after a period of time.

Jimbo Wales did not take any action in regard to me. He simply took an action on another user based on a complaint I made to which he was a party (as was the ArbCom).

Regarding potential topic bans, there are no findings of fact regarding problems with my editing. The sole issues in the FOFs are about my behavior regarding COIs, for which I've apologized and promised to change. Regarding forum shopping, I've never heard that merely participating in a discussion is included in the definition of "forum shopping". That term normally refers to someone instigating discussions over a single issue in multiple locations within a limited time. The listed discussions concern a variety of issues, and some were instigated by other people, and span about two and a half years.  Will Beback   talk    22:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Will, could you clarify "I have committed, publicly and privately, to avoiding any further mention of COI issues for at least the past year." Specifically, "past year" suggests you committed to this a year ago?  If that is correct, could you provide diffs.  Thanks, John Vandenberg (chat) 23:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies, that was a typo (now corrected). This is a recently made commitment to change future behavior.   Will Beback    talk    23:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Was that before or after you attempted to, er, advise PumpkinSky by email that unless he followed your advice to leave quietly, that unnoticed information about his wife would be publicized?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a very different situation. One concerns complaining about off-Wiki conflicts of interest in the promote a cause, and the other an accusation of meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry as part of the administration of Wikipedia. Hopefully, my involvement in resolving the problems with Rlevse has not affected the case here. I specifically wrote to Roger Davies to ask him if it would and he never responded.   Will Beback    talk    00:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In both matters, you used private email to try to get another to do as you desired. I think they are closely related. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not generally regulate private emails. The only policies concerning what we say in private emails is the one prohibiting "stealth canvassing". The ArbCom has ignored evidence that some editors involved in this case have participated in that.   Will Beback    talk    00:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Will Beback also threatened me via emails which I never invited nor responded to. Instead I forwarded them to ArbCom:
 * 8/31/11 2:33UTC WillBeback emails Keithbob saying: a serious, undisclosed COI issue may need to go public if WillBeback's COI behavior and editing of TM topics become an issue at Cla68's proposed RfC/U.
 * 8/31/11 6:13UTC @ Keithbob's talk page: "you're adding a lot of evidence...related to COI."
 * 9/12/11 7:02UTC WillBeback emails Keithbob saying he is going to submit evidence about Keithbob's COI to ArbCom-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 01:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What are you accusing me of doing? You were assembling evidence against me and I said if you kept doing that on-Wiki I'd also assemble evidence. You've taken the opportunity of this Arbcom case to present your evidence, but I did not presented any evidence against you, beyond the issue of stealth canvassing.   Will Beback    talk    02:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Lese majeste
It is not uncommon for an admin to say something like, "If I see user:JohnDoe do that again, I will block him" or "Any user I see doing something like that will be blocked." I have never seen a user accused of a serious violation for providing evidence to the admin that the threshold for blocking has been met. Jimbo Wales has said that he does not believe he was misled or manipulated. This appears to create a new policy: that users may not provide evidence to admins or higher authorities who have said they would ban or block for those causes.  Will Beback   talk    00:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * It's evident that Jclemens doesn't know what "lese-majesty" means, but that's rather beside the point. This statement is bizarre and insulting on its merits. It presumes that Jimbo is too obtuse to critically weigh evidence presented to him. It would be one thing to acknowledge that Jimbo has a different threshold for acting on COI concerns than does the Committee, but this is really stretching reality to paint Will in the worst possible light, as some sort of evil genius capable of leading poor, naive Jimbo astray. MastCell Talk 04:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or it simply presumes that Jimmy was too busy with all his other obligations and took a series of complicated assertions at face value. You'll further note that my statement is my own opinion, and not any sort of finding. I don't have a crystal ball or a mind probe, but if we can't AGF about Jimbo's motivations in this unfortunate series of events, where are we? Oh, and it's entirely possible I'm using lese-majesty wrong; what I mean to say by that is that I believe Will Beback has made Jimbo look bad, and that I think that is, of itself, a separate issue. Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The AGF explanation is that Jimbo's threshold for acting on a COI complaint differs from yours. Instead, you're asserting that someone could reach a different conclusion from you only if they were lazy, obtuse, or easily misled. MastCell Talk 05:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * MastCell, are you one of the two editors besides Jimbo and ArbCom to whom Will Beback provided personal information on TimidGuy? Cla68 (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cla68, it's inappropriate for you to be making accusatory questions like that about comunications with the ArbCom. The committee knows the identity of the other two admins if they want to share it.   Will Beback    talk    06:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I assumed MastCell would answer "no" and then I would say, "Then how do you know how complete the information was which was given to Jimbo upon which he based his decision?" Cla68 (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think I've ever had any off-wiki contact with Will (we've barely interacted on-wiki). It seems very simple: information was provided privately to Jimbo and to ArbCom. They interpreted it differently. That may be because Jimbo is really obtuse and ArbCom is really insightful. Or it may be because they just have different thresholds for acting on COI complaints (which are, by universal agreement, an incredibly gray area). Either explanation is possible, but Jclemens' statements seem to admit only the former. In the end, though, it doesn't really matter, I guess. MastCell Talk 20:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jimbo denies being manipulated or misled. Apparently the ArbCom believes they know his mind better than he does.   Will Beback    talk    07:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you deny misleading Jimbo? John Vandenberg (chat) 13:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * COI was stipulated by TimidGuy multiple times; the matter under consideration is paid advocacy. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So which policy do you think I've violated in this regard?   Will Beback    talk    04:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The ArbCom does not create new policies. According to which existing policy is it a bannable offense to "[manipulate] Jimbo into an inappropriate ban"? How many other users have been ban for providing evidence which causes an admin to block a user? If a user manipulates the ArbCom into an inappropriate ban have they too committed a bannable offense?   Will Beback    talk    06:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought "gaming the system" was a clear enough reference to WP:GAME that it didn't need to be wikilinked. See "Gaming sanctions for disruptive behavior" point 1. Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Gaming the system, which I deny I did, is not a bannable offense. Writing to an official of the project, and giving them honest evidence, is not gaming the system. No one has shown that anything I wrote to Wales and the ArbCom was knowingly false.   Will Beback    talk    07:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the email in question is not in the public evidence, I am in no position to provide specific justifications for why I believe that you did "game the system", but I have no problem stipulating that we disagree on that point. To your assertion that gaming the system is not a bannable offense, I offer two answers: 1) WP:GAME states that such may constitutes Disruptive editing, and the nutshell summary of that behavioral expectation specifically mentions blocks and bans, and 2) the rationale is just that: my rationale for supporting a site ban proposed by another arbitrator.  While I don't disagree with his reasoning, I find my own motivation for supporting the site ban differs, and in the interest of the greatest possible transparency given that much of the evidence is not public, have provided my reasoning. Jclemens (talk) 07:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You can provide the justification via email: you have my address. But what it comes down to is this: I stumbled across evidence which I honestly though violated the norms of this project, and I shared that with the senior officials, including yourself, whom I thought were in a position to deal with it. We should encourage that behavior, not ban people for it.   Will Beback    talk    07:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As has emerged during the case, after a possible COI was brought to his attention on-wiki, TimidGuy has been circumspect in his editing, which has been unproblematic. I would agree with MastCell here that there is no reason to question Jimmy Wales' powers of judgement in assessing any information he receives. ArbCom apparently had been sent the same information in 2011 and apparently raised no doubts then. Evidence not available on-wiki seems to have been used in forming their subsequent evaluation. In hindsight, Will Beback's actions were possibly over-zealous and do not appear to have been in response to any urgent concern; no deception or "gaming of the system", however, seems to have been involved. (I hope that Newyorkbrad might be able to shed some light on this issue.) In response to possible questions from Cla68: No, I have never been informed and know nothing. Mathsci (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have admitted that my past focus on COI was overzealous, have apologized, and have committed to avoiding COI complaints in the future.   Will Beback    talk    19:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * apologies again for commenting on something I haven't followed. But I would mention that if someone is "mislead" or "manipulated" then they are not typically aware of that deception.  That's not a comment directed towards any individual, just a general observation in regards to this discussion. — Ched :  ?  08:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Replying to Jclemens's first post way back there: This rationale is deeply conerning. You think Jimmy might have been "too busy with all his other obligations and took a series of complicated assertions at face value"? If he's too busy to do due diligence on bans, why the hell is he making them unilaterally? If that version of the story is right, any "injury" to Jimbo's "majesty" was self-inflicted. I am not saying whether Will Beback should be sanctioned for deceiving him, since it certainly would be a serious offence if true. But this concern about making Jimbo look bad is misplaced. At the end of the day, Jimbo made the ban and no one else. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: Jclemens did apparently use "lese-majesty" in an appropriate sense, and WBB seems to acnowledge that (per According to which existing policy is it a bannable offense to "[manipulate] Jimbo into an inappropriate ban"? ) he manipulated Jimbo into an "inappropriate ban" which pretty much meets the definition from Webster. Cheers. BTW, similar Jimbopulation has occurred in the past (e.g. a case at Wikiversity) and I would commend Jimbo to have a second opinion from a close advisor before making blocks etc. Collect (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Fladrif and COI/N
I find it interesting that most of the COI/N threads from FoF 6.3 ("Will Beback: forum shopping") were actually started by User:Fladrif, yet Will Beback is the only one held responsible for those. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fladrif wasn't a party to the case. We declined to add at least one additional party to the case, although I don't recall a request to add Fladrif. I think it's kept the issues narrowly focused, but there's no question that other behavior on all sides could have been addressed.  Still, others were complaining on the timing, so my hope is that the final decision balanced these concerns appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's kinda weird. I thought that once someone presents /Evidence in a case, they are effectively a party. And Fladrif has presented evidence in this case: Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal/Evidence. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the selection of parties, which I believe is a significant matter in this case, is it forum shopping to even participate in a thread someone else started? If so this is such a widely flouted policy that it is proscriptive rather than descriptive. Some of the linked issues don't concern TimidGuy at all, so I'm not sure what the issue here is which I'm supposed to have forum-shopped over.   Will Beback    talk    01:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be helpful to read this insightful document, in particular its nutshell summary: Arbitrators usually work from broad impressions of what a case is about and do not consider details, nuance, or context. MastCell Talk 01:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I find this decision disturbing. It seems like there are many valid points made here in Will Beback's defense which, for some reason, have not convinced the arbitrators.  I have often seen him participate as a voice of reason in contentious issues, and I am not convinced that another administrator would do as good a job as he has. Wnt (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Admonishments
I have been admonished twice over a six year period, during which time I've made over 140,00 edits. The first time was for a specific reason: The second was a unexplained, non-specific admonishment four years later: There were no findings of fact against me in that case, and it's never been clear why I, or several other editors, were admonished in that case, which was three years ago. In my entire six career on Wikipedia I've only been blocked once years ago, for 24 hours, for violating a 1RR per week remedy. So two gentle warnings, one of them non-specific, over a six year period and a single short block are sufficient background that any further problems must lead to a site ban? That seems like a higher standard than other editors have been held to.  Will Beback   talk    07:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Admonish: to express warning or disapproval to especially in a gentle, earnest, or solicitous manner
 * Willmcw is admonished to extend respect and forgiveness to users such as User:Nskinsella (Stephan Kinsella) who share the burden of being notable enough to have articles regarding them be included in Wikipedia.
 * ...and Will Beback ... are admonished for their conduct in articles related to Prem Rawat.
 * The comments here may be helpful in regard to how admonishments are viewed. I never expected when this case started that a ban would be on the table. Indeed, my initial view was that a caution would be the most that would be offered, as I felt that you were acting in the best interests of the project and, at most, had been over enthusiastic. I didn't think it could possibly come to an editor with a known COI being unbanned, and a valued Wikipedian being under risk for being banned. I am dismayed at how the evidence has played out. The evidence you have supplied has been interesting, and I can see the reasons for your concern. I also buy into Jimbo's vision for a Wikipedia which can be trusted. I think what is behind this incident is how we deal with concerns or suspicions. The nature of unregistered editing is that everyone is under suspicion as we don't know their motives. What we have, though, is the evidence of the edits. Our policies and guidelines and our general ethos is that we assume people are editing in good faith until proven otherwise (same as real life law in which a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty). To present an inaccurate claim that an editor has been advocating in order to get that editor banned, is inappropriate. I think, however, if that were an isolated incident, and you took on board that you had gone too far on too little evidence, a warning would be sufficient. To find out that there had been prior concerns about the way you focus on other editors, and you have twice been sanctioned for such behaviour, means that we must send out the message that any editor who does not heed warnings, and does not amend their behaviour accordingly, will receive a higher sanction.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But I have heeded the warning: "to extend respect and forgiveness to users such as User:Nskinsella (Stephan Kinsella) who share the burden of being notable enough to have articles regarding them be included in Wikipedia." There have not been any subsequent problems with me disrespecting users who have articles. The second admonishment doesn't address any specific behavior, but it certainly was not about focusing on the editors. And the one block was due to a 1RR/week violation, back when that was a very novel remedy and there was disagreement over how to interpret it.
 * In this case I have apologized and promised to correct my behavior. Why isn't that being acknowledged? Or that I too am a "valued Wikipedian"?
 * As for the evidence, I believe in good faith that the evidence shows TimidGuy holds a PR position, and that his editing on Wikipedia has overwhelming (but not exclusively) been to promote TM. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is how it looks to me. I did not knowingly present false evidence. In fact, none of the evidence has been found false: we just disagree about the interpretation of it. I have never heard of a previous ArbCom case in which editors presenting a theory of evidence and calling for a ban were themselves sanctioned simply because the ArbCom rejected their view of the case. In fact, if I recall correctly, there are editors who have outright lied to the ArbCom in cases who have not been sanctioned at all. I have been honest and forthright throughout this case and in all my work on Wikipedia.   Will Beback    talk    18:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the evidence, what year range do you believe that TimidGuy was holding what you believe to be a PR position? I asked you this on the /Workshop but you didn't answer in public. Your private answer to me does not align well with what you have written here now. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How can I answer this question, which involves three separate job titles, in public? Let me put it this way - of the three, I know that he has held one as recently as this month. Regarding the others we know when he started the jobs but not when he left them, if ever.      Will Beback    talk    00:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "We"? And how would you know someone started a job this month unless you were investigating them. Why are you still investigating this editor? How disturbing this is.(olive (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC))
 * Will has explained this above. He said he, "stumbled across the evidence." Rumiton (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * [e/c] I've shared my evidence with the Arbcom, so "we" all know the same information. I just looked for an update at the specific request of a member of the ArbCom.   Will Beback    talk    02:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Is that current job a PR position? Regarding the other positions, you should have very reasonable doubts that he has held those positions recently.  When is the last evidence you have that he held the other jobs? John Vandenberg (chat) 06:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You and the ArbCom have the same evidence I do, so I don't know why you're asking me these questions here.   Will Beback    talk    07:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If anyone's in any doubt that Will should be de-sysoped and topic banned and about the absurdity of his last sentence, I suggest you have a good look at the evidence I gave about him in the 2009 Prem Rawat case. Sound familiar? And even this month he has continued. On Feb 4 I pointed out that there was a chronological error in the Prem Rawat article. Will decides to my denigrate my proposal by claiming I made the mistake in the first place. He says - '''Momento added the material in question. I'm not sure why, two years later, it is now described by the same editor as an error.''' In fact, my edit was correct, it was Rumiton's edit a few days after mine that incorrectly places the sentence out of order. I asked Will to correct his error but, of course, he didn't. For further evidence of how Will and others corrupted the ARB/COM process, read on.Momento (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

And in light of Will corresponding with Jimbo Wales, I'd be interested to know what Will said in his email to Bainer before Bainer ignored the overwhelming evidence against Francis Schonken and Will Beback and proposed only that I and Rumiton should be banned. What did you say Will?Momento (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that the above editor (Momento) is the only one that I know of that has been topic-banned for a period of over a year from the Prem Rawat family of articles, (violated that ban, and was re-banned) for wide variety of offenses, including edit warring, incivility, etc. Will_Beback has often been the target of that hostility, and I have no doubt that this is at least a partial motivation for the "evidence" he chooses to include here. Despite the often extremely high level of emotion that often appears on those talk pages I have personally found Will_Beback to be one of the most level-headed editors I have had a chance to work with on these articles, and the articles have benefited because of him. Full Disclosure: I have another account that I use to edit things that are not related to the PR articles (because ppl get nuts over there from time to time). I am not a SPA, and I have no grudge against Prem Rawat (others will argue otherwise, predictably). Additionally, only knowing what is on this page, it seems like a bit of a misguided attempt by the arbitrators to fix things that are not the issue at hand, in particular, the fact that COI policy seems ridiculously unenforceable. The fact that uninvolved editors who are very much involved in the subject are allowed to "attack" Will_Beback as well seems a bit kangaroo court-ish. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 04:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity, Rumiton was also topic banned for a year and I'm sure Maelefique would admit, Rumiton is a gentle and patient editor who edits other articles.Momento (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not a useful discussion, no evidence was supplied that Will improperly applied pressure or misled anyone in the case that Momento is bringing up, either back when it happened, during the case, or now. Remember: "Serious accusations require serious evidence" and none has been supplied. I'm going to ask the clerks to look at removing some of this as not useful to discussing the proposed decision. SirFozzie (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you SirFozzie but I reserve the right to reply to Will's statement "it's never been clear why I, or several other editors, were admonished in that case, which was three years ago". Although he does have a point, "it's never been clear to me why Will, or several other editors, were admonished in that case, which was three years ago". They should have been banned.Momento (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to cmt by Casliber
To Will above:Thanks. I think I misunderstood what you were saying.(olive (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC))

The sanctions Casliber refers to might deserve at some point some real scrutiny by those knowledgable about Wikipedia, and with a truly neutral mind set, while giving editors a chance to answer to concerns. I of course don't expect that to happen but one can wish. An arbitrator said to me at one point to just continue editing in a compliant way and eventually these sanctions will be forgotten. That isn't the case. They are trotted out at every convenience to discredit editors. There are multiple issues with several of those cases that are irregular. The idea now, that a group of editors have somehow improved because they were sanctioned in the way they were is not logical. What has happened is that those editors, I speak for myself, walk on eggshells fearing some thing else will be drummed up to try and get rid of them. An editor asked me by email why the chill on the TM articles. Why? Because the most innocent action can be twisted to damage an editor. To imply that editors will rum amok on an article because Will Beback is no longer there is so opposite from the truth of the environment on those pages as to be ludicrous. This is not in criticism of any of the arbs., just a moment to speak out in my opinion. What you see is the tip of the iceberg, and I'm tired of pretending the part under water doesn't exist. (olive (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC))


 * I have to agree with Littleolive oil that I'm surprised how sanctions in old cases are never forgotten or forgiven, no matter how much time has passed or or how may edits have been made since they were decided.
 * However I have to disagree with the state of the TM articles during the period before my participation. There were several instances in which a group of editors came to agreements to exclude significant information from the articles, and when other editors tried to add they were told that the consensus had already been determined. The exclusion of any mention of Sexy Sadie, a song written by John Lennon about the Maharishi, is just one example. I have never observed any significant disagreement between members of that group, and they often explicitly support each other. Potential COI aside, that is unacceptable ownership of a topic and it is the reason I got involved in the first place. The conclusion from this case seems to be that it is truly impossible to dislodge a group of editors who take control of a topic, and that outside editors who try do so at their own peril.   Will Beback    talk    22:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * With reference to Casliber's recent comment, this current case is the latest one related to Transcendental Meditation. Any arbcom case usually results in a substantial change in the dynamics of editing in the subject area covered by the case (not always as envisaged). Any diffs that predate the last TM arbcom case (Feb-June 2010) are therefore probably best viewed in that context.Mathsci (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mathsci is right. ArbCom cases do affect the editing environment of the topics that they cover.  For example, I think if you check the climate change articles (I think I can bring that up here since this is a dispute resolution forum?), you will find much less incivility among the regulars of those articles on the talk pages, much less edit-warring in the articles themselves (although I wouldn't be surprised if it is still going on), and much fewer attempts to add pejorative or defamatory information to the BLPs of climate change personalities.  To be sure, the involved editors are toeing the line because they are scared of what will happen if they don't.  Fear appears to be an effective motivator.  I think it is a little different in the TM topic, however.  It appeared that certain editors were holding the TM ArbCom case over the heads of the other editors in that topic, using any slip-up to accuse COI or threaten to take them to ArbCom or other administrative forum for sanction.  That can't have been a very pleasant editing environment. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the first TM case actually exacerbated the problems rather than solving any. Following it, every editing dispute was framed in the context of which editing problems were sanctioned by the ArbCom, for example. The blame for that goes to all parties and to the Arbcom itself. The Arbcom is not really a dispute resolution body, and it wants to be it needs to re-think the adversarial approach which is fostered as part of arbitration.   Will Beback    talk    23:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Little Olive Oil. Take a look at my talk page to see how many times Will Beback and his associates have tried and/or succeeded to have me blocked and banned.Momento (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. Agree with Little Olive Oil too, if she said that Momento was banned on many occasions for deliberately ignoring warnings and continuing to disrupt articles with what was already explained to him by uninvolved administrators that his behaviour was groundless and disruptive. If that isn't what Olive said, then I retract this comment (and yes, I realize that I, just like Momento, have very little reason to be commenting here at all). -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 04:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not comment on Momento. I've never encountered him on any article and know nothing about him. (olive (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC))

I've just commented on the talk page of one article. While it may not be immediately evident that a movie could fall under the umbrella of the TM arbitration, I've reminded editors there not to delete content even if that removal seems to be appropriate per a policy or guideline. What creates a battle ground mentality is just what Will had done. Rather than just remind editors especially Cla68 who was not a party to the TM arbitration of the decision, he turns the comments into a national emergency. Just remind people, Will, if they carry on after that, then there is a problem. (olive (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC))
 * I'm not even out the door yet, but the TM editors are already adding poorly sourced positive material, removing well-sourced material in favor of vague assertions, and planning to remove critical material.   Will Beback    talk    23:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Will, did you respond to any of those edits with anything that could be interpreted as edit warring? Or, did you start a thread first on the article's talk page to discuss your concerns?  Which one?  Cla68 (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cla68, you tend to describe any edit you don't agree with as edit warring, so that question is unhelpful. My point above is that the TM topic has a history of being dominated by pro-TM editors, which I tried to change, and now that I am on the verge of being banned it looks like the topic will quickly revert to that pattern. Despite the fact that I was prohibited from introducing evidence of editing or behavioral problems on the topic, one ArbCom members believes that the committee has "just reviewed multiple parties' conduct in the area for compliance to the current guidelines". I fail to see any such review. I don't even see any sign that the ArbCom reviewed the evidence regarding TimidGuy's editing, which I believe showed his pattern of advocacy. The whole history of TM editing on Wikipedia illustrates the problem of organized activists controlling their topics.   Will Beback    talk    23:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Will, did you try to discuss your disagreement with someone else's edit, which you linked to above, on the article talk page before reverting or drastically changing it? Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What you you talking about?   Will Beback    talk    23:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No one claimed there was a "national emergency". Keithbob has been reminded over and over not to use poor quality sources, yet he carries on doing so. I'd have tried to reswolve that problem in this RFAR, but I was forbidden. It appears that the Arbcom endorses the use of organized groups of activists to control controversial topics.   Will Beback    talk    00:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Will Beback's battleground tactics continue
Since most of the edits Will Beback is citing above are mine. Let me respond. First of all, some general observations. Will Beback is, in his own words, “not even out the door yet” but he still feels intense ownership for the topic, so much so that he is compelled to continue his disruptive behavior by creating a battleground even here on this page, twisting the truth and misrepresenting improvements to the project, instead calling them “removing [of] well sourced material”. To illustrate this point, let’s examine each of my edits that Will Beback has cited today: Also what is very telling is how Will Beback cherry picks edits out of context and fails to mention that today I significantly reduced a very positive quote by David Lynch from the same article and took the quote out of block format because the quote was too long and the block format made it too prominent and gave it too much weight.  And here I removed sources from so called “positive” text because the sources did not support the text and I replaced the sources with ‘citation needed’ tags. Some of the removed sources I used in other parts of the article, and a few, I parked on the talk page for future use. If you look at the article’s appearance from yesterday and then look at it today after I made my edits  You will see that the article’s reliability, prose and format have all been improved. But Will Beback doesn’t care about improvements to the project because he is the owner of the article and likes to fight and obstruct progress.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 00:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * First Will Beback cites this edit This is the use of a primary source which is permitted under WP:PRIMARY which allows the topic to define itself; who it is and what it does.  Please note that I added a ‘citation needed’ tag to another descriptive sentence which had no source. What Will Beback fails to mention in his post, is that today, in addition to allowing the organization to self-describe, I also added descriptions from four other secondary sources [Orange County Register, Teacher Magazine, NY Times, Details (magazine)] to balance the description given by the primary source.
 * Then this edit First note that I gave an inline attribution to the source   and that Psych Central “was named one of the 50 Best Websites for 2008 by TIME, and has been indexed within Forbes Magazine's Best of the Web directory. Psych Central has been noted in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, L.A.Times, TIME, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, the Washington Post, USA Today, USA Weekend, The Village Voice, Business Week, Forbes Magazine, and dozens of other publications.”
 * Then this edit First note that I attributed, in the article text, that the author of the article making the claim was a graduate of MUM. Second, notice that Elevated Existence is an award winning magazine that has “Won a 2009 Eddie Award from Folio: Magazine for Best Single Article in the Spiritual/Religious consumer magazine category for the article Searching for Spirit. Won a 2010 Clarion Award for Best Online Publication from The Association for Women in Communications. Won a 2009 Certificate of Excellence in Design from the Art Director's Club of New Jersey.
 * And then this edit  The section lacked focus so I created subsections and gave a one sentence summary allowing the subject to define the scope of its programs per WP:PRIMARY while the rest of the section is filled with text supported by 9 secondary sources such as the NY Times, Sydney Herald, Jerusalem Post etc.
 * Pointing out problem edits, in response to concerns that those would occur, is not a "battleground tactic". Using a press release, without proper attribution, is a problem.   Will Beback    talk    01:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Drastically altering someone's recent edits in an article under ArbCom sanction, without first discussing it on the article's talk page, then accusing the other editor of malfeasance, with a selective representation of diffs, as you did above, might could be interpreted as battleground behavior. Cla68 (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a drastic alteration? I made two changes, one to correct a faulty attribution. Compare that to Keithbob's undiscussed changes:, which are truly "drastic".   Will Beback    talk    01:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And, Keithbob started not one, but two threads on the talk page to invite discussion over his recent editing. He is trying to do everything right, yet gets immediately accused of wrongdoing on an ArbCom talk page.  If I were him and other editors in the TM topic area, I would be walking on eggshells. Cla68 (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't misrepresent them. Those are simply parked sources, and they don't even include all of the sources he deleted. He does not discuss the text he deleted or added. Which is normally fine. The problem is with the edits themselves, such as mislabeling a press release from the Maharishi University of Management.   Will Beback    talk    02:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopping Battleground conduct
Articles on Transcendental Meditation are subject to sanctions and vigilance is required. The present case was clearly not framed to air possible grievances and gripes of editors concentrating on TM articles (see above). Going back to this case, given the timeframe (2009-2012) of diffs used to justify "forum shopping" "battleground conduct," perhaps these diffs should have been included in the section now headed "battleground conduct". As far as harassment is concerned, Will Beback did not comment when Litteolive oil, TimidGuy and Edith Sirius were topic banned for editing as a WP:TAGTEAM. Mathsci (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Empathy
While I deny intentionally harassing anyone, I have admitted that I have been overzealous in pursuing COI issues. I have apologized to the parties in this case for doing so, and I have committed to avoid COI issues in the future.
 * ...[Will Beback] must develop and demonstrate at least a tiny shred of empathy for the editors he has harassed,...

I have personally endured significant harassment, hectoring, and outing on and off Wikipedia as a result of my editing here. I have great empathy for those in the same position.  Will Beback   talk    21:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It boggles the mind
that the same person who drafted the Scientology ArbCom decision drafted the TMArbCom decision  and this.

What the committee has done is tell any organization wishing to systematically pervert Wikipedia through coordinated POV pushing by its employees is to simply not do it on the organization's computers. It was absolutely clear from the evidence in the TM ArbCom case that that the TM Organization was doing precisely what the Church of Scientology had been doing, but just not from the organization's own computers. Internal documents posted on WikiLeaks, referenced in that case showed that the TM Organization set up teams of employees to systematically influence web-based information about the TM Organization, its products and services, including assigning team leaders to coordinate that activity. The evidence in that case also clearly established that the on-and-off Wiki postings of TimidGuy and a number of other TM-affiliated editors was consistent with such a systematic plan. On Wikipedia, that involved removing properly sourced information critical of the Organization, its products and services; inserting favorable poorly sourced and unsourced information; slanting the articles and the characterization of sources to fit the way the Organization wanted to present itself, its products and services to the public; and tendentiously dominating talkpages and discussion boards to artifically create a false consensus and drive away other editors. It is a reasonable conclusion from the breadth and intensity of his activity on and off Wiki that TimidGuy was one of those team leaders and that the TM-Affiliated parties to the TMArbCom were speaking with one voice as part of that team. In the Scientology case, numerous topic bans were handed out to the involved organization editors and the organization blocked from editing. In the TM case, on the other hand, the involved organization editors were given a pat on the back, and told to carry on (and they have the temerity to say that, as a result, they're "walking on eggshells" around Wikipedia!!).

The committee is now doubling down on its own inconsistency by sanctioning an Will for following the appropriate protocol of bringing confidential information to the committee and Jimbo privately about the that apparent team-leader - evidence which Jimbo has said here on these pages that, if disclosed publicly, the community at large would hardly be surprised at his decision to ban TimidGuy from Wikipedia.

What the Committee is really telling any editors who are unfortunate enough to stumble inside the walled garden of the TM-related articles is,


 * Complain about it once; you will be ignored.


 * Complain about it twice; you will be sanctioned.


 * Instead, take as your model the dozens of editors over the years who have simply thrown up their hands in disgust and frustration, and walked away from the subject matter.

Do not be surprised if the model followed by the TM Organization here is widely emulated by other organizations in the future, because you have stamped it with the official ArbCom seal of approval. Fladrif (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The future is sCREWEd? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The parallel to the Scientology case had occurred to me as well. And not just to me; in the early sockpuppet investigations, jpgordon viewed the TM account use as "exactly analogous to the Scientology cases". And the Scientology case was explicitly seen as precedent for the first TM case (e.g. MuZemike's statement, Sir Fozzie's acceptance note). I didn't follow any of these cases closely, so I'm probably not really qualified to analyze why the two organizations were handled so differently. The official explanation is probably that the TM-related accounts have edited with greater circumspection since the previous ArbCom case. MastCell Talk 23:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest reading further into the TM arbitration case where suggested parallels to Scientology and the claims to a massive sock drawer  as well as other initial allegations were not supported. (olive (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC))
 * There was no claim of a "massive sock drawer", though some members thought that was the claim. The assertion was that there was rampant meat puppetry and tag team editing by people living in a small community of activists. That assertion was never really investigated or refuted.    Will Beback    talk    23:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how that is different from various SPAs improving the articles related to Muhammad according to their worldview . Perhaps a matter of scale? I suspect anything having to do with religion-type stuff has fervent adherents. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Many topics attract unorganized, drive-by editors with fervent views. Those are dealt with relatively easily. That's a different problem from an organized group of editors working together to skew consensus and bypass NPOV.   Will Beback    talk    00:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Responses moved to below,   Roger Davies  talk 19:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please now see collapsed section below. Mathsci (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Not true Will. There were claims that several editors were socks. Now maybe its time to deal with this arbitration rather than rehashing one that is two years old.(olive (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC))
 * But where was the assertion of meat puppetry and tag team dealt with and refuted? That was the main assertion.
 * As for this case, it's never been explained why the ArbCom refused to add additional parties who were highly involved in recent disputes, including Keithbob and yourself, editors who have also been significantly involved in this RFAR. They ignored the clear evidence of stealth canvassing in an RFA: Requests for adminship/Jmh649. You participated in that too.   Will Beback    talk    00:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That's just silly Will. Doc James was a frequent editor on TM articles. That all I have to say, the rest is obvious.(olive (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC))
 * How did a bunch of editors who were barely active and never participated in other RFAs suddenly think to go participate in Doc James' RFA unless they received a request to participate? Since no such request shows on their talk pages, it's obvious that they were contacted off-Wiki. That is the definition of WP:Stealth canvassing.   Will Beback    talk    00:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's interesting (although not necessarily particularly germane to this case) to review Requests for adminship/Jmh649. In addition to opposition from TimidGuy and olive, James' RfA was opposed by the following editors:
 * Each bulleted account has focused heavily or solely on TM, and in each case James' RfA was the only one in which these accounts have ever participated. (The Edith Sirius Lee account was registered only 3 weeks before opposing James' RfA). Combined with the evidence of shared or overlapping IPs, that's enough to raise eyebrows at the very least. We've sanctioned for canvassing on far less circumstantial evidence than that. But at this point it's probably water under the bridge. MastCell Talk 21:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the RfA was commonly known on his and his friends' talk pages, which the editors in question could hardly avoid. For Will to assume meatpuppetry when obvious explanations are available is not the most outstanding example of AGF I've ever seen, especially when ChemistryProf explained that he was not terribly familiar with admin standards but sure had a problem with James.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, they probably had James' and related editors' talk pages on their watchlists. It's normal to have other editors' talk pages on your watchlist if they are involved in the same topics you are.  The community probably should revisit the Canvassing rules.  I used to be really against canvassing, because of what happened in my RfA, but now I realize that it's really unenforceable. Cla68 (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur, I had a similar issue in mine, but as it didn't affect the outcome I did not pursue it. I agree, we can't enforce it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that "stealth canvasing" is not very convincing here, but the sudden interest in one (and only one) RfA of an "adversary" could be construed as some sort of WP:HARASSMENT or WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. On the other hand, some people avoid voting on candidates they don't have prior intimate knowledge of, and the pro-TM editors seem to have little experience elsewhere on the wiki, so they may not have ran into any other RfA candidates they cared about. I for one would like to see some additional correlations before passing judgement. Did they follow James anywhere else? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know that your term "followed" is supportable. If they saw discussion of James seeking to become an admin, and no doubt the threat of admins had been widely tossed around the area, it is only natural for them to weigh in.  I would suggest that it is neither evidence nor symptomatic of anything except what Olive hinted at:  A considerable dislike of Will and James among editors on the TM pages.  What this discussion does show is the strength of the battlefield mentality surrounding Will; if you notice on the talk page and on the other case pages, he repeatedly refers to "stealth canvassing" as though it were an established fact.  Finding out how thin is the reed upon which Will rests this allegation speaks very loudly to the mindframe in which he conducts business on Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear. We're talking about bloc voting at a single RfA by a group of single-purpose accounts with no other RfA participation and a history of overlapping IPs. That is well beyond the threshold at which concern is justified. I don't think any action is needed at this late date, but let's not pretend that only Will could possibly see anything of concern there. I think Will has obviously gone overboard and the sanctions coming his way are probably justified, but in this case some level of concern is appropriate. Heck, if you retained the same level of circumstantial evidence but substituted a bloc of "pro-AGW" editors for the pro-TM editors, I suspect some commentators in this very thread would be leading the charge against them. MastCell Talk 00:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or, you could interpret it as a number of editors who found out about James' RFA and figured that they would like James less with the bits. They then voted.  They voted against.  Gee, I wonder why?  An innocent, simple explanation.  And because none chose to become a professional RfA drama king, that's held against them.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, I saw Newyorkbrad vote in several RfAs. That doesn't make someone a drama king, although "management type" might describe that inclination. See further discussion on his talk page about his editing patterns. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No reason to argue about this here since it appears ArbCom will open the scope of its examination into the TM topic area once this case closes and an RfC on the COI guideline takes place. Save your diffs and links for that case, and, in the meantime, don't edit war with each other, follow NPOV, and don't email Jimbo trying to get each other banned. Cla68 (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know that your term "followed" is supportable. If they saw discussion of James seeking to become an admin, and no doubt the threat of admins had been widely tossed around the area, it is only natural for them to weigh in.  I would suggest that it is neither evidence nor symptomatic of anything except what Olive hinted at:  A considerable dislike of Will and James among editors on the TM pages.  What this discussion does show is the strength of the battlefield mentality surrounding Will; if you notice on the talk page and on the other case pages, he repeatedly refers to "stealth canvassing" as though it were an established fact.  Finding out how thin is the reed upon which Will rests this allegation speaks very loudly to the mindframe in which he conducts business on Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear. We're talking about bloc voting at a single RfA by a group of single-purpose accounts with no other RfA participation and a history of overlapping IPs. That is well beyond the threshold at which concern is justified. I don't think any action is needed at this late date, but let's not pretend that only Will could possibly see anything of concern there. I think Will has obviously gone overboard and the sanctions coming his way are probably justified, but in this case some level of concern is appropriate. Heck, if you retained the same level of circumstantial evidence but substituted a bloc of "pro-AGW" editors for the pro-TM editors, I suspect some commentators in this very thread would be leading the charge against them. MastCell Talk 00:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or, you could interpret it as a number of editors who found out about James' RFA and figured that they would like James less with the bits. They then voted.  They voted against.  Gee, I wonder why?  An innocent, simple explanation.  And because none chose to become a professional RfA drama king, that's held against them.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, I saw Newyorkbrad vote in several RfAs. That doesn't make someone a drama king, although "management type" might describe that inclination. See further discussion on his talk page about his editing patterns. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No reason to argue about this here since it appears ArbCom will open the scope of its examination into the TM topic area once this case closes and an RfC on the COI guideline takes place. Save your diffs and links for that case, and, in the meantime, don't edit war with each other, follow NPOV, and don't email Jimbo trying to get each other banned. Cla68 (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) Response to Fladrif's opening remarks. Yes, at first blush, the TM and Scientology cases do seem similar. In fact, though, once you look at them closely they're very different indeed. There are other differences, of course, but I think that basically summarises the essential ones. Roger Davies talk 19:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Socking. I don't know how many Scientology sock blocks have been issued but it must be at least a hundred. Allegations of socking was what brought the TM case to ArbCom but, after a very detailed investigation, we were unable to confirm this, apart from one sock, of an anti-TM advocate, which was detected and banned. I said at the time that it was Not proven rather than exoneration.
 * 2) Nastiness. Scientology had many profoundly unpleasant aspects, ruthlessly targetting BLPs for hatchet jobs, websites and mailing lists devoted to harassing/attacking opponents etc etc. And people from both sides were at it, by the way. Happily, TM has been largely free of this.
 * 3) Meatpuppetry. This is always a difficult call because it's so specific. In Scientology the workaround was the "Multiple editors with a single voice" principle, which is a variant of WP:ROOMMATE. The test is that their edits were to all intents and purposes indistinguishable. This was used to deal with a few blatant footsoldiers but it's not really a satisfactory approach and I don't think we've used it since. Again, in TM, there wasn't the evidence to sustain either a meatpuppetry or single voice: so again, allegations here were Not Proven.
 * 4) Scale. The number of articles and the scale of disruption in the Scientology case was much much greater than for the TM case. To all intents and purposes, Scientology had been completely taken over by warring factions so the committee needed to reassert ownership by the community. That is not the case with TM, which is basically prolonged to-ing and fro-ing over sources, claims and so on. TM has content disputes at its heart.
 * 5) Recidivisim. The Scientology case was the fourth COFS-related case in four years: the topic had been under probation for ages.  So we used a much lower bar both for evidence of malfeasance and for sanctions than we would normally do, with the proceedings analagous to a string of summary judgments. It is worth mentioning that if we'd used the Scientology drumhead court martial approach in the TM case, the most of the active editors would have been topic-banned. But really that would have been cracking a pecan with a pile driver.

The parallel with Islam is not quite right. In the UK, I'm not aware of any major political parties linked to a religion. The Natural Law Party, part of the TM movement, presented candidates in every constituency in the 1997 UK general election. If I remember correctly, the 256 term Lagrangian for the supersymmetric standard model, which they had printed on the centre pages of various quality newspapers, was not sufficient to win any seats and many electoral candidates must have lost their deposit. So PR (and fund-raising) are presumably significant aspects of the TM movement. On the other hand many religions make strange claims. I just edited an article on the early Northern saint St Godric, adding material about the mystical circumstances surrounding his eponymous song, one of the earliest known songs in English with musical annotation. I linked to a recording and my first thought on listening to it was: how very new age. The 256 term Langrangian seemed far less unsettling :) Mathsci (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the amusing info. I'm pretty sure you're aware of the existence of Islamist parties in other countries though... And some of those articles are edited by SPAs who make them read like PR to me. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All things come and go. The Natural Law Party is now defunct as is the Belgian Muslim Democrat party (the Belgian government does seem to exist once more, independently of the validity of heterotic superstring theory). As far as Islam is concerned, events and culture prior to the Norman conquest are complicated enough: there are examples of naked figurative representations of the fairer sex in Fatimid art, tiny fragments stowed away in dusty drawers at the British Museum. Nevertheless it's one part of wikipedia where it is "enjoyable" to edit. The word "enjoyment" has been used in the PD. Contentious topic areas like TM or Scientology are quite different. Anybody editing there for a prolonged period, even with the best intentions and editing skills, would be likely to trip up somewhere after a while. It is a minefield (unlike MilHist). Some of these outside impressions seem to be confirmed by a subsequent post by an editor with direct experience of editing in TM articles. Mathsci (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

TM ArbCom II
I have no idea whether or not this proposal is going to pass, but the idea that after this case is over, and after a case on COI is completed, then ArbCom would take another look at editing on the TM-related articles is simply kicking the can further down the block, and tacitly acknowledging that ArbCom didn't discharge its duties adequately in TMArbCom I, and didn't appropriately establish the scope of this case.

Sir Fozzie opined earlier today that comments on this Proposed Decision talk page convinced him that sanctions ought to be imposed on one or more editors under the existing discretionary sanctions. If that's your conclusion, then impose them. You don't need any ArbCom or other proceeding to do that. If that's not your conclusion, don't make vague, unsupported assertions about unnamed editors and vote to take a look at it a year from now. Fladrif (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The scope of this case, and the list of parties, has been limited and wont be expanded. The reasoning is that we have a lot of private evidence related to this ban appeal, and all parties should be shown all private evidence.  If we expand the scope of this case, and increase the number of parties, that private evidence needs to be shared with more people than necessary.
 * As you know, the /Evidence contains issues in the TM area which havent been addressed in this ArbCom case. I think they need to be looked at, either by ArbCom or by administrators.
 * After this case there will be an WP:RFC on COI. That takes around one month to complete.  The proposal you are referring to is an ArbCom review of TM topical area; if it passes, it would commence around April at the latest. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Periodic review?
I saw a few minutes ago that in the TM case a remedy of periodic review by ArbCom was passed: "From time to time, the conduct of editors within the topic may be re-appraised by any member of the Arbitration Committee and, by motion of the Arbitration Committee, further remedies may be summarily applied to specific editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner." Has any such review taken place (besides this arbitration)? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Closing Comment
Although I strive to be the best editor I can be, I am not a perfect editor and I have learned from past mistakes. So, an ArbCom review would be a good opportunity for myself and others to receive some valuable feedback for improvement. Though I wish him well in his new activities, Will Beback did have a strong presence and a polarizing effect on the TM topic area, which in my opinion, contributed to an environment that was not conducive to collaboration and progress. In those kinds of situations, articles often end up being an alternating collection of sentences that either praise or criticize the topic. Now that the situation is changing I am expecting the atmosphere there will become calmer, more balanced and more collaborative and that it will be possible to massage any existing articles, that need improvement, into a more reader friendly, encyclopedic format. To this end, I repeat my previous invitation  to any Committee members and/or other uninvolved editors who would like to participate in this 80+ article, topic area. Let's work together to create something great! Peace.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 15:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There is of course nothing to stop you posting a public message on the main noticeboard talk pages (plus, I guess, WT:MEDRS) inviting knowledgeable, experienced and neutral editors with no previous involvements in the topic to come along and review the articles. They would be invited to check for article compliance with policy. If you went down this route, it would probably be wise to post the draft text here so others can comment on its neutrality before it was posted.  Roger Davies  talk 16:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * These are good points to consider. When you say "post the draft text here", I assume you mean the draft of my invitation to other editors, yes? After things settle a bit, I was planning to visit the TM Project page and get input from those currently working on the topic as to what they feel is the best way to proceed and then move ahead with consensus. If they favor an open invitation, then posting a draft of the invite here first, is a good idea.
 * Dispute resolution is never easy for anyone and I admire the work the Committee has performed both here and on other cases; taking the time to carefully examine all of the evidence presented. Its a great service to Wikipedia. So thanks to you, the Committee and to all editors and Administrators who have taken the time to participate in this case.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

TM Project page
I encourage any editors who are active on, or interested in the TM related articles to participate in ongoing discussions on the Project talk page. Cheers.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 02:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)