Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Workshop

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)

Disproportionate relation between evidence and proposals against WillBeback
Several users have made proposals against WillBeback in multiple paragraphs, however, only one user, who has written one paragraph has presented evidence against WillBeback. Paolo Napolitano  20:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom deciding content
I was surprised to see active, non-recused ArbCom members expressing their opinions on how the Ospina review should be summarized, and even more surprised to see Jayen466 make an edit to the TM article about it with the summary: "per comments at arbitration". Also here: "more neutral summary, per comments at arbitration".One of the foundational principles of the ArbCom is that it resolves behavioral disputes, not content disputes. Article content should be discussed and agreed upon at article talk pages, with input from noticeboards as necessary. Arbitration pages are not the right place. I am going to revert the edit and invite all interested parties, including recused ArbCom members, to come to a consensus on the talk page over how to summarize the material.  Will Beback   talk    20:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am surprised to see a central party in an active Rfarb supporting today's reversion of sourced material by Doc James, which violates TM Arbcom 2010, and then initiating further conflict at Jayen466's talk page while the behavior at that topic is under the Committees' review. One of the foundational principles of ArbCom is that it resolves behavioral disputes and this type of behavior from parties active in this case is surprising. This article content has been discussed on the articles talk pages with input from noticeboards but that hasn't detered Doc James from editing outside of policy and removing content he doesn't agree with. I invite all interested parties, including ArbCom members, to participate in the article and talk page discussion at the conclusion of this case.-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 21:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Doc James is not a party to this case. If you think he should be I'd agree so long as you are added as well. If editors wish to make changes to contentious material they should seek consensus on the article talk page. That's basic Wikipedia policy.   Will Beback    talk    21:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like the committee to note Will's aggressive approach here, which seems extremely inappropriate. -- J N  466  22:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not being aggressive. Editing contentious issues without discussion is aggressive. I think it is appropriate that we keep a clear separation between venues for resolving behavioral disputes and venues for resolving content disputes.    Will Beback    talk    22:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Will completely on this point. Jayen's conduct, making highly contentious edits to articles without discussion or consensus, based solely on comments made by individual editors, arbitrators or admins on the Workpages here, is wildly and grossly inappropriate and directly contrary to policy related to ArbCom. To accuse Will of being aggressive in this discussion is absurd overreaction and totally unjustified. Fladrif (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Jayen makes an edit to a TM article, Will Beback declares that he will immediately revert-war on it, JMH649 reverts it, Will Beback warns Jayen on his talk page, then complains loudly about it here.  Then, Fladrif severely criticizes Jayen for it.  I don't see any of the supposed "pro-TM" editors acting this way.  I'm seeing some extremely negative and unhelpful behavior by several editors in the TM topic, and its not Littleolive, KeithBob, or TimidGuy.  I don't believe I've ever edited one of the TM articles, but if I did, could I also expect to be treated this way? Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Cla68, are you arguing that arbitration should determine the content of articles? That was my objection, that comments on an arbitration workshop page were used as the sole justification for contentious edits.
 * As for your involvement in this topic, you've been pursuing me for years trying to get me topic banned, de-sysoped, etc. Your evidence, comments, and overall participation here reflect more on your own battleground mentality than anything else.
 * Jayen and everyone else interested in the content of the articles in question are all welcome to come to the article talk pages to discuss content.    Will Beback    talk    23:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If I, Jayen, or anyone else makes an edit you or Jmh649 doesn't approve of, such as adding a "POV" tag to the article, or adding a celebrity to the list of TM practitioners, will you revert us before starting a discussion? If so, why are you acting that way?  The reverts you did within the past six months in that article have nothing to do with this particular ArbCom discussion. Cla68 (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If any editor makes an edit with the sole justification "per arbitration" and without any discussion on the article talk page then I'd raise the same objection. We're here to resolve behavioral disputes, not content disputes.   Will Beback    talk    23:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Will, sometimes you seem to have a very strange way of viewing things. An edit was discussed here. I checked the source. It looked like a bad edit. I said so here. I explained why. Seeing no one taking issue with what I said, I went to the article to fix it. That's Wikipedia editing. Not a constitutional crisis. -- J N  466  00:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Roger Davies' proposed principles
I don't see any principles related to paid editing and/or paid advocacy, which is undoubtedly the focus of this case. Is it the position of the ArbCom that paid advocacy is so insignificant that it does not even merit a mention?  Will Beback   talk    05:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which policies currently prohibit paid editing, that you feel need to be incorporated here? Actually, I'm just asking a rhetorical question, so let me answer for you: there are none. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The ArbCom routinely formulates principles which are not based on written policies. As for what is written, WP:COI says:  Editing in the interests of public relations (other than obvious corrections) is particularly frowned upon. This includes, but is not limited to, professionals paid to create or edit Wikipedia articles.   Will Beback    talk    05:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:COI also says:
 * Accounts that appear, based on their editing history, to be single-purpose accounts that exist for the sole or primary purpose of promotion (e.g., of a person, company, product, service, website, or organization), in apparent violation of this guideline, should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.
 * So single purpose editors who engage in promotion may be blocked. Does anyone on the Arbcom deny that COI is a valid and enforceable guideline?   Will Beback    talk    05:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, single purpose editors engaging in promotion are blocked. SPAs spamming blatantly promotional material are blocked every day. That example is a much closer fit for "single-purpose accounts that exist for the sole or primary purpose of promotion" than the present case, where there is a dispute (mostly conducted perfectly properly on talk pages) about relative weight of sources and so on. The great danger with the COI guideline, which ArbCom has always been keenly aware of, is its great potential to gag what WP:SPA refers to as "well-intentioned editors with a niche interest" expressing legitimate but unpopular points of view.  Roger Davies  talk 10:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to second the point. That the behavior identified in this case is not a blockable offense based on existing policy would be a surprise to most.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So why wasn't he blocked instead of banned? You may be seconding a point which Will is not making. It's not the fact of a perceived COI that is blockable but manifestation of that COI in identifiably promotional or POV-pushing edits. TG has previously been topic banned and since that elapsed his conduct appears to have radically improved.   Roger Davies  talk 10:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But do we all agree that being a single-purpose editor engaged in promotion is indeed a blockable offense? Is it a significant extrapolation to assert that most paid advocates are single-purpose editors engaged in promotion? I'm not talking about TimidGuy - this is about the proposed principle which categorically asserts that paid editing is not a blockable offense while omitting the fact that paid advocacy is.   Will Beback    talk    22:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Where I am struggling at the moment is in seeing adequate evidence for promotion. Editors are encouraged to remove unsourced or incorrectly sourced negative information, and to work toward NPOV, and this is what I have been seeing. Discussions on COIN regarding TimidGuy's editing are not pointing to promotion. There is certainly suspicion about TimidGuy - I am seeing that. But when I look at the edits, I am not seeing clear evidence of promotion. It would be helpful if such evidence could be presented.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I compiled a list of edits by TimidGuy since the last RFAR which I believe all promoted or advanced a positive view of the TM movement, or reduced negative aspects of it. User:Will Beback/TimidGuy appeal. I was not allowed to enter it into evidence.   Will Beback    talk    21:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ?? There is no problem with you posting evidence discussing article edits provided (i) the diffs post-date the AE sanction (ie 9 August 2010); (ii) you discuss only the article diffs and what you say they represent; and (iii) you do not refer directly or indirectly to off-wiki or real life activities. If you cannot fulfil these conditions, please submit the evidence to the committee by email.  Roger Davies  talk 22:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The evidence is at User:Will Beback/TimidGuy appeal. I was made to remove it from the evidence page by the ArbCom clerk. Do you also want me to email it to you?   Will Beback    talk    22:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the evidence presented so far shows TimidGuy and others trying to toe the line, while two other editors, both of them admins, constantly hector them with accusations of COI, edit war, and then go directly to Jimbo and trick him into banning one of them. Cla68 (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)