User talk:Will Beback/archive72

File:Taste of Utopia.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Taste of Utopia.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link at ArbCom Evidence

In your evidence page, you have a broken link for one of your diffs for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal/Evidence#Posted_personal_information

Oddly, as a result the link points to a AFD page diff [1] rather than to the TM-Sidhi talk page diff that you presumably intended.[2].

You might want to fix the link before someone takes affront and accuses you of having done this as some kind of deliberate insult. Fladrif (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

The purpose of this board is to get other editors' opinions on disputed issues. Discussion of disputed points is, I suppose, part of the territory. However, looking back into the histories of editors whose opinions you happen not to like, to allow you to suggest that their views are inconsistent, is dangerously close to WP:BATTLEGROUND and if continued might approach WP:HOUND. I suggest that you consider what exactly you are trying to get out of this discussion. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Posting follow-up questions is not a battleground behavior nor is it hounding." It rather depends on the content of those questions, doesn't it? May I suggest that you actually pause to reflect on what other people are telling you, both about that article and about your own behaviour, rather than trying to "win" every exchange. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional. At this board, three independent editors, User:Collect, User:AndyTheGrump and myself are the latest in a long line of people giving similar opinions about Golden Domes. Much the same was said at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Golden_Domes by User:Bigweeboy, User:Itsmejudith, User:Littleolive oil, among others. You appear to be hopping from board to board trying to argue down everyone who disagrees with you. This looks like Wikipedia:Forum shopping. Again, please consider what you are trying to do here. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is also disturbing. You propose to restore material because "None of the edit summaries quote any policy-based reasons for deletion" and yet your proposal fails to even refer to, let allone address, the points made at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Golden_Domes where a consensus had already emerged to the effect that this material was inappropriate. To skip from one page to another, starting discussions on this topic over again without even acknowledging the existence of previous discussions, let alone the fact that they are not going you way you seem to want, is quite clearly forum shopping, and I frankly cannot see that it is giving an honest account of other editors' opinions. It is becoming rather clear that you wish this material to be included irrespective of the requirements of Wikipedia policies. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links to evidence in userspace

As you have returned to editing, could you please remove the links to the evidence you present in userspace. Thanks --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

userspace

22:46, 10 January 2012‎ Will Beback (talk | contribs)‎ (empty) (rm DBs, user talk pages are not normally deleted) (undo) ??? I requst my page deleted as it may have private and confidential information and may be used for vandalism as i am not here to patrol it. So dont edit my user page pleaseVelveteman1 (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:15B Catoctin Circle Leesburg VA.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:15B Catoctin Circle Leesburg VA.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Glenn Spencer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ADL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Srđa Trifković

Thanks Will, but because often and really bad experience with articles dealing with war crime or genocide denial, I have to be extra motivated or provoked to get involved. Even then I know its probably in vain, especially in case of Serbian war crimes and genocide denial regarding my country Bosnia. Needless to say its, also, particularly hard and emotional for me to interact with people who denying existence of denial and apologetic rhetoric. Anyway, I really appreciate your involvement as well as encouragement - I will probably, sooner or later, try to throw in few words and/or paragraphs in this article. Cheers!--Santasa99 (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say, actually to express admiration for the beautiful scenery in those photographs on your user pages - really incredible nature!--Santasa99 (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Soros

Why are you attempting to censor the George Soros article? Soros is a Jew. It is listed as his ethnicity in the infobox yet you identify this as vandalism? When you censor sourced information it makes people not want to be a part of the Wikipedia community. Explain. 114.72.229.196 (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: BLP

Thanks for you input. I haven't edited much on wikipedia, so I still learning what constitutes a verifiable source. I figured that if Maxey's book had met wikipedia's standards somebody would have already noted it on Perry's page, but just thought I'd check. Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.89.63 (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised

I thought we were actually working together effectively. If you had enough of a problem with my behavior to support a ban like this, I wish you had told me. The last time we had a discussion about my behavior on my talk page was in 2010 [3]. I haven't been involved in U.S. city names at all, except Las Vegas. Do you think my behavior is still a problem? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatism

Hi, I see you are talking again at the Conservatism project. How do you see the situation there? I'd appreciate knowing your opinion. --Klein zach 01:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This. I was wondering if all involved had simply abandoned interest in it. --Klein zach 01:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've left this for three weeks now. If there is no support for dealing with the disruption (actually by Toa Nidhiki05 rather than Lionelt) I might leave. I'm already a member of the Politics project — maybe a more sensible place to be located? --Klein zach 02:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my experience is that 'greatest difference' always goes with the 'most frustration'! Actually I've added a further comment about 'In appropriate exclusivity', a policy that no-one noted before. --Klein zach 03:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Srđa Trifković, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Spencer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References and External Links

You wrote to me that i needed a verification reference for the LOCAAS. I have it but dont know how to set up a link to outside the site. Im new on this and dont get the computer explaination. I just need an overview. (America789 (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

BIG FAVOR - Please take a look

Hi Will,

If you have any suggestions, or maybe can weigh in on this mess that has been going on for over a month...maybe you can straighten this out?

Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elen's page contains the current story, according to the various sides; the other links may be helpful. Elen seems to be asleep, but it would be good to have someone uninvolved and not on ArbCom. They may be seeing this again. JCScaliger (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Hocking Hills State Park

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hocking Hills State Park, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. OSU1980 22:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your participation, Will. I responded on the article's talk page in hopes to address any concerns in regards to the merger proposal. OSU1980 23:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Dean Kiser

Hi Will, you deleted a while back an entry on wikipedia on Roger Dean Kiser, a noted author on the subject of Orphans and Children. I had notified Roger via email of adding a listing for him on Wikipedia. And, as I remember it was touched up by someone in Australia who was an acedemic editor. So, I don't see why there would have been a problem creating a listing for a notable person with their permission. - johndarth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndarth (talk • contribs) 2012-01-25T01:58:29‎

California Miramar University Page

Hello Will. You requested that the material that I presented and the changes that I made to the CMU article be discussed prior to making the edits. You then reverted the article. I have made many edits to this article in the past and I have not had to get consensus on these edits, so I am a bit surprised with your reversion. The material that was presented in the update referenced materials which are well sourced and verifiable. I welcome your input. Please feel free to discuss the material so that we can come to a consensus. Please note that the updates in my recent contributions concern errors that were published in the article that have been shown to be incorrect. These changes, to my knowledge, meet all the standards of Wikipedia and do not omit any areas of controversy from the article. Please let me know if you disagree, and if so, what specifically your disagreements might be. Warmest Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelone7749 (talk • contribs) 2012-01-26T16:19:51

Changed the links as you requested. Thanks for the heads up on where to post new materials. I look forward to your review and comments. Angelone7749 (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Will Beback, will you take a look at the edits I reverted at the Physical attractiveness and Blond articles? I reverted because the references that are used are bad, even very bad (such as softpedia), non-scholarly references. Not to mention, the user removed a scholarly-sourced line in the Physical attractiveness article. But then I was reverted by an administrator, all because I was assessing User:Pass a Method's edits again. I understand blocking me for being a previously blocked IP proxy/stalker, but I don't understand reverting sound edits. Are all administrators like this after blocking an IP, out to revert anything the IP may have edited, no matter how right the edits may have been? What if I had been reverting outright vandalism? I would go ahead and revert the user again, but that administrator is likely watching those articles and will revert me on principle. 194.170.28.240 (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page for my reply/future replies. Not that I doubt you were already going to check back. 194.170.28.239 (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I've ever used this phrase before...

"As far as I'm concerned, this deletion was a gross misuse of the admin bit, and should be considered grounds for at least temporary desysoping."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Mausoleum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burial vault (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fist of Joe Louis

Please feel free to move this. I would myself, but am unsure how (start new article, cut and paste?). Paul, in Saudi (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse ban discussion on AN

You mentioned in the ANI discussion that there are other issues besides his close paraphrasing and butting heads with FAC regulars. Since the matter of banning Rlevese has been brought up on AN now, I think it's the right time for any additional issues to be made clear to the community. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

My name is Nick Bryant, and I've seen multiple changes made to the "Franklin child prostitution ring allegations."

I spent 7 years researching and writing The Franklin Scandal, and the battle over the content of the entry has somewhat perplexed me.

I realize that the subject matter is controversial, so it was eventually"stubbed." At this point, if Wikipedia wants to be impartial, the entry should at least read "numerous alternative theories persisted afterwards" instead of "numerous conspiracy theories persisted afterwards."

I think that's a reasonable request.˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickBryant (talk • contribs) 20:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse

Hi Will. I'd like to request your permission to undelete the e-mails you exchanged with Rlevse. As long as community discussion is ongoing about them I think it would be more fair for both admins and non-admins to be able to see what's being discussed. Thanks for your consideration. 28bytes (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preuss School

Regarding the controversy section at the Preuss School at UCSD page, I was at the school when the issue came up. The contents on the Wikipedia page is not correct. A lot went on during that time but in the end Doris Alvarez is now our friend. She would agree that the only thing that the wikipedia posting does is harm the school. I feel it is irrelevant because it falsely overshadows the great work that the school does each and every day. The school needs all the help it can get to be successful, and this controversy portion only hurts its ability to raise money. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joinarnold (talk • contribs) 21:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

etiquette question

As you may have noted, Rumiton got a little excited when I added to Momento's question at RSN. Was it improper etiquette for me to interject there, despite the fact that I feel Momento had skewed the question to get the answer he wanted? (I suppose, in retrospect I could have announced I was an editor on the article in question too, although, imo, that's fairly obvious from what I wrote). I'm sure Rumiton's announcement of me as a "highly involved protagonist" was equally neutral from an etiquette POV, but that's justified, I'm sure. Anyways, just checking to see if there's some etiquette/policy/general wiki convention I've violated. Thanks.

On a related note, where would I go to suggest a slight change to that noticeboard (and maybe others) to the effect of adding a small checkbox or something to indicate that you are an involved or uninvolved editor on any given subject? Then ppl would know instantly how much weight to put on any given comments/replies? Or possibly the wiki could do it automagically by scanning contributions, if the article is given. Just a thought. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 00:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Jimbo

I have engaged Jimbo in a to discussion about paid operatives. If this important issue lights your fire, please participate at User:Jimbo Wales#Paid operatives. It is my understanding that inviting editors to Jimbo's page to discuss an important topic is not canvassing. Am I correct? ty ```Buster Seven Talk 04;01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced comment?

You comment starting with "Where has the ArbCom asserted authority..." looks misplaced based on the indentation. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for this[4]. I'm trying to WP:AGF with this [5], but it seems weird that out of nowhere and without editing for over a year, this user pops up to pursue this subject. They haven't done anything untoward yet, but I think it bears keeping an eye. Cheers, He iro 03:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Question about YouSendIt

The law firm of YSI conducted an illegal deposition for which I have a witness but no avenue for escalation. What is your opinion? I also have discovery information showing false allegations to the court system. Opinions? Through the corporate documentation Amir Shaikh was on the board of YouSendIt. YSI also has a history of lying about its user base which it publishes on the internet. It also has a history of lying to the FBI and evidence is furnished for this. Where can one escalate all this evidence. There was also significantly documented employee turnover which should be escalated into a class action suit. They also have a history of using paid private investigators to escalate information on their behalf. How do we ensure that individuals are not part of their paid marketing department. How do we preserve the integrity of Wikipedia? Ex-DOJ attorneys have been witness to this behavior.

Hand Grenade (cocktail)

Hello, Will Beback. You have new messages at Willscrlt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

One more thing... There is a link to a reference to an article on examiner dot com (apparently a site with problems in the past?). I use it as a non-primary reference. I kluged the {{cite web}} entry in the 2nd paragraph here [6] to enable saving the page. I've never had to deal with the spam/white lists before. All I need is that one URL whitelisted. If it is a big deal to get it approved, then I may just drop the reference (though it makes for a great quote!), since I don't have time to deal with a lengthy discussion. If it's simple and quick, then I'll go for it. Or, perhaps it is something you as an admin can do (I'm not asking for special favors or anything--I'm just not familiar with the rules/process, and I can't remember the shortcut to the information). Thanks! —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 08:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of One Million Moms

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on One Million Moms requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 03:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing this was solved by making the article name a redirect. David Spector (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thepeerage.com

Hallo, In your nomination at TfD for Lundy you have a link to the Reliable sources noticeboard, but I can't find any discussion of thepeerage.com on that board. Could you give me a link? I'm curious because I've seen that source a lot while looking for information, can't remember whether I've cited it or not but would appreciate a sight of the discussion. Thanks. PamD 08:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There seems to be a problem in searching the RS noticeboard, in that the search engine still points to the main page and hasn't yet indexed the articles at Archive 114. I knew I'd searched for it - but the same applies to the next article in the archive, searching on "Ugg". Interesting to read the discussion. PamD 08:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next time I can't find a recent debate I'll know to look in latest archive! PamD 08:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was using the search button on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard - try "thepeerage.com" or "thepeerage" and it gets you nowhere. Ditto search on "Ugg", the next item in archive 114. PamD 08:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Post-election events of Proposition 8 (2008), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christine Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One comment

Awesome photos. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

disputed content at R Santorum

Hi - as an experienced editor and an administrator you should know better than replacing disputed content that is under discussion to a BLP - Please don't replace it again till the issue is resolved. Will, I despair about you and your contributions, I really do. Youreallycan 00:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. No one is arguing that the content in question violates BLP. Repeatedly deleting neutral, well-sourced content is disruptive. Please be more careful. Will Beback talk 00:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Santorum

It appears you've made more than three reverts to Rick Santorum in the past 24 hours. Please undo your last revert. Will Beback talk 21:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will never reinsert policy violating content to a en wikipedia article - if you feel I have violated any policies - feel free to take responsibility for the issue and add the disputed content yourself Youreallycan

Wait -- Will Beback posted on his own talk page that he had made more than 3 reverts to the article in the last 24 hours? He's warning himself?? How odd... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

An important project WP:WEaPOn (about Paid Operatives) I have initiated is up for speedy. Can you assist? I want to play by the rules but they seem stacked against an honest effort to record a history of an event as it happens. Any comment by you would be appreciated. TY. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need. An admin has already removed the speedy tag and restored the page. [7], [8] . Writegeist (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI..The project is now an essay titled Wikipedia:Paid Operatives. With some trepidation and unsureness it seems to have found a resting place. But, It and I are being "ravaged" (might be a good word) by an editor on a mission at that essay. I am always reluctant to pursue "police assistance" to improve decorrum so, I come to you for advice on how to proceed. His claims of my personal vendetta against the operative and my hateful behavior are startling in their fieriness and political fervor. I don't think equilibrium is possible for User:Kenatipo and myself. I have attempted communicating with him but the resulting sarcasm and snide remarks and nit-picky grammar corrections show he would rather fight than collaborate. I'm already in a too-long adversary position with one editor. I don't need to add another. But I feel that, by thinking a bit outside the boundatries of traditional essay form, WP:Paid Operatives has potential to be something...not sure what...but wider editor envolvement will create something. But, exaggerations, disparagement of Liberal Democrats, contempt for my editorial history by User:Ken might get in the way. In RL, I'd just put him in a headlock and give him a 'noogy". Thanks for your time. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha

What do you make of this? Coincidence, right? Viriditas (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page names

How do I change the name of a page? I don't think it's in editing.(America789 (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Vandal continues

[9] He's been warned many times, last time was by you, thought you could take care of it. 99.235.194.16 (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Will Beback. You have new messages at Geometry guy's talk page.
Message added 10:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be conservative

With the IPsock tagging. Otherwise his super PAC may pounce on AN with the corner cases as "evidence" that rest of the tagging is not valid. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you see what I mean [10]. Perhaps a meta-wiki RfC on the enwiki ArbCom is needed after all. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: one of the IP was complaining that that demoted FA was the 2nd FAR you were "disrupting". Which one do you think was the first one they were referring to? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames of US Presidents list

Jehochman has amended the article saying there is no reason not to allow derisory nicknames. I think he failed to read the long discussions thereon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

Dear Will Beback,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listing of Jose Rizal as a Vital Article?

Hi! I just had a quick question regarding this edit. Before I removed the tag, I was browsing through the Vital Article list, and the article wasn't listed there. You said that the "tag reflects a decision made elsewhere". Can I get some clarification or more info on this, please? Thanks. :) Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP Policy stuff

Where would I go if I wanted to have a discussion about WP policy, like for example the WP:OUTING issue on Jimbo's page It seems silly to me that we are supposed to pretend that we don't know stuff that we know. We do a little work on WP, but we live in the real world. -- Maelefique_{(and Charles!)}^(talk) 17:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, (I meant to mention this earlier), this might be nothing, but it might be a small problem too... I think it was last week (possibly before) Momento had a copy of the PR article in his sandbox, he said he couldn't save it, so he just provided a link to it on the talk page. When I clicked on it, it took me straight to an editing page, I clicked save, and it saved. I was signed in at the time. When I look at the edit history, it says that Momento saved that page. He didn't. Software glitch? Where do I report that? Do we care? -- Maelefique_{(and Charles!)}^(talk) 18:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I read your answer, but...Not only did it not show up as me making the edit, it *did* show up as Momento making the edit, *and* it had his proposed changes in it. Here's the diff, and that's from *me* hitting save, not him. Or are you saying that he had actually already saved it, given me a link that led me to the active editing page, but because I made no changes, when I hit save (again) it showed what was already there? I guess that could be, but M said he couldn't find a way to save it...*shrug*. -- Maelefique_{(and Charles!)}^(talk) 19:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retried the link, gave me the same page, hit save, gave the same info as before. Looks like you were right. thanks. -- Maelefique_{(and Charles!)}^(talk) 19:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oh, wow, car keys and shiny objects I guess, got distracted again. My first question, I didn't mean where would I go to discuss that specific issue, I meant where would go to have a discussion on the crafting of the actual policy? I assume there's usually some ongoing discussions somewhere about things like WP:OUT and WP:COI etc, I would like to at least review what they have been talking about, and maybe add something to the conversation. -- Maelefique_{(and Charles!)}^(talk) 19:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:ANFLEGAL

Is there any particular reason why you unblocked the account to allow them to rename to a username that is just as poor a choice as the present one? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Note: I moved this from a previous thread (Speedy deletion), thinking perhaps you missed it. I don't want to seem pushy but I can't edit alongside someone that sees me as an assistant at The Crucifiction of Jesus Christ. Thats one of the most incivil things Ive seen here in 4 years. I created WP:Paid Operatives and he is crapping all over it. He even has wiki-friends that come and crap on it. There is no reasoning with him. Please talk to him or tell me where to go. I have a request in at WP:Wikiquette#With Extreme Prejudice but no reaction there either. Ignoring him doesn't work and,attacking him in kind is not an option I even consider. I'dlike to continue working here. But, I can't under these conditions. This is a not-so-cunning attempt to disparage my efforts, to demonize me in the eyes of others. Thanks for your time. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I followed your advice and have ignored him. But, this was taken from the User talk:Joedesantisis page. I had informed User Joe of a speedy deletion of a project WP:Paid Operatives that, in a round about way, was about him. I did it as a courtesy thinking he may wish to make a reply or have input. Absoltuely no animas was intended. As you know, I had "canvassed" my friends and was just beginning to "canvas" the few editors that may have been in support of the Speedy. The following edit was left after mine by User Kenatibo. The 'BS' is me, Buster Seven. This is the type of conduct I am releatedly required to put up with from this editor. An attack like this is very hard to ignore and needs to be dealt with ASAP. Nothing I say or do will appease him. Please advise my next step or better yet, visit his talk and advise him of the seriousness of the hate he is directing toward me. His smiley face does little to hide his aggression. I am also asking for the advice of Casliber and Chet Davis. Maybe one of you can put a stop to it. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(If BS had been a Roman soldier, he would have asked Jesus to hand him the next nail!) --Kenatipo ^speak! 16

29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"Original Research" Question

While I semi-understand the rule regarding original research on here, what is the policy regarding using your own uploaded pic in an article? The example I give is in the Concord Resort article, there is mention about the demolition of the hotel, and I have a good quality photo I took of the demolition. Would that be acceptable to use? or would that violate the original research? Thanks for your help, in advance. -Mike NECRAT^{Speak to me} 00:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aetherius Society

Thanks for your contributions to Aetherius Society. However it looks like some of your sources may not meet Wikipedia standards. For example, blogs are rarely acceptable.[2] See WP:V and WP:IRS, as well and WP:BLP. Those three pages will tell you (almost) everything you need to know.

Hey, thanks for the heads up. I linked to the blog post about the radionic pendulum simply because the blogger supplies an actual scan of a society brochure about the device. The blog text explains the brochure in context. Mindme (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of practitioners

I added a comment to the end of Talk:Jerry Seinfeld#Scientology that I think may interest you. David Spector (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

therat121/peterwats etc.

Hi Will, not sure if you remember this old vandal from 2006/07, but I thought you might find this of interest: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/alp-candidate-for-southern-downs-peter-watson-quits-over-online-posts-regarding-homophobia-and-neo-nazis/story-fnbt5t29-1226276335805 Drett2000 (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Alex_Kurtagić

An article you have commented on talk page is nominated for deletion. Deletion discussion is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditindia (talk • contribs) 18:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Service award

	The Supreme Cabal of One
	For being baniated by ArbCom for alleged lese majeste by alleged supreme manipulation of our supreme leader, I award you the Supreme Cabal of One award. Alas, Wikipedia was unprepared for this groundbreaking event, so we don't have a special grade for this award minted. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For your many contributions to Wikipedia

		The Original Barnstar
		I give you this barnstar.Cardamon (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell

Dear Will Beback,

On the eve of your departure I would like to wish you a sincere farewell. Much in the same way that you wished Timid Guy well, when he retired a few years ago, and in much the same way that editor Stanstani left a message here for you in 2011 [11] saying: "for now, and possibly forever, I am retiring. I leave you with one last comment: You might consider why I'm leaving, and consider the effects that Wikipedia might have on your own happiness. May you have a pleasant time whatever you do."

After having spent many hours per day on Wikipedia for several years, this will now be a big change for you. We have had our differences, but in the end there are real people behind the Wikipedia user names and from one real person to another, I wish to put aside our past differences and wish you happiness and success in your upcoming activities. Peace.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree.

This lowers my expectations of Wikipedia and its dispute resolution processes as a whole. It seems to confirm that if you game the system, and if you do it well enough, you should be ok, and you should keep going. -- Maelefique^(talk) 16:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not inconceivable that Will might have been able to regain his tools in a blitz RfA after this case if the Jmh649 RfA is anything to go by. The site ban with appeal only to ArbCom surely prevents that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would lower mine too, were it possible for them to go any lower. Acknowledging the incredible patience, courtesy, diligence and persistence of your efforts to serve the interests of the encyclopedia. Will be back? I very much hope so. Best wishes to you. Writegeist (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wills calm patience during troubling conversations was exemplary. He had the Wisdom to forego attack and to remain calm and above the fray ..most times. I can not help but feel that this Ban is some kind of pay-back for some hidden, long-ago encounter. I can think of 6 quality editor/admins that are no longer editing or are threatening departure. What is going on? A purge of the best and brightest? A purge of the ones we can trust to be fair and impartial.```Buster Seven Talk 14:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A sad thing indeed. Though I can't help feel what some sort of burnout occurred. Hope to see him return but I have this gut feeling it isn't going to happen.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So long

It seems inevitable now that you will be banned, per the votes. A site ban is a tough pill to swallow - I know only too well. I wish you well in all your endeavors and hope to see you again one day. Best wishes, Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 19:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For all your contributions to Wikipedia, and I hope you will be back, just like your username says. В и к и T 19:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll Beback

Many Professional atheletes take a break, mid-season, to get ready for the playoffs. Especially old veterans with gnarled hands and strong but tired backs. Enjoy your vacation. You deserve it. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal closed

This case has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Jimbo Wales' ban of TimidGuy is vacated.
TimidGuy is advised to adhere closely to the reliable sources (medicine) guideline in any edit he makes within the Transcendental Meditation topic.
For conduct unbecoming an administrator, Will Beback is desysopped and may only regain the tools via a new Request for Adminship.
Will Beback is indefinitely topic banned from pages related to new religious movements, broadly construed.
Will Beback is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. After six months, he may appeal his ban to the Arbitration Committee.
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.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Good luck

I can't say we always agreed on things but this is going to be a loss to the pedia. Enjoy the break and consider coming back. --Kumioko (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help and advice in the past. I hope to see you back in six months or so. — Rich wales 04:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

To call this a net loss to the project is putting it mildly. I cannot help believing that you acted in good faith, and I wish there had been a happier outcome. Thank you for all you've done to advance Wikipedia over the years—and that's a lot. We've hardly interacted, but I've appreciated the input you provided on innumerable discussions and have long considered you one of the most principled, level-headed editors around. I hope you'll return someday. Good luck! Rivertorch (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I appreciate all you have done for Wikipedia.

Like all groups of humans, it's not perfect.

I hope you find another place to serve humanity as well. Lentower (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will miss you

At WP, an indefinite block or ban doesn't mean forever. I hope you will consider returning when possible.

Like many others, I would like to thank you for the many positive contributions you have made here. Even at the TM articles, your voice was frequently the only counterbalance to edits that otherwise would not have been as well thought out. That has been a major contribution, one which may even be respected by the pro-TM editors.

While your tone was frequently unduly authoritarian, that may be mitigated by the POV, if not COI editing of the pro-TM editors. Unfortunately, you did not apply the same pro-WP aggressiveness in response to the anti-TM editors, many of whom were far more guilty of POV, name-calling, and looseness with facts than the pro-TM editors. It is strange that proponents of scientific truth should show so much prejudice, and stoop to nasty tactics that the pro-TM editors would have never even considered. I can't believe that the unbelievably poor Ospina/AHRQ meta-study of meditation was allowed as a reference, due only to their consistent tactics of treating all independent studies as equivalent.

Your focus on the pro-TM editors is probably why you have been described as an anti-TM editor, even by me, although you do not see yourself that way. It will be interesting to see what happens now that only polarized editors remain.

Although I am neutral and interested, unfortunately I lack the boldness and thick skin that are required of anyone trying to serve as a counterbalance. I have suggested elsewhere that the TM situation is also a problem of ownership by a group of editors, which can be fixed by blocking or banning all the current editors. This would ensure neutral editing in the near term, allowing the articles to be refactored so as to be readable without extreme factual contradictions pummeling the reader every few sentences. (I'm not copying the whole proposal here, and I'm simplifying.)

At any rate, you're free of having to worry about any of this now, so enjoy moving on to whatever appeals to you. I'm sure you'll find another place where your research and other abilities would be welcomed. I've enjoyed working with you, and I'll miss you. Please feel free to keep in contact with me outside of WP. David Spector (user/talk) 15:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think by now all good editors realize that they're just waiting their turn

Reading over the decision, I still don't see the basis for blocking you for a day, let alone longer. I'm afraid this is not Officially Recognized, but I'll award it anyway:

		The Indefinite Barnstar
		Honoring those who have been indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia for productive, reasonable and well intentioned efforts conducted in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For violating a policy contradiction even ArbCom admits it can't figure out

Wnt (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add this to Will's userpage too if I didn't think that might be considered tendentious at the moment!

-- Maelefique^(talk) 20:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I don't understand why you've been blocked and I think it's a terrible decision. You've been a level-headed, consistent source of reason and balance on the Prem Rawat article for years now. You'll be sorely missed by me (and I'm sure many others) because if it weren't for your talents as an administrator and editor there, the editors of Rawat would have been perpetually in arbitration. Many thanks for all your help and I hope you will be back soon! Best wishes, Cynthia Gracie. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's truly a sad moment to see an absurd indefinite ban placed upon you. You have been greatly helpful to me in several disputes with a few severe vandalism cases, including one which I feel I shouldn't mention here, but it's one you may remember. Frankly, seeing you banned makes me question my own involvement with the project, if this is what editors receive for working in what is one of the toughest and least rewarding areas of Wikipedia to be involved in. Good luck. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what Elektrik Shoos has said, and my experience is similar to his own. This is an unfair block. Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded in recognition of your nearly eight years of service as an editor, your seven years as an administrator, your 130,000 edits, much of them content contributions, and your work on behalf of the Mediation Committee. I very much hope you live up to your user name. SlimVirgin ^{TALK\|CONTRIBS} 00:12, 2 March 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

SV: I couldn't have said it better. – SJ + 08:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you will be back soon

I will never forget the warm words and useful suggestions you gave when you welcomed me to editing this encyclopedia back in 2009. I wish you the very best and hope that you will return to editing soon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May it be a speedy return

I first was introduced to your clear and cogent guidance at Aesthetic Realism where you calmly led a group of partisan editors through the subtler points of policy. Your mantra, to "verifiably summarize" stays with me to this day and I think about it whenever I write an article. Congratulations on your excellent career here, and please do consider returning whenever you think it will benefit you. I know it will benefit the encyclopedia. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 21:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I haven't had much direct interaction with you, I think you and I are aligned in our view of Wikipedia as a secular, unbiased encyclopedia. While I don't know what you provided to Jimbo, it is clear that you are being made an example of to show that Wikipedia is serious about holding its administrators to a higher standard of conduct than other editors. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but I hope you appeal and come back because you obviously have a ton to offer. II | (t - c) 04:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second that sentiment. LK (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...

Will, sorry to see you go and hope that you return soon. — goethean ॐ 15:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Just heard the bad news. What on earth were they thinking? I hope you choose to return despite what happened. Gamaliel (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing

Amazing. You get banned, yet others who abuse twinkle with the itchy vandalisim trigger finger, and have been blocked several times, are allowed to come back and still post here. This is a disgrace and I hope WIKIpedia will reverse their decision, promptly. You are an assett to WIKIPEDIA. One of the good guys. Take care, and hope to see you here soon. NECRAT^{Speak to me} 06:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

It appears that we need to replace some people at WP:Arbcom. Maybe a RfC on if their actions where appropriate and in the best interest of the community / encyclopedia? A "referendum of the people" should take precedence over Arbcom. We need to hold them accountable. This is a sad time for the project. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Chair Barnstar

— The candles you have lit will not wane. WE cannot replace you but will do our best 'till you return. B7

```Buster Seven Talk 07:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Will, you are a fantastic administrator, and despite the fact you were "de-sysoped", you were still a fantastic admin who got a bad rap. Hopefully they will change their minds and revert their decision! NECRAT^{Speak to me} 03:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Will, this ban seems senseless and random. As the Internet has grown more dependent on Wikipedia, control over Wikipedia has become all the more valuable, yet most honest Wikipedians can't hope for any reward for the years they pour into the project. Had the top layers of volunteers at Wikipedia already sold out, I'd expect to see more turns of events like this one. Once this happens (and I don't assert that it hasn't already) Wikipedia will become just another advertisement. BitterGrey (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yow...

Just learned of this, and I'm very sorry to hear. Along with δ, this is the second horrible decision by ArbCom in a very short period. A good admin points out a fringe advocate (paid or unpaid), and the admin winds up banned for it? Since when is that what we do here?

I hope you'll live up to your username in six months, but sure can't blame you if you don't. In any case, thanks for everything so far, and the best of luck to you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a joke

Arbcom- proving Plato was right about democracy, since 2005. Nevard (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure when criticizing Arbcom became justification for a indef ban by arbcom?

I prefer to keep the original on the original page, actually

Per "Tell that to the ArbCom." [12] provided as one of the difs here [13] I though there was some sort of policy against using admin tools for retaliation for comments made against you. --Doc James (talk · contribs·email) 12:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come on.. the more sensible conclusion to draw is that Will failed to coordinate actions on off-wiki forums. Clearly he was the cause of conflict on Wikipedia, because when one intellectually honest person takes a stand for rational debate against many (well.. if is aware that internet crazies must have realized proxies exist, 'many') devious idiots the majority must be right. Nevard (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the punishment doesn't fit the crime. NOT AT ALL. It's like stealing a candy-bar from a grocery store, and being sentenced in jail for 25 years with no chance of parole. Will has a long, very long, history of being helpful, courteous, and level headed. He made a mistake, we're all human, we all do. Arb-Com should have done a temporary suspension of adminship, and maybe a temporary ban. They stepped way outside the lines with the punishment handed down to a good wikipedian. Ban me if you will, but I disagree with the Arb Com decision.NECRAT^{Speak to me} 06:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to argue against your point of view. Well...unless you're sitting at ARBCOM I guess... -- Maelefique^(talk) 07:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, what mistake was that? Stealing a candy bar is, after all, actually morally wrong. Nevard (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, but taking everything into consideration, in reality (not theoretically), would it make a difference to you if it was the Pope or a serial killer that did it (AFAIK, Will is neither), when deciding upon sentencing? My understanding of the mistake was, after boiling away all the cruft around the issue, that Will was a little too enthusiastic about proving another editor's COI, and found some evidence off-wiki that proved he was right. ArbCom felt that it was worth ignoring his previous 8 years of work, adminship, and over 110,000 edits, to strip him of his adminship, and indefinitely ban him because they felt this "outed" the other editor, who had previously stated where he worked, on wiki. I'm not speaking for anyone but me, any factual errors in what I just said are completely mine. --Maelefique^(talk) 21:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please enough with the elevating of Will to sainthood. They are a mere human with a history of being an unusually fighting-oriented editor. It was done cleverly enough (via misusing policies rather than explicitly violating them) to avoid action except it put to them a lot closer to an actionable offense (which apparently occurred, we were not privy to all of the info) and possibly set the groundwork for such occurring. I was often baffled by 100K + edit editors sort of going off course. I concluded that it is due to 3-4 factors, one of them is developing a possee that insulates them from guidance/accountability. That may seem helpful at the moment, but in the big picture this does their friend harm. A really successful reentry (which I hope for ) will include Will changing a bit. Their posse (or Arbcom haters) conferring sainthood during their absence is not really going to help them or that process. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elevated Arbcom to infallibility does not help either. I do not think anyone here is claiming that Will did not make mistakes. I was party to much of the evidence that went around. However the question is does an indef ban of a long term editors with much evidence of contributing positively a good outcome for Wikipedia? Especially when some of the strongest evidence quoted as justification is him writing: "Tell that to the ArbCom." [14] Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 21:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that. I do think that Arbcom sometimes engages in group think, including snowballing to overly harsh penalties. "Group think" can come from Wikipedia upbringing which emphasizes "going along" and de-emphasizes independent analysis and thinking. Nevertheless some action that results in a bit of a course correction with Will is a good thing, which implies and includes Will coming back. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think you can construe my comments as raising Will to sainthood. But if that's your way of saying I think the punishment grossly outweighs the crime, then yes, I can accept that. -- Maelefique^(talk) 23:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was more sort of vaguely talking about this whole page. Wasn't targeted at you, sorry if I seemed otherwise. North8000 (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I unfortunately do not think he will return. I see this more as a learning experience for the movement going forwards. This in not the sort of treatment one would typically give to a person who has spent much of seven years working to write an encyclopedia for free and in good faith.

If one was to throw out this sort of volunteer I would expect to see much better evidence presented than quoting his comment "Tell that to the ArbCom." on Jimmy Wales talk page, or his comments on the state of the "conflict of interest" policy on Sue Gardner's talk page[15]. It is ironic that he predicted his own "banning" a couple of months before it happened.

We spend millions to try to attract new editors, mostly with limited success. I have spend many thousands of my own on similar efforts with equally poor results [16]. We need to reconsider our position of biting long standing editors. I have made comments on Wikipedia which I now regret and no less significant than the evidence provided in this case. The amount of leeway a person is given must be partly tied to the positive contributions they make. We must only consider taking draconian actions against a user if the harm they generate outweighs their benefit. That means all of their edits, in this case 130,000, need to be considered. Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 23:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will also did a lot of damage. But people who do so cleverly never end up subject to measures to correct/ modify that. So the system does need work in both respects. The same person having a record of no such measures and then getting the most severe possible penalty is evidence that some refinement of the system in both respects is in order. Ditto for the fact that I've seen several 100k+ edit prominent editors jump the tracks with no history of any measure to attempt to guide them is also evidence of this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback was not banned for his content contributions, but for harassment of other editors, refusal to accept the outcome of previous dispute resolution by escalating his attacks on another editor, and presenting partial truths without exculpatory evidence of which he either had direct knowledge or was willfully ignorant in order to get Jimbo to ban one of his ideological opponents. His editing was, for the most part, fine. He had threatened to out other editors via email on a number of prior occasions, shared his personal off-wiki OUTING research with non-functionaries, including to you, DocJames, in a message dated Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:40 PM (in my timezone, at any rate) from Will Beback (email known to you and me) to Arbcom-l and multiple addresses believed to belong to TimidGuy; copied to Jimbo, yourself, and another administrator who is identified to the foundation; with a subject line of "TM conflict of interest complaint".

I would like to hear you comment on that email--without further revealing its contents. Since all parties to the case stipulated that it was that information upon which Jimbo initially banned TimidGuy, and upon which the committee started reviewing both the facts of TimidGuy's editing and Will Beback's conduct, I don't think there's much more needing to be said about its content. On the other hand, I do have some questions about that email.

Why did Will Beback copy you? You're not a functionary, not a checkuser. You've edited in the TM area as an editor, which would make you a poor choice for an uninvolved administrator, would it not?
What, if anything, did you do with the information that Will sent to you?
Why have you chosen to omit your direct familiarity with the OUTING and harassment that prompted Will's banning, even though you participated in the case at least to the extent of reviewing problematic edits in the TM area since 2010's TM case?

I think those answers should be much more interesting to the community than one diff in part of one of five findings of fact that led to a serial off-wiki harasser being let go from the project. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens, this is not the place for this, your accusations of further issues seems only one step away from grave dancing here, and in poor taste. -- Maelefique^(talk) 07:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you don't like it Maelefique, but there's no grave-dancing going on here: I think Will's banning is a tragedy, but one mostly brought on by his own unwillingness to say "I was wrong in my understanding of policy, and, even if I had been right, I was wrong to try and use off-wiki investigations against other editors the way I did". Doc James knows--or should have known; he got the email--exactly why Will was banned, and is apparently attempting to publicly recast the reasoning behind the ban. He's done this a couple of times, in other venues, such as Wikipedia:RFC/COI#Views by Jmh649, and the real question is... why? Was Will repeatedly corresponding with Doc James for some as-yet-undisclosed purpose, and, if so, what conclusion should we draw about Doc James' continued advocacy on Will's behalf? Or is Doc James just terrible about remembering emails and poor about following up when Arbcom members (like, oh, me) have responded to his questions before?

But in deference to your objections... where do you think Doc James' own involvement should be discussed, if not in the venues in which he brings up the topic? Did you note that Doc James posted this here, two months ago? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why have I brought this issue up a couple of times (have also brought it up on the Wikimedia listserv by the way)? It is because I consider this to be a very concerning matter. As stated we have spent millions trying to attract editors and I have spoke at a number of Universities attempting to do so. The two who drafted this case where Jclemens and Roger Davies. Jclemens has made clear his position on paid editing here [17] which is in some ways in conflict with that of Will Beback. He than quote Will's position on paid editing to justify this ban. I consider this bad form. Roger Davies the co drafter has a similar position when he states "Finally, how does any of this equate to a greater degree of paid advocacy than, say, Doc James, who is paid a fat salary to cleave to orthodox medicine?" by email. Part of the reason for my commentshere which you quote.

You state "why have you chosen to omit your direct familiarity..." Please read my comments a little earlier where I state "I was party to much of the evidence that went around." Will sent me this information as I was directly involved with this case. Sending concerns regarding someone to the appropriate parties in an off wiki email is not called "outing". With respect to Will I have heard nothing from him for 5 month. I assume that he is not coming back. With respect to Jclemens defense of his position on these matters it simply does not settle the issue at hand. I am simply hoping arbcom does not do this sort of thing again. Anyway something for arbcom to consider and as Cliff recommends I shall get back to doing what we are here for, writing an encyclopedia.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not entirely sure why you received that evidence in the first place, but your acknowledgement that you did is a good step towards openness, and really, I suppose Will Beback is the only one answerable for the improper distribution of his investigation findings. If you think it's proper for one non-functionary involved administrator to unearth the real-life identity of another contributor and then copy it to another non-functionary involved administrator when seeking sanctions on that contributor on the basis of that real life identity... I think you need to reconsider the privacy implications of such an act. Even if such information is not considered OUTING, the act violates at least two parts of WP:CANVASS, by being partisan, biased, and arguably secret. At any rate, it's interesting that Will never asked for you to be added to the case as an involved party, as he did repeatedly for another editor--a request which we declined in order to limit the spread of the allegations.

Given Will's history of such off-wiki contact, I hope you'll excuse my asking the question.

As far as COI goes, I really hadn't thought of it much until this case--we're all agreed that PR professionals astroturfing Wikipedia is a bannable offense, but when Will came, asking that a part time college professor at a religious institution be banned for the sin of being paid primarily in room and board AND writing on the topics covered by that religious institution, it became clear that that level of Javertesque pursuit of COI was poisonous to Wikipedia. My only proposal at the COI RfC was designed as a prelude to preventing such inquests, but appears to be both misunderstood and under-supported: if the COI discussion goes as the virulently anti-commercialists (or whatever you propose to call them) want it to, you will be required to disclose your financial conflict of interest in every article you touch. Some of their proposals would prevent you, a paid physician, from editing any articles on medicine directly, relegating you to the back of the bus--the talk page--just because you are employed in the field. Mind you, that's almost certainly not going to happen, but as an editor of integrity, I am not going to ignore the negative implications of the cases I've helped decide. It would be improper for me to have formed an opinion on the specifics ahead of the case, which I had not. I entered the case expecting to sustain the ban and instead found Will's logic and doggedness in interpreting COI policy was unsustainable, and his positions remain unchanged to this day as far as has been communicated to me.

I agree that the entire evolution was tragic. As far as I can see, Will became so intent on debunking what he believed to be untrue and harmful, that he violated another editor's privacy and misconstrued the policy impact of what he found to achieve that end. What's worse, we turned up a few times when he'd done similar but less severe things during the case, including one that was done during the course of the case!

I really don't begrudge people who can only see Will's good edits hating Arbcom over this; they don't have access to the evidence that you and I do. I was surprised when the ban passed, to be honest, given the difficulty that Arbcom had concluding to ban Betacommand, an editor who also had plenty of good work, but a much, much longer history of troublesome edits and Arbcom and community intervention. Still, the case wasn't primarily about raising the issue to Jimbo, but about doing so in a manner that misconstrued his investigation findings in a way that appeared a calculated retelling of the truth, designed to achieve victory at the expense of both policy and privacy.Jclemens (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally uninvolved here, and really have no idea how I came across this dispute or whatever the proper characterization of it is, and I have no doubt whatsoever that keeping my mouth shut is the smart thing to do, HOWEVER ... if anyone thinks Doc James is "up to anything stinky", I very respectfully suggest you might want to seriously consider having an MRI done of your head, because SOMETHING is amiss. End of argument. Good luck with all this stuff. And James - GET BACK TO EDITING.

With best regards:

Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens, this is not a policy page, it's not a page for discussion of how you think policy should be handled, and it's not a page to spout your opinions of previous events when those involved are not here to refute your claims, this is the wrong place for you to have this conversation. Have you not had enough of a soapbox over at the COI RFC? We all get your position on COI, few agree with it as far as I can tell from reading that page. Again, please take your accusations and beliefs elsewhere. I don't know where that "appropriate place" would be, but I'm quite sure it's not here. -- Maelefique^(talk) 16:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JClemens appears to have thought your posts above and others warranted a reasoned reply, not an "I can oan post allegations here and no one can respond" logic. Or as the saying goes - "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander". Cheers. Collect(talk) 16:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

break

As per the excellent suggestion by Collect (solving the issue of where the appropriate place for this is), this discussion has been moved to JClemen's talk page, here. -- Maelefique^(talk) 16:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an issue of policy. My issue is the diffs that have been used for closing this case. How is "Tell that to the ArbCom." [18] justification for an indef ban? And how does it show "battleground conduct". If the finding of facts do not match the case in question why just add stuff. Anyway the drafters of the case and I may simply have to agree to disagree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was 1/11th of 1/5th of a justification. You want to quibble over less than 2% of the elements of the findings of facts with respect to Will? Fine--a better diff could probably have been used to illustrate that part of that finding, and that specific diff is certainly not particularly as important as the entire conversation between Jimbo and Will in which it appears. Does that change anything about the decision? Not at all, because that diff wasn't a major part of what led the committee to ban him in the first place--just demonstrating a pattern of ongoing behavior, establishing that this was not a one-time issue, but something that had continued over time. Jclemens (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about these two difs on Sue Gardners page [19] and [20]? Or this other one on Jimmy's page [21]? The rest of the evidence is from before arbcom and are examples of Will using Wikipedia dispute resolution mechanisms. I am unsure why this is now "bad". Wasn't there some mention that only evidence after arbcom would be of significance? With respect to "outing" if nothing occurred on Wikipedia is it outing? The user in question did freely give up his affiliations at one point further complicating matters. I do agree that a number of Wills comments that you mention in 6.1 are concerning and might justify an editing restriction (I however have no desire to read the context in which they where made [22]). I am not inclined to do mathematics on this matter however all of 6.3 seems poorly support. In 6.2 you mention both public and private evidence but do not provide the latter. I have seen the private evidence and it is not nearly as bad as some make it out to be and would dispute the fact that it justifies a ban as did a couple of arbcom members. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, in my opinion you probably merited some sanctions yourself for the way you were behaving in the TM topic area. Besides being a recipient of the outing emails, you were the most prolific revert warrior of all the involved editors, including one revert in which your edit summary rationale was, "I liked the other version better"! The way you and Will were treating the "TM editors" was arrogant, condescending, hostile, and adversarial. Do you really not realize that you and Will did anything wrong? Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cla I am also very aware of your position with respect to paid editing and you are probably not the best person to comment on COI. What we are discussing here however is the evidence used to justify and indefinite ban of Will. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, you had ample opportunity to raise objections while the case was in process but instead chose to walk away (two months before the case was closed) after your evidence and claims against Timid Guy turned out to be baseless. Simultaneously, your own neutrality on the topic came into question on the Timid Guy case and evidence demonstrating your repeated use of COI allegations to gain the upper hand in content disputes despite caution from ArbCom were presented. It's also, interesting to find out now, on JClemen's talk page, that you were one of two Admins who Will Beback CC'd when he sent the email to Jimbo that got Timid Guy banned. So you have some deep involvement with Will Beback and the Timid Guy case (Cla68 and I also participated in the Timid Guy case). Maybe there should there be an additional Rfarb to review the edits and behaviors of all involved editors on the topic, (including you and I). In that context, you could present your side of the story and clear the air. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Keith. If the only edit it takes for either you are I to be blocked is stating "Tell that to arbcom" I somehow do not think this would be a good use our time. And this is what we are discussing here. This statement is being used as justification for blocking Will. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, you have seen much, if not most of the private evidence. And, to be honest, most of what you haven't seen was simply Will responding to the committee's questions about how the events evolved while maintaining a personal belief that he had done nothing inappropriate, that he was OK to root out private identities and email them to other folks because it wasn't OUTING unless it was posted on-wiki. It was internally consistent and unapologetic, and I suspect that if it had been less unapologetic, the outcome would have been different... but I can't speak for any other Arbitrator's votes on the sanctions. Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's obvious, or just ironic, that the only editors that have a problem with the situation here today are the ones that have problems with the COI concept in varying ways. Hmmm... -- Maelefique^(talk) 00:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said elsewhere and repeatedly, the problem with this whole case wasn't a COI issue. It was an ideological issue, with an off-wiki investigation, that was then dressed up with past COI disclosures, inferences of varying validities, and presented to Jimbo as if Will had uncovered a Great Conspiracy. Fact is, and Doc James can validate this, that much of Will's evidence to Jimbo was from before the 2010 TM arbcom case (at which point I was not on the committee, FWIW), and that Jimbo was presented these facts with the bits about arbcom's previous intervention in the TM area buried deep in a pretty long email. So no, my take on COI is not germane to the case; the case opened my eyes to how viciously religious minorities were being persecuted by those of a different POV, using the COI policy. I'm always one to defend the rights of religious minorities, even if I have no use for their particular religious beliefs. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the Wikipedia editors here spend some of their time at Wikipedia Review digging up personal details about other Wikipedia editors. The conclusions here it seems has always been to ignore this. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I too am one to defend the rights of religious minorities, just not their right to protray themselves as mainstream science within a facts based encyclopedia. Doc James (talk · contribs email) 14:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an atheist who's usual involvement on religion related articles is to stop this concept that it's OK to POV against or bash religions. Go figure. :-) North8000 (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have experienced around here, the people who want religious articles to look as bad as they can be made to, are usually not atheists but rather believers in opposing God-concepts. (FTR, I am only an atheist where other peoples' paranormal ideas are concerned. I have an abiding affection for my own.) Rumiton (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not the desire to work through all the details of the case but want to say 2 things:

indef ban of WillBeBack will do more harm than good
the case was handled in a way that I wait for the next wikipedia basher to slurp on it with delight - and I must admit I will read it with interest

Richiez (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James, I am curious as to how you define mainstream science. What are the parameters you are applying. I'm afraid there is a misconceptions being perpetuated here.(olive (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

As a thought. In many environments minorities are typically treated badly or even persecuted. Wikipedia is no different, and is one of those environments. I am thankful that there is some recognition that this is the case on Wikipedia, and that at least one arb (I'm sure there are more) is thoughtful enough to recognize the environment many editors have had to work in. TM itself is in fact not a religion, its a mediation technique whose roots come out of a pre religion system, and people of all religions practice the technique. I am a Catholic, actually, but also use the technique. My point is that persecution on Wikipedia is not based on religious difference, but on perceived difference, and lack of understanding, the same old beast that is responsible for bias and bigotry anywhere. What has happened on the TM articles probably happens on other articles as well people being what they are, that is, most of us fear what we don't understand and are in a hurry to get rid of it. I'd suggest that all editors watch out for "vicious persecution" everywhere on Wikipedia, and as always look to the edits for neutrality not perceived motivations based on what we think is true, or what we like.(olive (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hey! - ur contribs 2 WP...

hv bn noticed @ Yahoo News: LINK (in a bar graph showing the monikers of the users with the most edits during the U.S. Pres. Primaries so far to the Wiki blp pertaining to a Republican party candidate).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See you back in September or so

For those of you who might not have noticed, Will was indefinitely banned, yes, but was also told that he could appeal that ban after six months. I think that is in accord with the way ArbCom has dealt with other matters it has counted similar situations in the past. Basically, that means he can appeal the ban in late August or early September, and I seriously hope he does. I don't know about all the details involved, so I won't comment on them, but I believe you have been an extremely valuable editor in contentious subjects. Once in a while, we all screw up, sometimes in a big way. Like I said, I haven't checked the details here myself, so I don't know them. We can and hopefully do deal with similar situations in the future in ways less likely to bring criticism on ourselves.

Anyway, I look forward to adding my request to those of others that your ban be lifted rather soon. I hope you do get a chance to enjoy the admittedly involuntary vacation though. John Carter (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will - Don't know the in's and outs of this but it seems wrong that you, of all people, should be treated thus. I echo the sentiments above that Wikipedia should encourage, not ban, editors like you who have so ably helped keep Wikipedia an advert-free zone. I also would like to add my voice to those who request your ban be lifted soon. PatW (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Maharaj Ji Holy Family photo cropped.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected

I have semi-protected this talk page indefinitely, due to persistent IP vandalism. I will lift the semi-protection (or some other admin is welcome to do so) if/when Will's ban/block is terminated by ArbCom. — Rich wales 03:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@User Richwales. You say "if/when". Is there any news or movement toward termination that you or anyone else watching here is aware of?? Is some kind of formal request required or will one of the Admins initiate re-instating this Important Editor?? Please advise or give a status report if one is available. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will BeBack has to request an unban. My 2 cents: he will probably have to promise that he won't try to reveal personal information of anyone else, and that he will try to avoid interacting with TimidGuy. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 11, 2011 attacks listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect September 11, 2011 attacks. Since you had some involvement with the September 11, 2011 attacks redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Dough 48 72 02:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Hagelin

An article you made considerable contributions to has achieved Good Article status. Thanks for your input on this article. You could display this symbol on your user page which indicates you were a major contributor to the John Hagelin GA status. (olive (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

M. Nicolas Firzli sock?

B.Andersohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#World_Pensions_Council_.2F_M._Nicolas_Firzli_CITESPAM

Possibly related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moorehaus/Archive? ..--Hu12 (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom's refusal to allow Will Beback to return to editing

Rumor has it that arbcom has denied Will's request to return to editing. This decision has been made behind closed door and without community input. Will Beback had concerns regarding conflict of interest editing and his indef ban was partly based on his concerns regarding arbcom's position on these matters [23] per arbcom's own admission here.[24]

IMO the community should have further input on cases that involve those who criticise the functioning of arbcom. Also we should be careful to allow such a small group to decide matter of COI behind closed doors as these matters have a huge potential to effect the future of Wikipedia. I welcome other Wikipedians to come help me draft a RfC here [25] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the newly elected arbitrators was a recipient of the outing emails that Will Beback sent, and I know that you know who that is. Why don't you ask him about it? Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the email which was sent in private to arbcom, Jimmy Wales and a couple of others admins raising concerns of COI? I do not think most within the community would consider private communications to be outing however some on arbcom seem to agree. Might be good to have a RfC on this question at some point aswell. The "I know that you know who that is" bit is a little strange. No I do not know who it is. I do know however that you drafted the case in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"A couple of other admins" being the operative term. Another translation would be "users not identified for the foundation, nor with any responsibility or authority to investigate users' real-world identities". Since you seem to be in communication with Will Beback, I suggest you ask him if you've somehow misplaced his original email and don't remember who else was copied on it. Never made any secret that I contributed to the decision along with Roger, but drafting arbs can't conjure votes for principles, findings, or remedies--that relies on each arb to vote as they see fit. Which, as it seems, banned Will Beback by a vote of 8 to 4. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are not some hierarchical corporate firm here at Wikipedia. You make it sound like the members of arbcom think that they are "better" than the rest of us with "users not identified for the foundation". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No more than admins are better than non-admin users. Are admins set apart with additional authority and conduct expectations? You bet we (you, me, and Will Beback) are... and if you review the decision, that seemed to be the deciding factor in the votes to ban him. Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 8 to 4 vote was over a year ago. What were the voting results of arbcoms most recent decision not to allow Will to return to editing? ```Buster Seven Talk 05:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And why would these positions not be public? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't speak for the current committee, but the general reason was to avoid further humiliating the users who just didn't get why they were banned or refused to agree to abide by behavioral expectations. Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While lets see what the community thinks than rather than just the very small group which makes up arbcom. By the way it is great to see that Wikipedia now states that Transcendental Meditation "slows the aging process" in the elderly. [26] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still would like to know, as would I'm sure others, what were the voting results of arbcoms most recent decision not to allow Will to return to editing? `With ArbCom's recent upheaval it might be good to know how each member voted so that we editors can determine the integrity of the vote. ```Buster Seven Talk 11:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Will wanted a public review, could he have not had someone bring it up publicly? So I would think that any review in private (if such occurred) would have been his choice. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will has requested it be public. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could raise the "come back" question publicly on his behalf? North8000 (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks have done as you suggested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those unfamiliar with the case: WBB was banned for persistent personal attacks, outing, harassment and battleground conduct.[27] The conditions for returning were: 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. [28] We have to assume that WBB was not able to demonstrate to the newly elected committee, who did not ban him, that his "history of disruptive conduct would not continue". My question is do we want to open the door for WBB, and the scores of other ArbCom sanctioned editors, to incite public campaigns to overthrow the judgements of the Committee, whom we elected to make just these kind of tough decisions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was certainly not my intent. I was merely trying to address the fact that (presuming that they have a friend willing to publicly ask Arbcom for them) that the choice of public vs. private was and is inherently in the hands of Will. Arbcom and the Arbcom process (even with their imperfections) is the closest thing that there is to sanity in Wikipedia on general conduct issues and so far I have pretty much supported their determinations. North8000 (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks North. My comments were intended to be general in nature and were not meant to be a direct response to your comment. My apologies if it came out that way. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I should have clarified that I sort of understood that and was just clarifying. From numerous rough interactions with Will, I do believe that a general course correction for Will was needed, and that the semi-mysterious reason for the ban may have been just serendipitous for this. But IMO this is a fellow human being who has also done much good, and if/when they have made a true course change on both they should have a chance. North8000 (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I learned a tremendous amount from Will and viewed his ban as a serious loss. He was always willing to seek neutrality and to do so at the most contentious of articles with a polite but clear style. I hope he can find a way to return. Ocaasi^{t | c} 22:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find him to always be neutral, but we live and learn and my previous comment applies. North8000 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding User:Will Beback

Have started a sort of RfC regarding Arbcom's recent denial to grant Will Beback a return to editing here. I have a number of concerns regarding this decision. One being that it was made without community input and in secrecy and two the evidence to support the original indefinite ban is so weak. Note that I was involved and did see the private evidence in question. It however is interesting to look at the public evidence as quoted by arbcom. Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Will Beback

I have honored the ban for more than one year, during which time I have neither engaged in any ban evasion nor in off-wiki campaigning. I have apologized to TimidGuy, expressed my remorse for my errors, and promised to avoid repeating them. In my appeal, I did challenge some of the findings in the case, which I believe were based on insufficient evidence or misinterpretation of policy. Apparently banned users are not allowed to argue for their innocence and can only admit to total guilt and beg for mercy. The appeal was rejected without explanation, and without even telling me who voted for or against it. I am not sure how the ArbCom processes these appeals, which is done entirely in secret. I have been a constructive editor in the past, and believe that I can be again. Will Beback talk 10:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will. How would you feel if right now I started treating you the way you treated me: hounding me, trying to blackmail me, and accusing me of things I didn't do? Just how would a taste of you medicine go down right now? All this you totally ignored in your above statement. There were others besides TG that were negatively impacted too. What about them? I also see something I think I've never seen before: User:Jmh649/Will Beback, a ban appeal being hosted on a user subpage, but eh. Your ban was from AC and I suggest you appeal to them as an admin unblocking an AC ban without approval would engender its own problems and drama and could well result in that admin losing their bit. Due to our history I will not post in the support/oppose section but will cross post this onto Doc's subpage. PumpkinSky talk 14:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will, haven't seen you since work on Aesthetic Realism back in 2009. Make this simple. Agree to follow the new religious movements topic ban. Acknowledge that you put the COI guideline above the Outing policy, and that it was against consensus to do so at the time. Agree to abide by the Outing policy so long as it remains consensus in its current form. Affirm that you were always trying to do what was best for Wikipedia. Commit to remaining civil and avoiding any on or off-Wikipedia behavior that could be seen as harassment or outing. Agree to seek redress through Wikipedia's native dispute resolution processes (up to and including ArbCom) rather than trying to go around them with backwater appeals to Jimbo. Accept that you're not above the rules and you'll work within the community's policies even if you don't always agree with them. Concede that you'll err on the side of conservatism in 'ignoring rules' at least until you have had the opportunity to reestablish your community standing. Make it your standard operating procedure to focus on the content not the contributor. Do this, and do it soon, so you can get back to work. Ocaasi^{t | c} 18:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget "no trying to blackmail people" PumpkinSky talk 18:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpkin, comments like "How would you feel if right now I started treating you the way you treated me: hounding me, trying to blackmail me, and accusing me of things I didn't do? Just how would a taste of you medicine go down right now?", reflect poorly on you. It's goading someone when you know they can't respond. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's fully capable of responding here on his talk page, where I posted this, so stop the misdirection. Your claim is pure hogwash--he posted that first post here, not someone else. What's poor here is his attempt claim he's made amends to all when he hasn't.PumpkinSky talk 20:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If he responded to what you wrote in the same tone, it would have ramifications on his appeal. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And of course it would not advance or improve anything. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PumpkinSky, you clearly have a lot of pent-up bitterness and resentment against WB — but even if it's totally justified, I really think you would be a lot better off if you could find a way to let go of it and forgive him. If WB isn't reinstated, his past wrongs against you really shouldn't matter anymore. If he does somehow get reinstated and then repeats his old wrongs, I'm sure he'll be gone again soon enough, regardless of whether you continue to harbour ill feelings toward him or not. And if he ends up being reinstated and behaves himself from now on, that should be a sufficient reason for all of us (including you) to let bygones be bygones. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but his attempt to whitewash the low level of his apologies and amends needs to be out in the open, he's making it appear he's made amends to everyone and that simply isn't so. The guy tried to blackmail me and run me off wiki. You can figure out the rest.PumpkinSky talk 00:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have also been a victim of WBB's harassment and threats via email and I empathize with Pumpkin Sky's frustration. WBB has never "apologized to Timid Guy" on WP to the best of my knowledge as he has stated above ( If I am mistaken someone please provide a quote and diff and I'll redact.) Maybe WBB has apologized off Wiki and if that's the case Timid Guy should confirm that for everyone's general information. At the same time I have to say that WBB's general apology today [29] is a step in the right direction and I think if WBB follows the recommendations given by Ocassi above, he will be able to get back to editing soon.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timid Guy has confirmed here that he has not received an apology. Rumiton (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I regret that, in the course of many editorial and administrative actions over several years, I have offended various good faith editors. That was never my intent, and I sincerely apologize for any harm I have caused them." (Emphasis added) — Will Beback, directly below, before the comments from Keithbob and Rumiton. Is TimidGuy not to be considered a good faith editor? Writegeist (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if rhetoric like that is helpful. Apologies are normally made one-on-one and with specifics. Rumiton (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be saying that it would be "normal" for WB to apologize individually to each of however many good faith editors he says he has offended, and that he should provide specific instances of the offences in each case; and that therefore his not doing so is abnormal. Is my understanding correct? It is in fact perfectly "normal" to proffer a general and all-embracing apology for any harm caused to a group of numerous individuals. There are countless precedents. Writegeist (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We, the offended, are not a "group" as Scientologists or Animal Rights people might be, we are individuals with our own history of damage by Will. If Will does not approach us individually, how do we know our individual suffering is covered by his regret, and won't reoccur? Will put a lot of time into damaging a lot of people's ability to edit. He has no alternative now to looking at his actions in each case separately. Rumiton (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made an effort to approach you to discuss your concerns, but you do not wish to correspond by email. Can you tell me which editors you think I need to apologize to, and why? Will Beback talk 01:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #2 from Will Beback

Some of the editors who have participated in the discussion at User:Jmh649/Will Beback have publicly or privately said that they are opposed to allowing me to edit Wikipedia because of my behavior regarding Rlevse/PumpkinSky. I had not mentioned him or any other editors because the case that led to my ban only concerned TimidGuy. I regret that, in the course of many editorial and administrative actions over several years, I have offended various good faith editors. That was never my intent, and I sincerely apologize for any harm I have caused them.

There are questions regarding what is or should be public or private about the case or the appeal. No one from the ArbCom gave any indication that a public hearing was possible. In fact, no information about how the appeal would be dealt with was forthcoming. I was just told it would be reviewed, and then weeks later I was told it had been rejected. The instructions at WP:ARBCOM#BASC, which I followed, does not mention public hearings. I would be happy for any of my statements t the ArbCom to be made public.

Various Arbitration members appear to have made conflicting statements about the "real" reason for my ban. Since the committee won't say why the appeal was rejected, I am left unsure what further response they are looking for beyond the statements I've already made.

Being away from Wikipedia for a year has given me a different perspective, and I would not edit the same as I did before. I am simply looking for a second chance. Will Beback talk 00:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting that Will. Based on what you've said, as I haven't heard AC's side of this, I'd have to agree at this point that they should have been more forthcoming with info with your appeal. Having been on all sides of this fence myself, I can understand both sides. I will attempt very hard to stay out of this and leave it to the community. PumpkinSky talk 01:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck to you both. I can understand what you are feeling. --evrik ^(talk) 05:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #3 from Will Beback

(Sent by email)

In the course of public and private statements during the original appeal of TimidGuy's ban, I made repeated apologies for my behavior towards TimidGuy. However none were as direct as they could have been, and some may have been made without having been addressed to you, It is proper that I give a full, clear, public apology.

I was wrong to have pursued the conflict of interest allegations against you to the point of using Google to search for information about the nature of your employment. Even if you had been a paid advocate, as I believed, I should not have tried to prove that in order to get you sanctioned. I sincerely regret any distress that my words or actions have caused you and I apologize for my conduct.

Because of this case I have come to realize that I have been overzealous in approaching COI issues. I commit to never again make a COI allegation against another editor on Wikipedia.

Sincerely, Will Beback 20:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really positive affirmation of your reflections on the past Will, and your constructive intentions for future engagement. I'm personally quite pleased to see it. Ocaasi^{t | c} 18:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statements from Will Beback

A reply to SilkTork

This is a reply to SilkTork's posting.[30]

I have already given my thinking behind why I opposed the initial appeal at the discussion linked above. We then had another discussion regarding Will, and this is some of what I said during that discussion: "My situation is that we heard the appeal, and we declined it. Will has since then been agitating both individual members of the Committee and other people by email to get the appeal in his favour. That behaviour, where he ignores consensus and continues to agitate, especially behind the scenes, is at the core of the issue I have with him....

My questions about why the appeal was denied and how I can make a successful appeal are characterized by ST as "agitation". The original appeal was rejected without any explanation whatsoever. On Wikipedia, trying to change a consensus is not the same thing as igonoring a consensus. I don't know how ST would like me to communicate other than email, as that is what the BASC instructions require. No one on the ArbCom has suggested any other, more public, way of communicating with the committee.

Aggressive point pushers who ignore consensus and work behind the scenes are damaging to any community, and particularly the Wikipedia community where decisions can be made quickly by a handful of users who each are unaware that they have been individually manipulated in secret....

All of the appeal process has been secretive and behind the scenes. I cannot even get basic information, such as who voted to deny the appeal. (I was told there was a vote, but now Carcharoth writes above that there was never even a vote - so it's very unclear what the procedure is for handling appeals.) As a banned user, I have no way of communicating with the ArbCom or other community members other than email or posting to my talk page. I am not aware of any decisions in this matter which have been made quickly by a handful of users.

That [he] is also quibbling over a finding that he engaged in battleground behaviour is a concern, because what he did is the most extreme example of battleground that I have encountered.

The case listed 11 examples of my battleground behavior: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. I assume that the case was carefully drafted and so those are the best examples available. However I do not see how they demonstrate extreme battleground behavior. Most of them date back several years, and some involve threads in which I made minimal contributions. ST seems to consider my questions about this evidence as proof of my guilt and cluelessness.

Does anyone else know of a user who sought out private information, and assembled that information into a misleading allegation which he presents in private to Jimbo in order to get that user banned, purely because he disagreed with the user's efforts to move his own POV edits to a more neutral stance. Accusations of COI was simply the weapon he used, and asking him to put that weapon down doesn't mean he won't pick up a different one.

The information was submitted privately because it involved personaly identifiable information. It was presented to Jimbo, to the ArbCom, and to TG at the same time. At the time, no one on the ArbCom objected to it. Any errors in the submission were unintentional and were not an attempt to mislead Wales or the ArbCom.

Until Will clearly understands what he did (and at the moment he appears to be a long way away from that), I cannot vote to let him back in, even with restrictions on editing NRM articles. Until he understands what he did I cannot trust him not to engage in similar behaviour - his email agitation during this appeal underscores that he is quite capable of doing it again. I also think it might be helpful if we make it clearer to people what he did - I think there is still a lack of understanding of the case, and there are people who simply saw an experienced and civil admin desysopped and banned for some minor content dispute." In response to an enquiry from a Committee member who didn't take part in the ArbCom case where Will was banned, I said: "WBB and TG were editing Transcendental Meditation articles. WBB was adding unsourced negative comments to those articles. TG was moving the articles to a sourced neutral position. They entered into a dispute. WBB attempted to discredit both TG's editing and TG himself.

This is a gross mischaracterization which is contrary to the facts. I got involved in the TM articles in response to repeated COIN postings complaining about editing by TG and others. My concern about his COI predated any significant involvement in the topic. No one has presented any evidence that I added unsourced negative comments or that TG was making the TM articles more neutral. No particular content dispute was identified in the ArbCom case. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal

After not getting support for his discrediting of TG. WBB "accidently" found some personal information on TG. He then found out more and more information, and put that information together in secret and presented it to Jimbo as evidence of paid advocacy, so Jimbo banned him. The COI and paid advocacy were the weapons WBB used to remove TG from the TM articles in order to assert his negative view of that movement. This was extreme battleground behaviour.

The information on TG's apparent COI was found by me accidentally, but it was almost unavoidable to anyone doing research on the topic because of the nature of TG's involvement in the organization. ST does not identify any negative material I was trying to add which TG was opposing. I made no special effort to discredit TG as an editor, other than his specific COI issue and a general problem with some editors of the TM topic.[42]

His appeal does not address that at all. His appeal misses the point, and focuses on the weapons he used, rather than why he used them. We can take away these weapons, but if he doesn't understand what he did wrong, then he can pick up different weapons. He appears to have a mind set where he firmly believes that he is right. It is possible that he genuinely believes his POV on TM is the right one, and that TG was a paid advocate. He may have been motivated for the "right" reasons. The problem, I see, is that until he recognises that he was engaged in battleground behaviour, he will do it again.

There is no evidence that I engaged in POV pushing on TM articles. ST himself granted GA status to an article on a TM-related article which I largely rewrote.[43]

To put a scenario to you: [Suppose] you are a lawyer. You come upon the Wikipedia article on lawyers. You note some negative unsourced information in the article: "Lawyers deliberately falsify the hours they work in order to charge more money". You start to improve the article to make it more neutral and factual. WBB starts edit warring with you. You enter into reasonable discussion with him. He attempts to discredit you. Then one day you wake up and find that without prior discussion you have been banned from Wikipedia by Jimbo Wales. When you appeal, it turns out that WBB has been searching for information on you, and found out where you work, went to school, what friends you have, who you play tennis with, and notes that you are a lawyer. He secretly writes to Jimbo Wales claiming that you are a paid advocate.

This scenario is not based on any actual evidence. There was no allegation of edit warring. TG published many details of his private and professional life on Wikipedia, although he omitted the nature of his work for the TM organization. Again, I did not write "secretly" write to Wales - my communication included TG and the ArbCom. TG had the opportunity to respond to every allegation before Wales decided to impose a ban.

The concern I have is that if we let WBB back without him acknowledging that he deliberately (even if unconsciously) went after TG, then such a scenario might occur again, though along different lines. WBB works through back channels, and he is very plausible and persuasive. You don't see WBB blocking TG. He gets Jimbo to ban him, out of sight. He has been manipulating matters backstage and out of sight during this appeal. We are becoming aware that he has been in contact individually with several Committee members, and with other users in regard to his appeal."

Is it a violation of some Wikipedia rule for a banned user to contact ArbCom members in order to ask why an appeal was rejected or how it could succeed? How is that manipulative? I invite ST to publish any emails of mine to the ArbCom or to individual members which show evidence of attempts to improperly manipulate the committee. As for "going after" TG, I have acknowledged my error in focusing excessively on his COI, have apologized to him for it, and have committed to never "go after" another editor because of COI concerns.

General comment:

When TG appealed his ban, the matter was handled publicly according to normal arbitration procedures. When I appealed my ban, it was handled secretly without any open review of the evidence, any vote, or any explanation of the outcome. In on- and off-Wiki comments since the ban was placed, individual committee members have presented varying reasons for it, some of which do not seem to be based on the facts of the case. The lack of transparent process and the conflicting justifications make it difficult for me to understand how to ever get the ban lifted.

For more than seven years, and across over 100,000 edits, I contributed to making Wikipedia a better reference work. I would like to return to editing. I have tried to make amends for my errors and to apologize to the individuals I may have discomforted. I have honored the ban and will honor any restrictions placed on my future editing. Will Beback talk 20:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A reply to AGK

This is a reply to AGK's posting.[44]

While I agree that it may appear so, I would nonetheless respond that Will was banned essentially because he went to great lengths to hide what he was doing to TimidGuy from the Wikipedia community.

This is the first time I've heard this version: that I was banned because I went to "great lengths to hide what I was doing to TimidGuy." I had repeatedly asked AGK for feedback on the appeal and he never mentioned this. It isn't in the case that led to my ban. Since the matter involved personally identifiable issues, there was never any way of handling it all publicly. Numerous issues are routinely sent directly to the ArbCom via email without any public discussion. The ArbCom discussed the case in the email threads I was privy to, and there were some conflicting opinions about whether the matter should be handled on or off-Wiki. I had asked for advice from user:Atama, who suggested it should be dealt with off-Wiki.[45] The ArbCom, Jimmy Wales, or TimidGuy himself all could have made some sort of reference to it on-Wiki if they chose to. I made no effort, much less "great lengths", to prevent it from being handled or discussed on-Wiki. I'd request that AGK explain what actions of mine he is referring to.

Will's modus is to do the sort of things he did to TimidGuy out of sight and where it cannot be detected or stopped.

The TG matter was not out of sight of the ArbCom. I am not aware of any allegations of other activities that I have done out of sight. I request that AGK please substantiate this accusation.

I would also make the general point that the problem I see is not with Will's contributions to psuedoscience or religion, nor with any other particular topic area, but with his approach to controversial topics and to dealing with other editors.

Again, this is the first time any ArbCom member has suggested that this is why I was banned. The case which led to my ban did not include any findings of general problems with my editing, or even with my editing of the TM topic. This is another unsubstantiated accusation.

As I wrote elsewhere, individual ArbCom members each seem to have their own, often conflicting views of the "real" reason I was banned, many of which do not seem to be based on the facts presented in the arbitration case. Will Beback talk 22:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jclemens

WBB--I don't know if you ever saw it but somewhere JClemens posted a list of things not to do if one doesn't want to be banned. It was a list of things you did or allegedly did and IIRC it was right after you got banned. I can't recall the page. Perhaps he can find the post. I will post a link on his page to here and maybe he can remember where it was. PumpkinSky talk 23:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, user:Jclemens posted extensively about the case.[46][47][48] His explanations for the "real" reason I was banned seem to be yet again different from those offered by SilkTork, AGK, or Roger Davies, and likewise do not appear to be grounded in the facts or findings of the case. Will Beback talk 23:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ORLY? I am not so certain of the claim you just made as This is the JClemens post I was talking about and I know that at a minimum he's spot on with 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6.PumpkinSky talk 23:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the different views of why you were banned, see Rashomon PumpkinSky talk 23:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see many diffs or evidence or policy citations to support his assertions. They are largely unconnected to the findings of the case. I am not saying that I am blameless. We all have our faults and we all have made mistakes. But in 2013, the issues are how appeals are handled, why this appeal was rejected, by whom, and how or if it is possible to ever get the ban lifted. In that regard, Jclemens' statements are less relevant since he did not participate in hearing my appeal. Will Beback talk 00:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, Jclemens, and Silk Tork have all been informed of their respective threads. — Ched : ? 00:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

What's going on here? Will is fully capable of managing his own talk page. Why are other editors hatting discussions and playing with transclusion games? This needs to stop. — Ched : ? 02:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is standard procedure when there is a discussion in which a banned or blocked editor can only comment on an enforcement matter on their talk page. Without the temporary hats, the entire talk page gets transcluded. Fladrif (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Will, I noticed that for everything that people have objected to you have offered a public apology. Now I first interacted with you regarding a User:BarkingMoon account. I said at the time that I thought there were some unfair assumptions. Although the BarkingMoon chose to leave rather than engage in any discord, I wonder if you would be willing to offer a public apology to that user? — Ched : ? 02:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why or by what authority Fladrif is removing or hiding the contents of WBB's talk page, but I have reverted it and reported my reversion to WP:AN. I'll let them decide if this is appropriate or not. Dreadstar ☥ 02:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved by copying instead of transclusion. Dreadstar ☥ 14:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No more emails

Will, please don't email me anymore. PumpkinSky talk 22:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this only email I've sent to PumpkinSky since February 2012, which is in response to his posting on this talk page.):[49] (He emailed me out of the blue in August 2012).

Jclemens wrote:

Finally, don't email other editors and threaten to expose their identities when you're currently involved in a case based on your... wait for it... exposing other editors' identities. Even if they're disgraced former functionaries editing without benefit of a legitimate clean start, they can still email your message to us. This one you can't really deduce from the findings, because it happened so late in the case and didn't factor publicly into anyone's decision-making, but if I were a betting man, I would bet that the message did nothing positive to garner sympathy to Will's side from the last few committee members who sealed the ban.

His comment would appear to refer to you. Did I ever threaten to expose your identity? I did write to you that if you returned then some issues which were dropped because of your RTV would need to be resurrected. I meant it as a warning, and apparently you saw it as attempted blackmail. Either way, I don't recall that it involved your identity. Am I misremembering?

I sent it last night. Will Beback talk 00:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently an email which PumpkinSky considers an attempt to "manipulate things offline".[50] Note that it was sent after the accusations of off-line manipulation were posted by AGK.[51] Again, I invite anyone with evidence of my alleged offline manipulations to post them on-Wiki. If there is no evidence then the charges, which otherwise amount to personal attacks,[52] should be withdrawn. Will Beback talk 00:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want any more e-mails either, Will. I won't reply that way because it would send you my name and e-mail address. If you don't understand why that isn't desirable to me, you may have missed some of the significance of your case. Rumiton (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this is the email I sent to Rumiton last night.

You've made many posts regarding my appeal, several of which concern your view that I owe apologies to editors. Could you clarify for me which editors those are, and why I should apologize to them?

It was in response to a number of comments he has made. Regarding his last comment, I am not aware of any findings in my case regarding emails. Will Beback talk 01:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes probably best to have all conversations with other editors on your talk page. A little hard as you cannot post on their talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Will you could post what you sent to Pumpkin for everyone to see. Just would need to make sure that none of his responses if any were posted. By the way I had not received an email from Will for the entire year of his ban. I did email him when the year was up to see if he was interested in returning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted my email to PumpkinSky above. I am at a loss as to what off-line manipulative activities AGK believes that I have committed. No one from the ArbCom has shared with me any evidence of such behavior. Will Beback talk 01:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People may wish to note that NuclearWarfare has requested that possibly relevant e-mail should be submitted to ArbCom, who "will take measures to ensure the authenticity of the information before acting on it." As for the two messages reported above, I personally don't see anything threatening or manipulative in either of them — though I think I can see how someone might have misinterpreted what WBB was saying (a common risk when people try to express themselves in a print medium such as e-mail or talk page postings). — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Will

Hi Will,

I am the kind of editor who prefers to avoid drama, so I am not here to get involved in deep analysis of your situation, either as advocate or critic. As I see it, you have made apologies and admitted mistakes. Others can pick apart and shred your words, and rehash the past. Maybe something useful will come of that, and maybe not.

I am here for another purpose, to say "hello", to thank you for all the positive things you've done for this encyclopedia, and also to thank any of your critics who read my words for all that they have done toward the same goal. When I started here in 2009, you greeted me, recognized that I might have something positive to contribute, and gave me some excellent advice. I remain grateful.

I hope that a way can be found to allow you to return to productive editing here. Whichever way it goes, I wish you the best, and think of you as a friend, though we have never met. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will:

Welcome back. I hope you and the community can move beyond the last year plus, AND everyone can, instead, put that time into productive editing of the encyclopedia. Lentower (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look very likely. Discussion is ongoing here [53]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maharaji Royal Albert Hall-cropped.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

File:Maharaji Royal Albert Hall-cropped.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 10:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request

I have filed a request for clarification of ArbCom's decline of Will Beback's ban appeal. The clarification request is here. You are being notified as you recently participated in discussion of this ban appeal. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for public rehearing

I have made public and private apologies for my past behavior,[54][55][56] and committed to not repeating the same mistakes. Despite that, my appeal was denied without explanation or indication of how the committee voted. Since then I have seen various, sometimes conflicting reasons for the denial, or the initial ban, and unclear statements as to whether or not the committee even voted on my appeal. For those reasons, I am requesting a public rehearing of my appeal to my ban which resulted from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal. This is per the invitation of Roger Davies.[57] Will Beback talk 02:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom positions regarding Will's appeal

There is a list of arbcom members position's to Will's appeal here User:Jmh649/Will_Beback#Arbcom_positions. It appears that 3 to 6 members opposed, 2 supported, and 5 did not weigh in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think many would take issue with results cited above which appear conveniently skewed as were the the psuedo RfC results where many Oppose votes (including mine) were mis-characterized as neutral. I have no problem with WBB coming back but he should apply through normal channels and respect ArbCom and its processes including its rejection of his appeal and the standard instruction to re-apply in 6 months. In the meantime, the campaign to disregard process and condemn ArbCom is not helping WBB, in my opinion, and only serves to further divide and disrupt the community. In the meantime I wish Will Beback well and hope that he has found good use for his non-Wiki time and productive ways to further his life goals and aspirations. Peace. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This are arbcom positions I am quoting rather than that of the community. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the next request to cancel the ban will be successful. Andries (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need your input on Los Angeles

Well, we still need your input on Los Angeles articles. Can you post on talk pages, or are you forbidden to do that as well? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only allowed to post on his talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to take part in a survey

Hi there. I would very much appreciate it if you could spend ~2 minutes and take a short survey - a project trying to understand why the most active Wikipedia contributors (such as yourself) may reduce their activity, or retire. I sent you an email with details, if you did not get it please send me a wikiemail, so that I can send you an email with the survey questions. I would very much appreciate your cooperation, as you are among the most active Wikipedia editors who show a pattern of reduced activity, and thus your response would be extremely valuable. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User in question was indefinitely blocked by arbcom. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Will Beback. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thinking you were right about Heather Mac Donald

I realize we tussled about this article, but I am coming around to thinking that you were right about its general direction, when we debated on its talk page a few years ago. I've tried to fix it along the lines you suggested and which I see are right, although it still leans a bit too much to one side, but I think I know how to fix that too. Sorry you got banned; don't understand the circumstances but I hope you are back here someday.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom is still all over the map

The problem here is that ArbCom has two different policies on outing: there are worthy victims and unworthy victims. It seems like no one can predict which any given editor will turn out to be. Go after an unworthy victim, and they will be disgraced if not outright banned from the project; go after a worthy victim, and you will be banned.

So on one side we have Will Beback's case, and the case of Phil Sandifer, in which editors were banned for bringing up personal information about other editors.

On the other side, we have the Fae case, where ArbCom banned Fae for complaining that editors were bringing up personal information about him (when there wasn't even any COI reason for them to do so), and admins ignore a seemingly endless succession of name-and-shame events on User talk:Jimbo Wales, which I believe ArbCom reads, in which people to this day are put through the wringer for such things as writing some basic information about a CC-licensed font they created to help Wikipedia be more accessible.

ArbCom has a duty to the community to explain itself, to provide a better idea of what (if anything) it feels the proper balance between outing and COI really is, and to stop using the most severe and permanent sanctions it can muster so haphazardly, yet with such persistence against individual editors. Even if they have some kind of juicy non-public evidence they've been basing some of these decisions on, we need to hear them say very clearly that is the sole basis of the decisions, rather than leading us to think that they are ruling so inconsistently on an irrelevant principle. Wnt (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think that sums it up. They are ruling inconsistently. But then again the community is all over the map on the issue as well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. But I feel that if ArbCom has a purpose at all, it is to reduce the randomness of community interpretations of policy by deciding on a carefully reasoned interpretation. And I would expect this interpretation to be parsimonious - in other words, if the community is unclear, they should avoid harsh and long-term responses whenever lesser restrictions are, or might be, sufficient to halt the problematic behavior. Wnt (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you are gone

Hi Will, we crossed paths on a number of spiritual and religious topic pages.... so sorry to hear that your request to be allowed to edit wikipedia again have been denied. You were the single most helpful editor I ever came across and whenever you showed up to a debate or challenging issue, I would breathe a sigh of relief. Hope you are well. Warmly, Sethie (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]