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

Case Opened on 09:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Case Closed on 00:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Amended by motion on 02:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

• TimidGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Will Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Jimbo Wales[1]
• Will Beback[2]

• Transcendental Meditation Arbitration[3]
• Arbitration clarification[4]

I am appealing an indefinite ban from Wikipedia by Jimmy Wales. Will Beback accused me of conflict of interest via private email to Jimmy and Arbcom and two other Wikipedia editors on September 8. The email included alleged personal information and a number of demonstrable falsehoods and misrepresentations. Jimmy immediately banned me from all participation in Wikipedia due to my alleged conflict of interest.

The ban was immediate and abrupt, without my being invited to respond, so Jimmy agreed to hear my comments and opened a discussion via email, saying he would investigate the matter. On September 20 he characterized the ban as a “temporary injunction” while he investigated the case. On September 30, in response to my inquiry, he indicated he was going to spend an hour that day and several hours the next day investigating and then would get back to me. On October 12, in response to my inquiry, he kindly apologized for taking so long and said he would be finished with his research within a week.

I’ve not heard from him since. Since Jimmy is obviously very busy and hasn’t followed up with his investigation, I request that Arbcom take this case and examine the matter.

It is my contention that my editing behavior is not in violation of WP:COI. In particular, the ban seems unwarranted given that Arbcom addressed this issue in the TM Arbcom decision of June 2010, saying that an editor with a relationship to the organization isn’t prohibited from editing as long as he or she adheres to Wikipedia policies.[5] The issue was addressed again in a recent RfArb clarification that opened on August 26 and was archived September 12. Seven members of the committee responded, saying that COI isn’t itself sufficient basis for sanction and that it depends on whether edits themselves comply with Wikipedia policies.[6]

Since it is impossible to respond without discussing TimidGuy's RL identity and job, I have sent my response to the ArbCom by email.

Further, I think it is inequitable for TimidGuy to deny having a COI on-Wiki yet forbid any honest discussion of that COI. If he does not want his COI discussed here then he should not raise the issue here.

@Risker: I think this case needs to be heard in one place, off or on-Wiki. If TimidGuy denies publicly having a COI then we should address that publicly. If he wants to handle this privately then we should handle it privately. One or the other.

I have previously sent extensive material to the ArbCom regarding TimidGuy's editing. If it wishes to have some of those posted publicly then I'd ask members to work with me off-line to decide which can be made public.

The ArbCom needs to clarify whether a professional public relations officer may edit the topic where they have a conflict of interest without disclosing their role, and whether exclusively promoting one POV in a COI topic is consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This came up recently regarding Bell Pottinger, and has come up in the past regarding other PR editors.

I won't quote Jimbo Wales verbatim, but he banned TimidGuy for being a paid advocate and for being dishonest about it. Does TimidGuy dispute that he has been a paid advocate for the TM movement or that he has been dishonest about that role?

@ SirFozzie: To repeat, TimidGuy was banned because he was found to be a paid advocate and to have been dishonest about it. I don't see how anything concerning the first issue can be discussed on-Wiki. OTOH, we can address on-Wiki whether he has been honest about that. (that should be fairly simple to establish.) But first, the Arbcom really needs to clarify if it agrees with Jimmy Wales that undisclosed paid advocacy is permissible. I suggest that it should do so at the outset, as it'll save everyone a lot of time and energy.

@Jclemens: As for outing, I have done nothing of the kind. Paid editing may not be forbidden, but paid advocacy is. See WP:NOT. There are precedents for dealing firmly with paid corporate shills. See Bell Pottinger, and before that the Wikiscanner revelations. The possibility that the ArbCom might condone such behavior, especially when conducted deceptively, is worrisome. Even more so when paired with a threat to ban a whistleblower.

In the Bell Pottinger matter, a just-resigned ArbCom member posted this thread on ANI

• As you may be aware, the PR firm Bell Pottinger have been caught editing articles on behalf of their clients. Following an investigation led by Jimmy Wales, and with assistance from WilliamH (talk · contribs), Keegan (talk · contribs), Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs) and Panyd (talk · contribs), we have identified at least 10 accounts belonging to Bell Pottinger, only two of which are particularly active (100+ edits). Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive731#Bell Pottinger

In connection with this thorough outing:

• Wikipedia:Bell Pottinger COI Investigations

I have not seen any complaints about this outing of paid advocates, nor any suggestions that we should ban the editors who engaged in the outing. It would be helpful if the ArbCom could give guidance on when it's appropriate to uncover paid advocates and when it isn't.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Unless TimidGuy is willing to waive privacy of identity, I take it that this case will be held offwiki? NW (Talk) 19:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Because this involves (supposed) personal information (as cited by Will and Jimbo in the reasoning for the block), this may not be ripe for a public case, although if that part of the case was proven/not proven, the edits could be looked at to see if they do in fact comply with Wikipedia's norms and policies. I have a feeling this is going to have to be accepted (just because this is a follow up to a previous case, and the fact that this is a highly charged area.), but I'll wait for further statements to accept or decline/formally. SirFozzie (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Will: While there's a portion that has to be held privately due to supposed RL information, I see no reason the entire case should be moved off-wiki. We will have to segregate information of course, information given such as names, jobs etcetera fall under the requisite policies and are not suitable for posting, but one element of a public case is that it avoids the "out of sight, out of mind" issue that may have been a factor with Jimbo's review of the appeal here.This is a case where the community has a legitimate interest in reviewing/contributing, and if need be, holding our feet to the fire. SirFozzie (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit: While I'm thinking of it.. please all, be VERY careful with your statements and comments here. I see some statements in this request that come very close to violating the OUTING rules. Focus on the edits here, and why they're a problem SHOULD a COI be established. Stuff that would only be useful in establishing a COI, that is, dealing with a supposed real-world identity and or job, should be submitted privately to the Committee only. If need be, the Committee will direct clerks to remove statements that fall afoul of this request. I am formally switching my vote to Accept, not that it matters with the case due to open shortly SirFozzie (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
      • @Will (x2) Will: Jimbo stated as part of his action that he had found TimidGuy to be a paid advocate, however, TG appealed that, and Jimbo did not respond. The Committee has made no decision either way. We have the evidence you've provided us, and will decide if we as a Committee agree, but that will be part of the case. I've said it above, Risker has said it below. Other then the private evidence you've sent us, we need to see edits that are problematic, which is why we've accepted this case (amongst other issues that need to be handled here). As always, the behavior of all parties will be reviewed by the Committee as part of its review of the case before us. SirFozzie (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept. First, this is an extension of a matter already heard by the Committee. Secondly, the ban was premised on personal and private information, and the Committee will probably have to address this aspect of the matter off-wiki. Risker (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to parties: It would be helpful if diffs were provided that show problematic editing by TimidGuy (promotional, removed negative material, concealed the use of non-independent sources etc etc). While some of the information may need to stay off-wiki, evidence of editing outside of accepted policy should be identifiable in the article histories, which are public and can be posted on-wiki. Risker (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept per Risker. Jclemens (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason we're going to hold this on-Wiki is that we can stipulate to the private evidence, and then reason through the principles on-wiki. Remember, neither paid editing, having an undisclosed POV, nor being paid AND having an undisclosed POV is documented as against policy anywhere other than a Jimbo pronouncement. WP:OUTING, on the other hand, is bannable. Thus, while it's entirely improbable based on what evidence I've seen so far, it's entirely possible that Will will be sanctioned and TG unbanned. If this were an open-and-shut case, we wouldn't be here now. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. PhilKnight (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. — Coren ^(talk) 16:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept: The only way to examine this properly is to hear the whole case. Apart from anything else, it raises several issues of community importance, namely:
  • the extent to which the longstanding principle of speaking of edits, not of editors, should be set aside for purported conflicts of interest;
  • the extent to which invasive investigation is permissible;
  • the extent to which Jimmy (to expand on the point raised by JClemens above} may develop policy by fiat;
  • whether Jimmy retains the authority to issue bans of his own volition; and
  • whether a purported COI lowers the threshold at which sanctions may be triggered.
  The objective should be to hear the bulk of the case in public, with only those matters directly related to privacy being heard in private.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. If TG's edits were notably POV, to the extent of being disruptive, it may not be necessary to establish whether or not he is the Pooh Bah of whatever - on the other hand, if someone is the Pooh Bah of whatever but edits with strict neutrality, that should not be a problem for the encyclopaedia either.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Passed 14 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 12 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 14 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 12 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 14 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 14 to 1, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 12 to 0, with 1 abstention 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 13 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 14 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 14 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 14 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 14 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 13 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 14 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 14 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 13 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 14 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 14 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 13 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 12 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

5.1) On 30 August 2011, Will Beback participated in a discussion on Jimmy Wales's talk page about paid editing: [7], [8], [9]. He subsequently emailed Jimmy Wales, on 2 September 2011, copying the committee and others, making various allegations in respect of TimidGuy. Will Beback followed this up, on 8 September 2011, with more detailed allegations. Very shortly afterwards, Jimmy Wales responded by email, site-banning TimidGuy from the English Wikipedia.

Passed 14 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

5.2a) Analyses by arbitrators of TimidGuy's edits since October 2010, when the two-month topic ban elapsed, do not appear to have detected any significant systemic concerns or apparent advocacy.[10],[11]

Passed 13 to 0, with 1 abstention 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 12 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 13 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 14 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 13 to 0, with 1 abstention 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

6.1) In apparent violation of the "No Personal Attacks" policy, Will Beback has persistently dwelt on editors' affiliations and has seemingly used the "affiliations [of others] as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". (Extract from "What is considered to be a personal attack?") Examples: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]

Passed 11 to 1, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 11 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 11 to 1, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

1.1) Jimbo Wales' ban of TimidGuy is vacated.

Passed 13 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 13 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Passed 11 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 11 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 8 to 4, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Passed 13 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, suspended Will Beback's ("WBB") site-ban on the following terms:

Passed 11 to 2, at 02:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

• User:Will Beback blocked indefinitely at 00:57, 27 February 2012 by User:AlexandrDmitri per Will Beback: banned
• User:Will Beback's talk page access revoked at 14:55, 6 March 2014 by User:AGK due to ongoing talk page misuse and per these policies.