Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-27/Arbitration report

Discuss this story

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 seems like a heavy handed approach towards Will Beback. How can he demonstrate that he will behave like a good boy, when he is kicked off Wikipedia? It looks like an impossible condition! In my opinion, a ban of 1 or 2 years would have been better. This ruling also shows that is should be easier for the Community and the ArbCom, to desysop an admin after two admonishments. Reading it from the sideline, I get the idea that the case was not escalated that far when he was desysopped after the second admonishment and subsequent ban. Night of the Big Wind _talk 04:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom thinks that the information WBB sent to Jimbo, which resulted in the origianl bannig of Timid, is "unsupported" and "inaccurate" per wording. The most damning part is actually the Arbcom thinks WBB possibly wilfully "misled Jimbo into a ban not supported by the totality of the evidence" (per wording of an arbitrator, in proposed decision page). In real life this would amount to perjury. SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I meean Obstruction of justice. My mistake. SYSS Mouse (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, amazing that Will Beback was banned. ArbCom is trying to send a message that admins are held to a higher standard than regular editors, and Will Beback is the example. Which is not, in my opinion, necessarily a bad thing. II | (t - c)