TimidGuy is appealing his ban, which was executed by Jimbo in a GodKingly fashion at the request of Will Beback, who sent Jimbo a private email in which he alleged that TG was a paid advocate for the Transcendental Meditators. This situation raises numerous questions.

1. TG and WB have been going at if for a while as WP:ADVOCATES on opposing sides of the Transcendental Meditation issue. For argument's sake, let's assume that Will's allegations are correct, and TG is a paid advocate for TM. Does that make his editing more disruptive than that of Will, acting as an unpaid advocate against TM? Will's fanaticism on the topic is well known, and that fact that he is presumably doing it without compensation makes him possibly the more disruptive of the two, because he is so consumed with zeal to expose and discredit the meditators (misusing Wikipedia as a soapbox for that purpose), that he does it for free.

2. If Will has in fact acquired private information about TG's pay stubs and what not, is that not WP:WIKIHOUNDING?

3. How does WP:COI come into play when allegations are made based on evidence that is not in the public domain? Doesn't such an allegation axiomatically violate WP:OUTING?

The Arbs are already neck-deep in conundra over this. It should be interesting to see how it plays out. My personal take on it causes me to ask this: why is Will Beback still allowed to be editor, let alone an admin?

I have not checked every one of TG's edits in detail, but the ones I did check looked okay, reasonably neutral. The thing is, in typical McWhiney fashion, TG has spent most of his recent time not editing, but fighting off Will and his cronies on the TM space.

That's how Will works: get someone else to do the nasty stuff. It helps to explain why there are so few RFCs or RFArbs about Will. He's sneaky.

Think on this: TG has been editing TM articles since 2006. He looks like a good contributor, to me anyway.

But he's making Will angry, and for that alone He Must Be Destroyed? If he's been doing this for FIVE YEARS,
why all of a sudden must he be permabanned?

The more pertinent question here is whether the content suffers more if Will or TimidGuy wins. Having seen the hatchet job that TimidGuy and his allies have perpetuated at various articles suggesting evidentiary support for the various wacko beliefs promulgated by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, I have to say I don't think it's a good idea to let TimidGuy have any content control with respect to that subject. Let him and his cronies provide sources and their opinions, but don't let them click the edit button of the articles. Putting the foxes in charge of the henhouse inevitably ends up with messes similar to that seen when Citizendium thought it prudent to let the homeopaths run rampant in articles about their various wacko beliefs.

If you've got links to support this, please post them!

I don't really care about TM, and I generally regard the Maharishi and his acolytes as a bunch of flakes.
But this is only incidentally related to TM---it does also relate to the slimy way Will controls the argument in
any number of cases. He's a manipulator, and one can make a case for Will's repeated violation of many
WP rules. The problem is, he's getting away with it.

Will Beback is an agenda-driven editor who, like SlimVirgin used to be, will use anything and everything to try to win a content dispute. He understands that in order to get the content you want to stick, if it isn't otherwise very NPOV, you have to remove the editors, like TimidGuy, who might dispute your "consensus". For example, when I was challenging some of Will's preferred content in the LaRouche articles, he added something about global warming and then tried to get me banned for that, with funny results. That reminds me, I probably should go mention this in the evidence section for this case.

Outing and stalking is acceptable if you are part of the in crowd. It is a bannable offense if you aren't. ArbCom makes that clear time after time. It is nice that they allow their friends to abuse the system by adding harassment to their many on Wiki problems.

Will does periodic word searches on WR looking for his name. He sent me an irate email when he found this post I made. I explained he'd read it wrong, that I hadn't actually called him names. He then proceeded to advise me not to stay a member here. Nice guy.

Hey, that guy has dedicated a good chunk of his free time to fighting for TRUTH using Wikipedia. Don't get in the way, truth must prevail.

FUCK YOU, Mr. McWhiney.

Because I remember this.
I will not forget it, little man.

Isn't it verifiable, not truth?

We're at cross-purposes here. You can muddle through the links posted by Fladrif and Kww if you're at all interested in seeing backstories. That there are corrupt and slimy individuals working behind the scenes at Wikipedia is par for the course.



"Used to be"? I guess she won you over with her charms, did she?

Meanwhile while drama central goes on in the request page, it seems that things are now starting to look sour for Mr. Beback.

Here's what I don't understand - why would there be any need to pay anyone to push a pro-TM viewpoint on WP? It seems like all other religions and/or cults have plenty of people who will do it for free. Is this a case of someone editing WP as part of their job, because that happens all the time with businesses?

I have no clue, but it reminds me of what jclemens said at the start of the case:

I haven't really followed arbcom cases in the past, but this is fascinating.

I'm curious though, is this really a "legal threat"? Some person named fladrif seems to think so, but hey, what do I know?

I was looking at that link too and thinking the same thing. While the neutrality of the TG's edits may be in the eye of the beholder, they are sourced.

When your only allowable weapons are the blunt instruments of the Wikipedia community, you learn fast to use WP:NLT, WP:BLP, WP:OUTING, WP:SOCK, and WP:NPA often and without prejudice. Those policies are the only ones that arbitrators will use as a justification to disappear a user. That TimidGuy deigns to say on the wiki that "fraud is a very serious allegation" is close to what has gotten some indefinitely banned in the past. It only takes one arbitrator/administrator overreacting to win.

Who is fladrif, and how much is Will Beback paying him? Is fladrif actually "Firdalf" spelled backwards?

The thing about Transcendental Meditation ™ is, why would any truly neutral editors be working in that topic? I imagine that the only editors interested in it would be followers of the philosophy, and those that hate it like a bad burrito. So the question is, who in that topic area is behaving the worst? I think the answer to that question is clear.

Since the last TM ArbCom case closed last year, the supposedly "pro" TM editors have carefully been trying to toe the line. Will Beback, however, can't abide that. So, he goes out and, at least twice that is known of, has discovered personal, private info about his TM editor adversaries that he believes proves an unacceptable COI on their part. He has emailed the information to admins who he believes are sympathetic to his cause, hoping that those admins will block or ban those editors and thereby get them out of his way. I believe at least one of those admins is a regular contributor here at WR.

Will Beback is the Oliver North of Wikipedia.

In spite of claims to the contrary, there are academics who study religious movements who don't hate the subjects they study "like a bad burrito", and they do write scholarly articles and books about these subjects. More often than not, though, followers don't appreciate anyone who isn't a follower saying anything about their religion that doesn't toe their line. There will always be people (often they tend to be ex-followers) who will act out of spite wherever mention of a particular religion is found, but it is a huge oversimplification and basically an act of drinking the religion-in-question's Kool Aid to claim that the only people interested enough in a religion are either the adherents or detractors.

I wonder what Will Beback's actual motivation is. His cup runneth over with spite, and it's interdenominational spite -- he couldn't possibly be an ex-adherent to the broad array of religions and political groups he demonizes.

What it comes down to is that Mr. Beback is a real piece of work. Hopefully, this time he'll get his comeuppance that has been more than overdue.

Some people are motivated by a desire to destroy that with which they disagree. A kind of moral panic regarding minority ideologies can develop especially when one holds to a mainstream ideology that has similar features to the minority ideologies that one is opposing.

On the other hand, it is very easy for someone who is a true believer to mistake a person who is just dismissing favored arguments for one who is trying to rape, burn, pillage, and salt the earth. My advice is to try not to take things too seriously.

I am in some difficulty here. What is the difference between these two ideas?

I think it's 3 ideas. Adding another "nor" would improve both the grammar and the semantics.

It has been my experience that neutral editors with an interest in the subject depart when they have their edits reverted and observe the battles between the pro and con editors on the talk page. This is the reason why I believe there aren't too many neutral editors involved in the Intelligent Design, global warming, TM, Lyndon LaRouche, Sarah Palin, Israel/Palestine, and other contentious topics. That's one of the reasons for enforcing the BATTLEGROUND policy, because battleground tactics by editors drives newcomers away.

You seem very swayed by argumentum ad temperantiam. It's as though you cannot conceive of how to find "neutrality" other than by searching for the middle ground between the personalities of the anonymous nitwits who argue on that website. Believing that "neutrality" is "between the pro and con editors" is a very wikiality-based idea and is nothing more than a hallmark of shitty scholarship and academic myopia. But this is your particular brand of advocacy. That others involved with Wikipedia actually take your fallacious claims of being able to see "neutrality" seriously is just a symptom of how fucked up Wikipedia is.

I didn't say that neutral editors fall into the middle-ground between pro and con editors.

That's right, he didn't. I think that the responsible way to run an encyclopedia (assuming that that were the actual objective of WP) would be to simply exclude dubious and contentious material, and concentrate on that which is indisputable. This, of course, is the point where the WP:ACTIVISTS cry Censorship! or in the case of Will Beback, "whitewashing." As opposed to what one typically finds in articles about controversial topics or persons, which I suppose would be "blackwashing."

Denied implication, thy name is Cla68.



For every idea, you can find a nutjob who finds even the most mundane of content to be dubious, contentious, and disputable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...imidGuy.27s_ban

Apparently Fladrif thinks it's ok to circumvent policy. Lovely

Could he be a sock of Will Beback?

I can't believe how much I used to care about this stuff.

And they are mystified by their editor retention problem?

One of WP's worst problems is dealing with established, agenda-driven editors. It's time-consuming, frustrating, tedious, and unrewarding. I know, however, this isn't the only reason people leave Wikipedia, as there are plenty of other problems as well.

I just noticed Jimbo has been weighing in on the workshop page as an "arbitrator". Shouldn't he actually be weighing in as a "party"?

I guess we'll find out the backstory next time somebody leaks.

This is a function of the fact that Jimbo's role is still (presumably intentionally) ill-defined. Originally, Jimbo was a one-man ArbCom. He set ArbCom up to share the load, and as far as I know he can still set aside any decision it makes. But has he ever said that he won't act as a member if he feels like it? Has anyone else ever told him he can't? Is NewYorkBrad reading?

Jimbo is the God-King; by definition, he can do whatever he want, because he is the law.

And usually, he doesn't know what to do.....so he dumps it on a minion.

(Remember his proposal for a "privy council"? Nothing was done, apparently.
The God-King is not godly enough.)

Will Beback is campaigning for a finding a fact that "Timidguy is a single-purpose, POV-pushing editor." I think it were appropriate that a finding be made that "Will Beback is a multi-purpose POV-pushing editor."

I am fascinated by this guy Fladrif. He is so eager to hang TimidGuy that makes a proposed finding of fact that "Arbcom may not second-guess Jimbo's decisions." Then there is a big dogpile where even Jimbo condemns his proposal.

The interesting thing about that case is how Fladrif and Jmh649/Doc James (shouldn't he be added to the tag team nomination?) have somehow managed to come across as less neutral and relaxed about TM than the presumably conflicted TM guy they want to see pilloried and banned; a fact that does not seem to have been lost on a few arbs.

I think it's called hubris.

Actually Fladrif was sanctioned in the TM arbcom case for ABF and being uncivil. How do you figure?

Looks like this case is wrapping up. It doesn't look good for our hero Mr. Beback.

Isn't this something that we on WR have known for years? Identifying a COI with someone who doesn't identify themselves inherently requires "outing". All a person has to do to get away with a COI is not identify themselves and know how to play the game.

And the bigger is, why is POV-pushing from someone with identifiable COI any worse than POV-pushing by a free-lancer?

Indeed. Reviewing the case, I found this telling:
Let me see if I get this straight. I read it like this: "We are unable to resolve the issues of paid editing, etc., and there is no consensus about what is best, what is permitted, and what is discouraged or prohibited. Therefore we will not establish or state principles in this area.

Instead, we will examine the behavior of editors and judge it independently of established standards, we will decide what is Good and what is Bad, and we will sanction accordingly.

It does make sense, given an impossibility of setting standards. But it's not impossible, merely difficult or controversial. Until standards are set and actually enjoy consensus, behavior will always violate this or that faction's idea of what's not allowed. If the sanctions were limited to future behavior, if they clearly specified the behaviors to be avoided (and what is allowed), then this would, indeed, be a sane approach, at least at the beginning. However, in practice, ArbComm does punish. It doesn't recognize that editors have not been properly warned, against specific behaviors, which they may well believe are allowed (either by specific guidelijnes, prior ArbComm restrictions, or, even failing that, under IAR.) It issues topic bans and site bans, which become arbitrary restrictions, since the guiding behavioral principles are not established.

Sad to see Cla68 going a bit overboard in this case. Cla68, have you ever attempted to communicate and establish rapport with Jmh643, i.e., Doc James? He's a real doctor and generally knows what he's talking about. Contrary to one submission to this case, he's not an administrator, and has not, in my experience, been aligned with a cabal. But, to be sure, I haven't reviewed much of his behavior with respect to this case.

Wikipedia's reaction to paid editing is similar to its real reaction to experts. Topic experts are frequently SPAs, and tend to have and "push" strong points of view. Paid editors, if they are worth their salt, will seek consensus. There are potential problems with paid editing, almost all of them dissolved if actual practice encouraged and protected paid editors who dislosed the COI and followed COI guidelines. Most of the discussion of this assumes that paid editors conceal their status unless outed, and assumes that problem editing is editing of articles, not the making of suggestions on Talk, with actual article editing limited to what is reasonably expected not to be controversial (having disclosed the COI).

That an editor is paid is probably a sign of competence, other things being equal. The idea that paid editors want to bias the article is based, perhaps, on experience with naive COI editors, not with true professional editors. Professional editors, serving their clients, would want to create a stable article, which requires a reasonable approach to neutrality.

Given the dysfunctional community, however, paid editors are motivated to conceal their COI, and are restrained only by the possibility of blow-back, where an article which has been biased, outrageously, by stupid COI editing is then flipped to an opposite condition. It's a bit like some AfDs, where the existence of excessive non-reliable source citations can result in deletion, where a less-sourced stub might survive for improvement. Wikipedia punishes. Dysfunctional communities punish, it's quite human, but ordinary human communities don't create neutral encyclopedias, it would take innovative process to do that with any reliability.

Neutrality cannot be measured if factions are excluded from the process.

(Most Wikipedians, I think, assume that neutrality is an attribute of text, whereas it is much better understood as a relationship between text and the whole human community. When text is maximally neutral, a maximal number of informed people will agree that it's neutral, and those people may well be from opposing factions. Wikipedia, so accustomed to being a battleground while it denies being a battleground, tends to assume that "POV warriors" will never agree with anything short of blatant and biased statement of their own POV. It has a generic, overall, ABF position with respect to "POV-pushers."

The result is that experts, or "amateur experts," who tend to have points of view different from the general public, it would be an "expert point of view," are effectively excluded. I'd argue that topic experts shouldn't be making the decisions on articles, period. However, they should be actively consulted, asked for advice and criticism, and, with that, the stupendous blunders that are sometimes found in articles on difficult subjects could be avoided. Experts tend to know the literature far better than the ordinary editor. Wikipedia harnessed crowd-sourcing, but discarded the best of it, because the project came to be dominated by "general purpose editors," those fired up by the idea of the project, but without expertise in the topics they often ended up controlling, and often unwilling to listen to experts who held different opinions from them.

Since those editors disagreed with them, they assumed those editors were "POV-pushers," out to pull the wool over their eyes, pretending to know more.

Sometimes an expert knows stuff that isn't easy to find in reliable source. Wikipedia must be based on what is verifiable, that's in the design, and it's not a bad idea at all. However, there is lots of room in how the verifiable material is presented, to accommodate what experts will tell the community. Part of the trick would be to seek and solicit comment from experts with differing opinions, and seek to facilitate consensus among experts. The role of actual article editors as consensus facilitators has not been sufficiently appreciated.

Instead, a "neutral editor," in practice, is someone who knows little about the topic. With scientific topics, where one may need background to be able to understand the sources, this can lead to major misunderstandings.

2 policy abrogations > 1 policy abrogation.

In the past, Wikipedia bureaucracy was generally willing, all else being equal, to come down harder on a user who was shown to be associated with a special interest group as opposed to a user who was just in it for the anonymous good times. If Will Beback goes down it won't be because of a violation of neutrality. Even though neutrality is considered a "pillar" of Wikipedia, the definition of neutrality provided by that website is insipid and provides no guidance, so the policy is impossible to enforce in any direction.