The TimidGuy case, aye, there's the rub Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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?

[EricBarbour]

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?

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[iii]

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.

[EricBarbour]

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

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.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Cla68]

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

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.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Ottava]

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.

[Zoloft]

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.

[Cla68]

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.

[EricBarbour]

FUCK YOU, Mr. McWhiney.

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

[Fusion]

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.

Isn't it verifiable, not truth?

[iii]

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.

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.

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.

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

[that one guy]

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

[carbuncle]

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?

[that one guy]

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:

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) 1:46 am, 13 December 2011, Tuesday (10 days ago) (UTC−6)

[SB_Johnny]

I haven't really followed arbcom cases in the past, but this is fascinating. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

I'm curious though, is this really a "legal threat"? Some person named fladrif seems to think so, but hey, what do I know? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

[that one guy]

I haven't really followed arbcom cases in the past, but this is fascinating. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

I'm curious though, is this really a "legal threat"? Some person named fladrif seems to think so, but hey, what do I know? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

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.

[iii]

I haven't really followed arbcom cases in the past, but this is fascinating. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

I'm curious though, is this really a "legal threat"? Some person named fladrif seems to think so, but hey, what do I know? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

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.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

I haven't really followed arbcom cases in the past, but this is fascinating. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

I'm curious though, is this really a "legal threat"? Some person named fladrif seems to think so, but hey, what do I know? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

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

[Cla68]

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.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[iii]

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.

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.