User:Doc James/Will

Will Beback: editing history
4.1) is a very experienced editor and administrator, having made well over 100,000 edits. He has been an administrator since June 2005.

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.
 * Only one block after 130,000 edits and it occurred nearly 3 years ago.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Site ban: background
5.1) On 30 August 2011, Will Beback participated in a discussion on Jimmy Wales's talk page about paid editing:,, . 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.
 * How is discussing the policy around paid editing not allowed? And why is submitted concerns privately about paid editing not allowed? Specifically when we have a policy that states "Editing in the interests of public relations (other than obvious corrections) is particularly frowned upon." It appears Will Beback was attempting to act in the best interests of Wikipedia as he understood them. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 19 March 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.,
 * I do not see an in depth analysis of all TimidGuys edits since the last Arbcom case. That would potentially be useful and is really something arbcom should be doing. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 19 March 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.
 * Seeing that this was a content issue one would have though this would have held more weight. When you have what some feel is a religious movement which describes itself more as a scientific practice making health claims WP:MEDRS holds significant weight. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 19 March 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" responseand "Yikes" response.
 * The so called "negative comments" are "While meditation is usually considered safe, Transcendental Meditation may be contraindicated for those with psychiatric illnesses. According to a textbook on alternative and complementary medicine by Lyn Freeman, in this situation it is best if meditation is introduced in the context of a clinical setting, and those patients who are seriously disturbed should only be introduced to meditation under the supervision of a doctor or psychotherapist. Individuals with moderate symptoms were observed to benefit from the practice." This is not negative but really very positive considering the Cochrane conclusions on the topic.
 * The removal of recently added "positive comments" was only a partial removal with a good amount of positive comments still remaining as per  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 19 March 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.


 * Sure the committee feel there is insufficient evidence for Jimmy Wales ban. That is a judgement call and not really relevant to indefinate banning of Will Beback. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Will Beback: affiliations of other editors
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: ,,,,,,
 * All these pertain to a single case involving editors relationship to there subject matter. Many allegations where being thrown around regarding many users. While some of these may be somewhat inappropriate the case resulted in the topic banning of User:Cirt for writing negatively about new religious movements after being subjected to personal attacks.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Will Beback: outing / harassment
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)


 * How is privately submitted evidence outing? And should real life identities never be allowed to ever be brought up even off line? I have read the private evidence and it is fairly conclusive but not wrt "harassment"-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Will Beback: battleground conduct
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:Feb 2009,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.


 * As per Casliber "All of these (bar the last two) predate the arbitration case, subsequent to which several of the TM editors were placed under sanctions. The appropriate noticeboard (COIN) for discussion was used. Concerns about editing were expressed by a number of other editors. The comments at Jimmy Wales and Sue Gardner's talk pages were general statements of facts and concern about some issues surrounding advocacy which create dilemmas which have been discussed widely." It appears even discussing the issue of COI is off the table.


 * The comment on Jimmy Wales talk page is "Tell that to the ArbCom." I do not understand how arbcom is able to use criticism of themselves to justify a ban of the a user.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)