Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Will Beback/Questions for the candidate

Re Question on RfC from Fainites
I am disappointed that WillBeback has chosen to answer a question on his signing up to an unsubstantiated slur at an RfC to support a fellow editor, with more veiled allegations and unsubstantiated slurs. He now seeks to suggest that there is something inherently dodgy in confining ones work to a few topic areas. Why? Editors who wish to read all the sources and make substantive contributions are perhaps serving a different function to those who edit over hundreds of articles. The description of the necessity for gang-mediation on NLP long predates my first edit on Wiki as he presumably knows having apparently trawled through my contribs, and nothing similar occured when I edited there although there was one HeadleyDown sock still on it, yet it appears here in a sort of 'guilt by association' with the next paragraph. I did accuse DPeterson of 'owning' attachment therapy and about half a dozen other attachment related pages, all of which were in a disgraceful state. I was not the only editor to raise this concern and we were proved right. He 'owned' them by edit warring with the use of 6 sockpuppets for over a year. Six socks was more than enough to do this in a slightly obscure area. To suggest that because I have made many edits helping rewrite the articles after DPetersons demise that somehow I also 'own' them is a slur unworthy of an admin and candidate. I run no sockpuppets and have not prevented anyone else editing. Indeed I am one of several editors who have asked the medical portal to help more than once. He does not specifically state that the articles are now POV following the removal of the socks but implies it. Weak. If you think they are POV, say so and why and where. Fainites barley 19:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that the articles are POV, I asked if they are. Do you feel that the Attachment therapy articles includes all significant viewpoints, even those espoused by bad editors? If so then that's great. I explained in my response why SPAs can be problems, most importantly because they tend to bring outside battles to Wikipedia, and to bring strong opinions that they have trouble leaving behind. The RfC/U you were asking about was certified by two SPAs, not including yourself. Endorsing the certification were a few pro-pedophile SPA editors who also used sock puppets and who seemed to have no involvement in the actual dispute, just using it as an opportunity to gang up on an editor who opposed their POV-pushing in an unrelated field. The behavior of all participants in an RfC/U may be subject to discussion and review, and several people including myself thought it important to point out that there was an elephant in the room. That doesn't mean that you like elephants or are an elephant yourself. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As the 'view' espoused by the bad editors (who promoted fringe attachment therapy theories and treatments as mainstream) was that attachment therapy scarcely existed, no it probably doesn't represent that 'view'. Does it fairly present what attachment therapy is? Hopefully. I've submitted 3 of the articles for GA to get an outside view. You imply there is something inherently dodgy in my having edited on few topic areas (one of which is notoriously intractable) and that I 'own' articles in a way comparable to a sockmaster because I've made alot of edits on an obscure topic. This is the kind of slur I am complaining about. One of the SPA's is a professor of child development. Why should such people edit on topics outside their subject area? Fainites barley 21:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * GA reviews tend to focus on formatting and similar issues rather deep analysis of POV. But more participation is articles is always good. Editing in one's subject areas is good if one can do so neutrally. If one edits as an advocate for a certain position, then that's a problem. The RfAr found that:
 * Editors at Wikipedia are expected to work towards neutral point of view in their editing activities. It is not possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda. Editors who have exceptionally strong professional, political, or financial commitments to a particular point of view are asked to refrain from editing in affected subject areas. This is particularly true when the affected subject areas are controversial.
 * One of the remedies called on all editors to reveal any COIs related to the topic:
 * All parties are reminded of the need for care when editing in an area with a potential conflict of interest. They are encouraged to fully disclose any such circumstances that may apply to them and to voluntarily refrain from editing articles where they may reasonably be perceived to have such a conflict.
 * That's a clear statement. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a clear statement. The two editors who opposed DPeterson from the world of attachment both edited in their own names and CV's were available so they were transparent. Other editors, including me, offered full personal details to arbitrators when asked to show we had no real world involvement in attachment - therapy or otherwise. DPeterson and the other socks were considered - as disclosed at a subsequent ANI - to be socks of an attachment therapist. I still don't understand how any of this justifies or explains your implied slurs in your answer. Unless of course you have taken the socks smear campaigns on various opponents at face value. These were variously that one of the editors was transgendered, that a published professor was a 'fringe nut', that I am supposedly an NLP practitioner (probably from HeadleyDown), or that FT2 is a zoophile (also probably from HeadleyDown), or that we were all in collusion with paedophiles. Fainites barley 13:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't make any implied slurs, and I didn't know of the other acusations until you repeated them now. You won your case and vanquished your foe. You asked for an explanation of my RfC/U endorsement and I've given it. The case is closed. I don't see what's to be gained by rehashing it further since we all agree that it had the correct outcome. ·:· Will Beback  ·:·  —Preceding comment was added at 18:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if you can't see it you can't see it. Lets agree to differ and leave it at that eh? Fainites barley 19:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'd like to come to the defense of you both. Willbeback, you seem to have encouraged order and clarity in many articles all over Wikipedia. There is also a rather obvious pro-pedophilia element that does cause a lot of trouble on many articles including those of pseudoscientific concerns. I wasn't directly involved in your above case, and I would have to say that DPeterson's actions on the Dyadic related articles are good reason for a ban, but DPeterson himself seems to have fought constructively against some rather awful elements on Wikipedia. I regret keeping out of that action, I should have said something. The fact that you, Will, backed up his constructive efforts there specifically shows that it is actions rather than editors that count in the long term. If a constructive editor causes undue disruptions and sockpuppeting, then a ban is most likely in order. But in the end we can only appreciate constructive action.


 * Fainites, I realize the cult of NLP is mostly about spreading pseudoscientific ideas for a fast buck. I can only applaud your dogged persistence on that article. The article is in an awfully obscured and tangled state and it must be extremely frustrating as a skeptic. I don't know how you can tolerate the COI socks that seem to be permanently placed there. On the pseudoscience related articles that I have worked on, COIs are generally notified and don't last long. I believe the NLP article will improve once the COIs have been banned. In the meantime, keep up pressure for clarity. I also found some problem articles to be intractable, but you are right to keep sorting. I'm encouraged to do the same.  GigiButterfly (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I will have to retract my defense of Fainites. Willbeback, you are more perceptive than myself. Not only has Fainites subtly been pushing a pseudoscience (NLP) it is clear that the attachment therapy related articles have received similarly undue pushing of various issues. Considering the association with various pseudoscientific attachments from Fainites, I believe Will dealt with the pedophilia issue very well. Lets hope we can all be well warned on this and other related issues in future. Pedophilia, zoophilia and pseudoscience. There seems to be an interesting triangular connection.GigiButterfly (talk) 08:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just in case anybody's interested (which I doubt) by that late addition by Gigibutterfly - Gigibutterfly is yet another sock of HeadleyDown. Fainites barley 21:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)