Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fladrif (talk | contribs) at 03:10, 27 April 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please blank this page so that it only contains the deletion template.

The feeling I have that Will Beback is harassing me and other editors does not stem from a single edit, but to be understood must be viewed as coming from a constant stream of assumtpions presented as fact, false accusations, and misrepresentations. One example out of many can be seen in this short section, where he twists my comments and actions, makes veiled threats and false accusations:

• Misrepresents the removal of personal information as being an attempt to ‘hide’ a COI:
• Suggests that the off-wiki harassment is the result of my COI and will continue until I stop editing TM articles:
• Belittles off-wiki harassment, and twists it into the falsehood that I am using it as an excuse to ignore COI:

Will Beback twists my pretty simple comment around into a personal attack against me

• He says defending myself against an accusation he makes against me is a personal attack against him. This is not a personal attack.

This same kind of behavior by Will Beback, has taken place over a realtively long period of time, and across many article and user talk pages, as well as on noticeboards.

• Post on COIN/2009: "Of those, only the 27 March 2007 filing received serious discussion. Durova wrote, "TimidGuy has a clear and immediate conflict of interest and for this reason would be well advised to restrict participation to talk pages for all transcendental mediatation-related articles." That view was endorsed by Athænara, who was the unofficial COIN overseer at the time. The burden is on the editors with conflicts to show that they've followed the guideline, since the appearance is that they haven't. Will Beback talk 04:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• This misrperesents how policy and guideliensare read. The burden is on those making accusations of COI violations to provide proof of the violation. An “appearance” of violation is a POV, not proof. If we want to show vadalism we show vandal’s edits, we don’t ask the vandal to provide evidence he hasn’t vandalized.

• Leaves out context: Durova’s initial comment on COI was not supported by diffs, and was made in regard to an already settled debate about a source

As described in an earlier Arbcom, Will misrepresents what another editor is saying:

Will Beback asks me three times if "Collier is the most reliable source available", I say "No" three times. He then claims that I assert that "Collier is the most reliable source available" to another editor. Here's the exchange –

Momento, Are you asserting that Collier is the most reliable source we can use for this article, more reliable than newspapers or scholarly accounts? If so there's lots of material from that book that I'd like to add. (Will Beback, 17:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No. (Momento (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No what? Is Collier a reliable source for the comments of Rennie Davis, and other personal observations? (Will Beback, 20:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You asked me a question. The answer is "No". Yes, Collier is a reliable source, providing normal Wiki policies are followed. (Momento (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

So if you agree that Collier is not more reliable than newspapers why did you assert that previously? (Will Beback, 21:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You asked me if Collier is " the most reliable source we can use for this article". And the answer is still "No". As for whether Collier is more reliable than "newspapers", that obviously depends on the particular material in question and the newspaper concerned. Momento, 22:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Two days later, here's WillBeBack's post to another editor - Momento asserts that Collier is the most reliable source available. (Will Beback, 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Even during this arbitration Will continues to assert as fact, assumptions. with which he accuses other editors.

• He accuses Kbob of being an IP simply because Kbob happens to log in immediatley after the IP. Will goes on to say in the discussion the “only logical conculsion” is that Kbob is also an editor from Ottumwa. In fact there is no logic, just this. “And yes, I'd attribute the Ottumwa edit to Kbob as well, for the same reason. Ottumwa, Iowa is the city closest to Fairfield (25 miles away). Kbob (along with TG) has also edited Walter Day, a TMer who once ran a famous video game arcade in Ottumwa called Twin Galaxies. "

• Then based on this complete assumption and misrepresentation of the information, Will goes on to twist the discussion to accuse Kbob of, “Due to his response, it may also be evidence that he makes unbelievable claims in his own defense." Kbob’s claims are in fact relatively believable since there is no evidence to support Will’s claims against him. Kbob was in fact asking Will to supply proof to support the claims he was making against him, but now Kbob’s request for proof of the allegation he is the IP and editor from Ottumwa has been twisted around as proof for Kbob’s supposed wrong doing.

Will intimidates by implying and assuming wrong doing as here:

• He suggests I need a “face saving exit”

There are multiple instances of this kind of behaviour even during this arbitration. My concern is not just for editors of the TM articles under discussion but for any articles where Will decides his POV should be considered dominant. I suspect he thinks he is doing the best thing for Misplaced Pages, but this kind of behaviour is destructive both to editors and the editing environment and it needs to be changed. Unless one has been consistently on the receiving end of Will’s badgering behaviour its impossible to describe.