Will Beback RFC? Options

[-DS-]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cla68/DR_draft_work_page

[melloden]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cla68/DR_draft_work_page

This will be fun.

[Zoloft]

I know Will reads this website (he once emailed me to ask about something I'd said here) and I hereby extend an invitation:

Register an account here, and tell your side.

I bet we'd all learn something.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Why was it blanked?

[Cla68]

Why was it blanked?

It's going to take me awhile to finish it. So, I'm going to work on it offline.

[Beer me]

Why was it blanked?

It's going to take me awhile to finish it. So, I'm going to work on it offline.

Also, Will is obviously aware and frightened about this situation. Cirt and Slim are smart to not dig in their heals and cut their losses. Will forum shops while flinging insults and insinuations. Eventually enough of his minions congregate mimicing him and he escalates it to ANI/Arbcom/AE.I am always amused that Arbcom lets him troll the Arbitration Evidence/Workshop pages. He has not had one constructive comment nor provided evidence in any cases recently?

Will's superdickery is infamous, What are the most important points We cant forget to include in this RFC?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Will continues his anti-LaRouche crusade here at the BLP Noticeboard, stalwartly WikiLawyering in the face of massive disapproval, when along comes Slp1, an editor unfamiliar to me, who calls attention to this essay. "Fact laundering" is a lucid and concise description of Will's entire body of work.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Will continues his anti-LaRouche crusade here at the BLP Noticeboard, stalwartly WikiLawyering in the face of massive disapproval, when along comes Slp1, an editor unfamiliar to me, who calls attention to this essay. "Fact laundering" is a lucid and concise description of Will's entire body of work.

If you look at the history, that essay was actually started by Fred Bauder. Go figure.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

It looks like Fred never wrote more than a few sentences. Meanwhile, Will has produced magnificent evidence for his long-awaited RfC. After stonewalling for three months against overwhelming consensus to reduce the length of his "allegations" section at LaRouche movement (T-H-L-K-D), and a more recent passive/aggressive display at the BLP noticeboard, Will has gone into revert warring mode. He reverted a series of edits which reduced the "allegations" section in size, arguing that the edits [1][2][3] were "unexplained" and that there was no consensus for them. Bravo!

[Herschelkrustofsky]

And there is now a wild melee on the talk page at LaRouche movement. MathSci is attempting to play the Herschelkrustofsky Card, a tactic which even Will Beback has abandoned as of late. However, MathSci is fatuously proclaiming that the existence of this very thread is prima facie evidence of a conspiracy to disrupt Will Beback's masterwork of cherry-picked defamation.

[Mathsci]

And there is now a wild melee on the talk page at LaRouche movement. MathSci is attempting to play the Herschelkrustofsky Card, a tactic which even Will Beback has abandoned as of late. However, MathSci is fatuously proclaiming that the existence of this very thread is prima facie evidence of a conspiracy to disrupt Will Beback's masterwork of cherry-picked defamation.

As has been pointed out, the single purpose account Waalkes has suggested removing material from the article which has either already been removed or else significantly modified.

BTW I had discounted Waalkes being one of your sockpuppets.

This post has been edited by Mathsci:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

As has been pointed out, the single purpose account Waalkes has suggested removing material from the article which has either already been removed or else significantly modified.

That was pointed out by you, MathSci, incorrectly. Most of the material Waalkes is objecting to was fully restored by Will Beback in this edit on September 20, and has not been subsequently modified. Your comments on the talk page betray a generally unfamiliarity with the subject matter, coupled with an unseemly desire to be Will Beback's obsequious towel boy.

[Mathsci]

Was BLP policy designed to be applied to large political movements?

BLP policy and large organizations

[Zoloft]

Was BLP policy designed to be applied to large political movements?

BLP policy and large organizations

When your article names the movement after a living person and implies he's the master leader... yeah.

... The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. ...

This post has been edited by Zoloft:

[Cla68]

Funny, Hipocrite learns of that discussion from this thread, goes and votes, then accuses everyone else of vote stacking! I assume he included Mathsci in that accusation, since Mathsci also participated in this thread.

One of the funniest things about editors making accusations like that, apart from the lack of self-awareness, is that they apparently don't realize that posting something on Wikipedia Review usually attracts just as many, if not more editors who support their side than against. This is because activist editors watch this site like hawks, because their lives revolve around safeguarding the "truth" that they have edited into Wikipedia and intend to keep there. Will Beback, for example, apparently keeps a running library of links to posts on this site, because he often pulls them out and throws them around whenever his editing undergoes uncomfortable scrutiny.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[lilburne]

Will Beback, for example, apparently keeps a running library of links to posts on this site, because he often pulls them out and throws them around whenever his editing undergoes uncomfortable scrutiny.

Currently I have a backlog of several 100 images that I need to sort and document, but once that's is done I'll be over there to cull out the 70% superfluous stuff in those articles. I hope Will is keeping a list of the absolutely essential stuff that I advised him to do a few weeks back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=447566770

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Was BLP policy designed to be applied to large political movements?

BLP policy and large organizations

When your article names the movement after a living person and implies he's the master leader... yeah.

That ought to be obvious.


I see that both MathSci and Hipocrite believe that the most effective way to resolve disputes is by accusing other editors of being "alternate accounts."

This post has been edited by It's the blimp, Frank:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I see that both MathSci and Hipocrite believe that the most effective way to resolve disputes is by accusing other editors of being "alternate accounts."

You can chalk that up to the tutelage of Will and the other first-generation system-gamers.

[lilburne]

I see that both MathSci and Hipocrite believe that the most effective way to resolve disputes is by accusing other editors of being "alternate accounts."

You can chalk that up to the tutelage of Will and the other first-generation system-gamers.

I'm training.



This post has been edited by lilburne:

[The Joy]

I see that both MathSci and Hipocrite believe that the most effective way to resolve disputes is by accusing other editors of being "alternate accounts."

You can chalk that up to the tutelage of Will and the other first-generation system-gamers.

And the sockpuppeteer accusations begin!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=452556696

I'm surprised no one as accused lilburne, Cla, Waalkes, and Kelly of "proxying for banned user HK." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[lilburne]

I see that both MathSci and Hipocrite believe that the most effective way to resolve disputes is by accusing other editors of being "alternate accounts."

You can chalk that up to the tutelage of Will and the other first-generation system-gamers.

And the sockpuppeteer accusations begin!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=452556696

I'm surprised no one as accused lilburne, Cla, Waalkes, and Kelly of "proxying for banned user HK." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

That is difficult since my suggestion to Will months back was that the entire suite of articles could be reduced down to a couple of paragraphs. Which I still maintain but probably isn't what HK would like to see.

[Zoloft]

I see that both MathSci and Hipocrite believe that the most effective way to resolve disputes is by accusing other editors of being "alternate accounts."

You can chalk that up to the tutelage of Will and the other first-generation system-gamers.

And the sockpuppeteer accusations begin!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=452556696

I'm surprised no one as accused lilburne, Cla, Waalkes, and Kelly of "proxying for banned user HK." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

That is difficult since my suggestion to Will months back was that the entire suite of articles could be reduced down to a couple of paragraphs. Which I still maintain but probably isn't what HK would like to see.

I made a similar suggestion to Will in an email, and he didn't much support it.
I also characterized the Larouche movment as small and irrelevant, which is also not in line with HK's beliefs. We really aren't very good LaRouchites. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

That is difficult since my suggestion to Will months back was that the entire suite of articles could be reduced down to a couple of paragraphs. Which I still maintain but probably isn't what HK would like to see.

Actually, I do think that the LaRouche stuff could be boiled down to one regular-sized article. You could easily summarize all the undisputed, factual, non-speculative and non-defamatory material in one article. Before I was topic-banned and I was actually involved in the process, I would describe the malignant growth of these articles as follows: Will, SlimVirgin, and their favorite POV sources slash editors (Dking and Cberlet) would add some crazy horseshit, sourced to King or Berlet, perhaps laundered through a "secondary source." Then I would defensively add some rebuttal material to the effect that other commentators do not necessarily believe that LaRouche eats babies, and LaRouche himself denies doing so. You repeat this process often enough and you have roughly 20 articles.

I also characterized the Larouche movment as small and irrelevant, which is also not in line with HK's beliefs.

True. I could characterize the movement as small and relevant, due to LaRouche's success as a prognosticator. But that's a discussion for another thread.

[lilburne]

I see that both MathSci and Hipocrite believe that the most effective way to resolve disputes is by accusing other editors of being "alternate accounts."

You can chalk that up to the tutelage of Will and the other first-generation system-gamers.

And the sockpuppeteer accusations begin!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=452556696

I'm surprised no one as accused lilburne, Cla, Waalkes, and Kelly of "proxying for banned user HK." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

That is difficult since my suggestion to Will months back was that the entire suite of articles could be reduced down to a couple of paragraphs. Which I still maintain but probably isn't what HK would like to see.

I made a similar suggestion to Will in an email, and he didn't much support it.
I also characterized the Larouche movment as small and irrelevant, which is also not in line with HK's beliefs. We really aren't very good LaRouchites. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Snap. I suggested a few posts on from the above that he walk into his local Starbucks and see how many actually knew who LaRouche was, my guess is nobody.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Waalkes seems to have hit a nerve with this line of questioning, because before poor Will can even answer, Mathsci is well nigh soiling himself for concern over what he evidently perceives as danger to his venerated nozzlee. Change the subject! Change the subject!

[Cla68]

Waalkes seems to have hit a nerve with this line of questioning, because before poor Will can even answer, Mathsci is well nigh soiling himself for concern over what he evidently perceives as danger to his venerated nozzlee. Change the subject! Change the subject!

Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy. I assume Mathsci is over 18 years of age and should know better than to use logical fallacies in a debate, especially in a medium requiring collaboration in order to accomplish a goal. If he isn't over 18, then his editing might benefit from some adult supervision.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

But remember, this Wikipedia. The rules of reality don't apply.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

MathSci thinks that Cla68 may have ownership issues at "LaRouche Movement." Yep, if I were trying to figure out who owns that article, Cla68 would certainly be the first person I would think of.

This post has been edited by It's the blimp, Frank:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Will Beback's fans are legion, and I wanted to make sure that none of them miss this classic moment.

[Milton Roe]

Will Beback's fans are legion, and I wanted to make sure that none of them miss this classic moment.

I have to rouse two cheers for Beback for pointing out that the Franklin child prostitution ring thing was a CLASSIC bullshit child-abuse witch hunt like the McMartin preschool thing. One of the "victims" was sentenced to a long term for perjury, and that's very rare. You hardly ever see anybody go to prison for pure perjury. As a lawyer once told me, there's ordinary perjury, and then there's 24 kt gold-filled platinum-plated diamond-studded perjury. Only that last kind makes courts take notice, since people lie in testimony all the time. So this must have been something special and rare indeed.

Anyway, if LaRouche supporters took the Franklin allegations seriously, which they seem to have done, then they have a mighty amount of egg on their faces, and a pile of humble pie with crow to eat. For shame.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Will Beback's fans are legion, and I wanted to make sure that none of them miss this classic moment.

Let's be fair. How could Will possibly know what search terms were used to compile that list of sources?

This post has been edited by It's the blimp, Frank:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Any seasoned Wikipedian can tell you that cherry-picking of sources is de rigueur for the successful POV pusher -- but it is best to do it discreetly so that you have plausible deniability. To do it ostentatiously is a tactical error. Then when someone eventually calls you on it, if you try to pretend that someone else must have done it, you become comedy gold.

[mbz1]

what is going on with Will Beback?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Will_Beback#So_long

It seems inevitable now that you will be banned, per the votes. A site ban is a tough pill to swallow - I know only too well. I wish you well in all your endeavors and hope to see you again one day. Best wishes, Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 19:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see, it is discussed in this thread http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...00&#entry299313

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[lilburne]

what is going on with Will Beback?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Will_Beback#So_long

It seems inevitable now that you will be banned, per the votes. A site ban is a tough pill to swallow - I know only too well. I wish you well in all your endeavors and hope to see you again one day. Best wishes, Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 19:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see, it is discussed in this thread http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...00&#entry299313

Unless a revolution occurs in the next half hour WB will be indef banned at 0032
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...mentation_notes

[gomi]

You may follow some of the drama here.

[mbz1]

You may follow some of the drama here.

Sorry, my fault. I saw the thread you pointed out to, but after I made the post.

[Tarc]

The shower of posthumous barnstars is...interesting.

[SB_Johnny]

The shower of posthumous barnstars is...interesting.

Maybe he should retire to the country, and hang them on his barn. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Cla68]

Will Beback had a number of causes that he pursued in Wikipedia, with the apparent goal, as it is for many Wikipedia editors, of making sure that the "truth" is presented. His targeted topics included LaRouche, Prem Rawat, Transcendental Meditation, the Boy Scouts of America, and conservative American politics and politicians, such as Sarah Palin, among others.

He often did a good job. In fact, I supported his efforts with Prem Rawat because Jossi, a Premmie, was so obviously trying to use Wikipedia to promote Rawat. The problem with Will, however, was that he often took it too far, using whatever tactic and technique was available to him to win a content dispute. That's the reason I got involved in the LaRouche topic, because he and SlimVirgin were pushing the anti-LaRouche POV too hard, and weren't being fair to other editors in that topic who had different ideas or opinions on the topic's content.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[gomi]

The problem with Will, however, was that he often took it too far, using whatever tactic and technique was available to him to win a content dispute.

I think this is more aptly the problem with Wikipedia. Will McWhinney, or whomever he is, was the creation of a system that is fundamentally broken, at least as applied to writing down objective truth in encyclopedic form. It is prone to manipulation by zealots, and in classic Nietzschean form, when fighting those zealots, if you stare into that abyss, the abyss stares back. In the end, Will's soul (or his Wikipedia tactics and techniques, the wiki equivalent of one) was black as soot. He became worse than all the various partisans, zealots, and nutcases he fought.

I am willing to admit that the underlying intentions of Will Beback, Slim Virgin, and numerous others were sometimes or even frequently laudable, but good intentions implemented with vile means are both unsustainable and insupportable. I've said this to Slim and others in so many words.

Wikipedia will generate more Will Bebacks and the like, and indeed is already generating them. They will be used and abused by that broken system until they are spit out or wise up and quit.

I can't quite feel sorry for Will, he seemed like a grade-A prick, but there you have it. I blame wiki-society (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)