|
|
|
Will Beback RFC? |
|
|
-DS- |
|
Ethernaut
Group: Contributors
Posts: 164
Joined:
Member No.: 39,458
|
|
|
|
|
Beer me |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 20
Joined:
Member No.: 35,937
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 2nd September 2011, 8:59pm) QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Sat 3rd September 2011, 3:31am) 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?
|
|
|
|
It's the blimp, Frank |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined:
Member No.: 82
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 20th September 2011, 12:48pm) 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.
|
|
|
|
Mathsci |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 205
Joined:
From: South of France
Member No.: 11,217
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 26th September 2011, 3:49am) 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:
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
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:
|
|
|
|
It's the blimp, Frank |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined:
Member No.: 82
|
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Mon 26th September 2011, 6:30am) QUOTE(Mathsci @ Sun 25th September 2011, 11:03pm) Was BLP policy designed to be applied to large political movements? BLP policy and large organizationsWhen 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:
|
|
|
|
lilburne |
|
Chameleon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
|
QUOTE(The Joy @ Mon 26th September 2011, 11:12pm) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 26th September 2011, 5:12pm) QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Mon 26th September 2011, 10:21am) 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=452556696I'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 |
|
May we all find solace in our dreams.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
|
QUOTE(lilburne @ Mon 26th September 2011, 3:27pm) QUOTE(The Joy @ Mon 26th September 2011, 11:12pm) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 26th September 2011, 5:12pm) QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Mon 26th September 2011, 10:21am) 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=452556696I'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 |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE(lilburne @ Mon 26th September 2011, 3:27pm) 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. QUOTE(Zoloft @ Mon 26th September 2011, 3:38pm) 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 |
|
Chameleon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
|
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Mon 26th September 2011, 11:38pm) QUOTE(lilburne @ Mon 26th September 2011, 3:27pm) QUOTE(The Joy @ Mon 26th September 2011, 11:12pm) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 26th September 2011, 5:12pm) QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Mon 26th September 2011, 10:21am) 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=452556696I'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.
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 13th October 2011, 5:13pm) 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 |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined:
Member No.: 82
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Fri 14th October 2011, 12:13am) 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:
|
|
|
|
mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 27th February 2012, 12:00am) 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.
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
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 |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined:
Member No.: 565
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 26th February 2012, 4:29pm) 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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |