Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: ColScott

My research indicates that Will works for the City of Los Angeles. Does anyone know if this might be true?

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

Call up his http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html#218 and ask him.

Posted by: BobbyBombastic

Mod note: Moved from Editors forum to Will Beback forum

Posted by: ColScott

this is disturbing
the phone number that the white pages gives for his workplace is the Los Angeles Police Department...
could he be editing NAMBLA articles from the LAPD?

Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins

What's your problem with him?

Posted by: ColScott

HE'S A DOUCHE

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

He may be a douche -- I would say that all available evidence leads to that conclusion. However, our http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=16500&view=findpost&p=84937 say that We do not allow posting of the address or phone number of WR members or Wikipedians to public areas of the website. In cases where identifying the employer of such persons would lead to the revelation of such personal information, that also would be considered unacceptable. So, please exercise caution at this point, lest this thread be tarpitted or deleted.

Posted by: ColScott

Thanks for the warning

1- haven't posted any numbers- not even 666
2- he IS a douche there is no "may" about it
3- I merely said that the White pages Lists a number for him. If you google that number it is the LAPD- I wondered if anyone knew if that was possible

Posted by: Cla68

I've had some differences with Will in the past, but he's done some good work lately foiling Jossi's attempts to push POV in the Prem Rawat articles.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Will Beback's is a subtle kind of douchiness -- he revels in carrying out bureaucratic functions, and does a lot of drone-work. But then he will turn around and use that activity as a camouflage for his other, equally important POV-pushing activity. Fortunately, long-term users can spot this, which is why Will's candidacy for the ArbCom has been a recurring flop.

Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins

And you're an emotionally stunted crybaby.

Did you have any intelligent criticism to offer.



I've had only good experiences interacting with WBB.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

He was good to me, I NPOV'ed the lead of the Lyndon Larouche article (I've no particular views about the subject myself) and he thanked me for doing it Said someone who doesn't edit there often can look at it with fresh eyes.

(That was a few months ago, so I'm not responsible for whatever it's like now.)

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

William (Will) F. McWhinney is in Zabasearch.com, and is located in Los Angeles. A http://angeles.sierraclub.org/gls/PDF/TRACKS_2006-01-02.pdf for him gives the same telephone number as Zabasearch, which means it was current less than three years ago. He was born in 1963.

Posted by: Viridae

Is it necessary to reveal that information here? Or anywhere?

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

I think you can make a case for it. It explains some of Will's behavior, by revealing a form of COI.

Back in 1984, the people running the state of California removed AIDS from the state list of communicable diseases. They did it because they were a bunch of cheap bastards, who calculated that to use the public health system on AIDS would cost a bundle, and they decided to pinch pennies and let people die. But these cheap bastards were clever, too -- they went to the gay community and told them that they were doing it to "protect privacy." This was sort of plausible, because the standard approach to Sexually Transmitted Diseases is to do what is called "contact tracing" -- you interview the person who has been diagnosed with the disease, and ask them with whom they have had sex. This enables them to locate people who don't know they are infected, and may be out there infecting others.

Enter LaRouche, who said that this was an insanely dangerous course of action, because (if memory serves) people can carry the HIV virus for up to seven years without showing symptoms of AIDS, and when you consider the possible number of sexual partners they might have in that time span, it's like a chain reaction. So, LaRouche put Proposition 64 on the California ballot, to put AIDS back on the list. The penny-pinchers promptly went to the gay organizations and said, "LaRouche is a homophobe! He wants to invade your privacy!" The gay organizations took the bait, and launched a jihad against LaRouche.

It was unclear to me back in the day, when I was embroiled in controversy at Wikipedia, why Will Beback was so eager to make common cause with deranged fanatics like Chip Berlet and Dennis King. However, seen from the perspective gained from Daniel's revelation above (i.e., if you follow the links, Will is a gay activist in California,) it becomes apparent that Will has an undisclosed motive for doing so.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Wow, that's an economically biased perspective, considering the amount of money California would throw at AIDS just a few years later, when a blood test was available. Cheap bastards they might be, but everyone was terrified of the blood supply by 1985.

Your history is messed up. In 1984 there was no AIDS test, but there was decent epidemiological evidence for blood transmission. There was less evidence for sexual transmission, and no way to prove same, without a lab test. (This came in 1985)

If you think gay men in 1984 were not capable of screaming bloody murder about contact-tracing of even a manifestly-sexually transmitted disease, all on their own, you don't know the history of hepatitis B and syphilis, which spread through the gay community in a very similar way to AIDS, in the decade before AIDS. Syphilis caused problems and a great deal of screaming from gay men about discrimination, but there wasn't much the gay community could do, since it was a long reportable communicable disease. However, the guy community did mange to block contract tracing for heptitis B, on grounds that it wasn't ALWAYS a SEXUALLY transmitted disease (instead, in gay men, it just only usually was).

This was an entirely politically-correctness thing. At the time, you were forbidden to ask blood donors about their sexual activities, even though it was known for certain that hepatitis B was epidemic in gay men (causing this group to be so at-risk that it was the one in which the first heptitis B vaccine was tested, in 1980 or so). At the time, the existence of a hepatitis B test, which was being used to screen blood anyway, was used an an excuse not to ask about sexual behavior (it didn't matter what you did in the bedroom, went the thinking-- they were going to test blood anyway). At the same time, LACK of an AIDS test was ALSO used as an excuse not to ask about sexual behavior! (The idea being that since there wasn't a test, there was no way to be sure the agent wasn't transmitted only by sharing needles, and not strictly sexually. Even illicit drug use itself was suggested as a cause). Doctors and blood banks cooperated with all of this, because they didn't want to do anything to interupt the blood donation process, and would fight tooth and nail against anything which made it harder to donate. Money for contact tracing had very little to do with any of it.

Anybody who gives you a different history on this, wasn't there in California, watching the medical system as all this happend. I was.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

Here's more recent information — just one year old. Search in Yahoo for "willmcw AT gmail.com" using the @ in place of the AT and closing up the spaces, but keeping the quotation marks. You get a different phone number from a more recent issue of the same newsletter.

Google shows nothing for this search. It is not every day that Google misses and Yahoo hits, but there you have it.

Posted by: tarantino

Google is real hit and miss when searching for email addresses. You get better results searching for the user name before the at sign.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=willmcw+sierra&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=