|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |