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: Mon 26th September 2011, 5:23am

[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: Mon 26th September 2011, 6:33am

[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: Mon 26th September 2011, 1:55pm

[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: Mon 26th September 2011, 6:48pm

[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: Mon 26th September 2011, 10:12pm

[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."