Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: McWeenie
> Wikimedia Discussion > Editors > Notable editors > Will Beback
It's the blimp, Frank
For a good time, click here: McWeenie (T-C-L-K-R-D) Oh, crap, it's gone already.

edit: But this survives:
QUOTE
One must never lose sight of the fact that your banned user is a veritable criminal mastermind. He changes IP addresses with the greatest of ease; he laughs at geolocators; no technical security feature can stop him. Yet there is one thing he cannot change, one tell-tale, DNA-like feature which will inevitably trip him up: his POV. Try as he may to change his spots, the banned user's POV will always surface, sooner or later. Therefore, we must not shrink from the only viable solution. Ultimately, we must publish an Index of Prohibited POVs. This will of course take time to prepare. In the meantime, we should instute a new feature, similar to the Village Pump, to be called the Wikipedia Post Office Wall. We will produce of gallery of known POVs attributed to banned users. Restoring, or creating, material that reflects these POVs will be considered prima facie evidence of guilt. Admins who represent the forces of righteousness must be empowered to take all necessary measures against these marauders from the outside world, including the ability to execute "spot bans" whenever a telltale POV is detected. Can we do any less to protect the project? --McWeenie (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Account clearly set up to mock Will Beback. I've blocked it. Cool Hand Luke 15:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
A Horse With No Name
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Mon 31st August 2009, 11:45am) *

For a good time, click here: McWeenie (T-C-L-K-R-D) Oh, crap, it's gone already.

edit: But this survives:
QUOTE
One must never lose sight of the fact that your banned user is a veritable criminal mastermind. He changes IP addresses with the greatest of ease; he laughs at geolocators; no technical security feature can stop him. Yet there is one thing he cannot change, one tell-tale, DNA-like feature which will inevitably trip him up: his POV. Try as he may to change his spots, the banned user's POV will always surface, sooner or later. Therefore, we must not shrink from the only viable solution. Ultimately, we must publish an Index of Prohibited POVs. This will of course take time to prepare. In the meantime, we should instute a new feature, similar to the Village Pump, to be called the Wikipedia Post Office Wall. We will produce of gallery of known POVs attributed to banned users. Restoring, or creating, material that reflects these POVs will be considered prima facie evidence of guilt. Admins who represent the forces of righteousness must be empowered to take all necessary measures against these marauders from the outside world, including the ability to execute "spot bans" whenever a telltale POV is detected. Can we do any less to protect the project? --McWeenie (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Account clearly set up to mock Will Beback. I've blocked it. Cool Hand Luke 15:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)



Don't forget this gem from the Talk Page:

"Blocked

This account seems set up to ridicule User:Will Beback. I don't appreciate you throwing your crap into a debate where we're trying to make progress. I'm blocking you indefinitely. Cool Hand Luke 15:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)"

I don't know what is funnier: "throwing your crap" or "a debate where we're trying to make progress." ermm.gif
thekohser
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 31st August 2009, 11:55am) *

QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Mon 31st August 2009, 11:45am) *

For a good time, click here: McWeenie (T-C-L-K-R-D) Oh, crap, it's gone already.

edit: But this survives:
QUOTE
One must never lose sight of the fact that your banned user is a veritable criminal mastermind. He changes IP addresses with the greatest of ease; he laughs at geolocators; no technical security feature can stop him. Yet there is one thing he cannot change, one tell-tale, DNA-like feature which will inevitably trip him up: his POV. Try as he may to change his spots, the banned user's POV will always surface, sooner or later. Therefore, we must not shrink from the only viable solution. Ultimately, we must publish an Index of Prohibited POVs. This will of course take time to prepare. In the meantime, we should instute a new feature, similar to the Village Pump, to be called the Wikipedia Post Office Wall. We will produce of gallery of known POVs attributed to banned users. Restoring, or creating, material that reflects these POVs will be considered prima facie evidence of guilt. Admins who represent the forces of righteousness must be empowered to take all necessary measures against these marauders from the outside world, including the ability to execute "spot bans" whenever a telltale POV is detected. Can we do any less to protect the project? --McWeenie (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Account clearly set up to mock Will Beback. I've blocked it. Cool Hand Luke 15:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)



Don't forget this gem from the Talk Page:

"Blocked

This account seems set up to ridicule User:Will Beback. I don't appreciate you throwing your crap into a debate where we're trying to make progress. I'm blocking you indefinitely. Cool Hand Luke 15:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)"

I don't know what is funnier: "throwing your crap" or "a debate where we're trying to make progress." ermm.gif


Or, it is juicy irony that holding a POV that there ought to be an Index of Prohibited POVs would be, itself, prohibited.
Lar
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 31st August 2009, 12:31pm) *

Or, it is juicy irony that holding a POV that there ought to be an Index of Prohibited POVs would be, itself, prohibited.

I'm not sure if that's advanced Doublethink ... or Crimethink.
Cla68
McWeenie's comment wasn't very helpful, but it was funny.
Shalom
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 1st September 2009, 12:50am) *

McWeenie's comment wasn't very helpful, but it was funny.

Yes.
gomi
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 31st August 2009, 9:50pm) *
McWeenie's comment wasn't very helpful, but it was funny.

I beg to differ. Funny is helpful in these situations. If the account was created to mock Will Beback, then it is because he needed to be mocked. Those who take the MMPORG called Wikipedia as seriously as he does need to be satirized. If only we had the equivalent of The Daily Show for Wikipedia!
A Horse With No Name
QUOTE(gomi @ Tue 1st September 2009, 1:43pm) *
If only we had the equivalent of The Daily Show for Wikipedia!


I would prefer the equivalent of The Benny Hill Show for Wikipedia! boing.gif
CharlotteWebb
QUOTE(Cool Hand Luke)

This account seems set up to ridicule User:Will Beback.

Well no shit, though it did take a day and a half to reach this conclusion.

You see, everyone lower than arbcom felt it safer and more prudent to suffer a troll's presence than to be banned (or at least shit-listed) for explaining how this user-name was problematic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...e=User:McWeenie
Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(gomi @ Tue 1st September 2009, 10:43am) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 31st August 2009, 9:50pm) *
McWeenie's comment wasn't very helpful, but it was funny.

I beg to differ. Funny is helpful in these situations.
I'll drink to that. Satirists like Jonathan Swift have historically been an important force for social progress.


QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 1st September 2009, 10:58am) *

I would prefer the equivalent of The Benny Hill Show for Wikipedia! boing.gif
I thought that was what WP:ANI was for.
gomi
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Tue 1st September 2009, 11:49am) *
QUOTE(Cool Hand Luke)
This account seems set up to ridicule User:Will Beback.

Well no shit, though it did take a day and a half to reach this conclusion.

You see, everyone lower than arbcom felt it safer and more prudent to suffer a troll's presence than to be banned (or at least shit-listed) for explaining how this user-name was problematic.

Is there some reason why we're not supposed to say that Will Beback (T-C-L-K-R-D) is actually someone named Will McWhinney? Not to be confused with his late father of the same name, he seems to be leading an unremarkable life, except for being a dweeb on Wikipedia.
carbuncle
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 31st August 2009, 4:31pm) *

Or, it is juicy irony that holding a POV that there ought to be an Index of Prohibited POVs would be, itself, prohibited.

Similar to the "abuse filter" filter that stops one from mentioning the abuse filter?
A Horse With No Name
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 1st September 2009, 5:02pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 1st September 2009, 10:58am) *

I would prefer the equivalent of The Benny Hill Show for Wikipedia! boing.gif
I thought that was what WP:ANI was for.


No, WP:ANI is the Wikipedia equivalent of WWE -- except we have 50 million teenagers, Xeno and Tan instead of John Cena and friends. yak.gif
Cedric
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 1st September 2009, 4:02pm) *

QUOTE(gomi @ Tue 1st September 2009, 10:43am) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 31st August 2009, 9:50pm) *
McWeenie's comment wasn't very helpful, but it was funny.

I beg to differ. Funny is helpful in these situations.
I'll drink to that. Satirists like Jonathan Swift have historically been an important force for social progress.

Indeed. That is precisely why satirists are so deeply despised and distrusted on Wikipedia. Despite pretensions to the contrary, Wikipedia isn't about social or educational progress; it's about protecting its ideological "purity".
One
QUOTE(gomi @ Tue 1st September 2009, 9:55pm) *

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Tue 1st September 2009, 11:49am) *
QUOTE(Cool Hand Luke)
This account seems set up to ridicule User:Will Beback.

Well no shit, though it did take a day and a half to reach this conclusion.

You see, everyone lower than arbcom felt it safer and more prudent to suffer a troll's presence than to be banned (or at least shit-listed) for explaining how this user-name was problematic.

Is there some reason why we're not supposed to say that Will Beback (T-C-L-K-R-D) is actually someone named Will McWhinney?

What was the reason for not saying your name again?
Lar
QUOTE(One @ Wed 2nd September 2009, 10:58am) *

QUOTE(gomi @ Tue 1st September 2009, 9:55pm) *

Is there some reason why we're not supposed to say that Will Beback (T-C-L-K-R-D) is actually someone named Will McWhinney?

What was the reason for not saying your name again?

Because Will Beback edits on Wikipedia and Gomi doesn't... er no, that's not it.

Because people give Gomi a hard time about things but no one ever gives Will Beback a hard time about things... er no, that's not it either.

Because of the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
One
QUOTE(Lar @ Wed 2nd September 2009, 6:54pm) *

Because of the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

That's the answer I would pick too.
CharlotteWebb
QUOTE(gomi @ Tue 1st September 2009, 9:55pm) *

Is there some reason why we're not supposed to say that...

That probably depends on how your definition of "we". Topic for another thread perhaps. dry.gif
The Joy
QUOTE(Lar @ Wed 2nd September 2009, 2:54pm) *

QUOTE(One @ Wed 2nd September 2009, 10:58am) *

QUOTE(gomi @ Tue 1st September 2009, 9:55pm) *

Is there some reason why we're not supposed to say that Will Beback (T-C-L-K-R-D) is actually someone named Will McWhinney?

What was the reason for not saying your name again?

Because Will Beback edits on Wikipedia and Gomi doesn't... er no, that's not it.

Because people give Gomi a hard time about things but no one ever gives Will Beback a hard time about things... er no, that's not it either.

Because of the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.


Gomi is just a moderator on a small forum floating in the vast Internet. Will McWhinney/Will Beback is editing the most popular online "encyclopedia" to advance his own idea of "truth" on people and has never apologized for it. Will Beback causes more harm to people by editing Wikipedia than Gomi posting here.

Also, One, you just helped "out" Will Beback by stating that User:Weenie was made to mock Beback. I find that ironic!
One
QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 2nd September 2009, 10:52pm) *

Also, One, you just helped "out" Will Beback by stating that User:Weenie was made to mock Beback. I find that ironic!

Not at all. His user and talk page was a rip off of Beback's (copying photos and FA stars). If he was named User:KimWipe, it was still clearly set up to mock Beback.
CharlotteWebb
QUOTE(One @ Wed 2nd September 2009, 11:04pm) *

Not at all. His user and talk page was a rip off of Beback's (copying photos and FA stars). If he was named User:KimWipe, it was still clearly set up to mock Beback.

Oh sorry. I thought the block reason was based solely on the username.
EricBarbour
QUOTE(One @ Wed 2nd September 2009, 11:04pm) *
Not at all. His user and talk page was a rip off of Beback's (copying photos and FA stars). If he was named User:KimWipe, it was still clearly set up to mock Beback.

I had a feeling you were yet another humorless Mormon.
You're no fun at all. sad.gif

Why don't you have a nice admin-to-admin serious talk with Mr. Beback, and
try to convince him that his grim small-minded edit-war proclivities, and
(especially) his tendency to blank any criticism of him, are causing pain and
angering many people? Apparently no one else seems able to get through to him.
One
Eric, I would just like to get something done. Wiki discussions have a short attention span and are easily sidetracked. There's place for Wikipedia humor, and I wish we would see more of it here, but in those discussions it's indistinguishable from trolling.

For example, Dan T's comments here are satirical, but in that debate it's nothing but a lightening rod for objections about how there really is such thing as harassment. All of this is counter-productive to my narrow focus; no one is seriously contending that there aren't actual harassers--I doubt even Dan T is. I'd just like to rationalize our policy on reversions to banned users. I'm not trying to score personal points against my wiki-enemies (McWeenie), nor am I hoping to write jeremaids against banning in general (Dan T).

I'm not happy when non-parties rush into debates clanging drums yelling "look at me! look at me!"

I don't like it when Tony Sidaway or Ottava does it, and I certainly don't like it when it's supposed to be coming from "my side." Maybe this is an idiosyncratic preference, but I think not.
Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(One @ Thu 3rd September 2009, 7:29pm) *

For example, Dan T's comments here are satirical, but in that debate it's nothing but a lightening rod for objections about how there really is such thing as harassment.
Damn! When Dan T is on, he's on. His comments, as well as the "McWeenie" intervention, are a breath of fresh air in the midst of a discourse otherwise dominated by stuffy, dishonest, euphemistic WikiLawyering. It is all about POV and control of article content, and every blessed participant on that talk page knows it.
Herschelkrustofsky
Kudos to Lar for the following. It's not funny, but it is lucid:
QUOTE
Without in any way meaning to trivialise the real and genuine harassment that does occur here and elsewhere including in real life, the "harassment card" is rather overplayed around here, especially by certain parties who ought to by now know better. Moreover Dan T. wasn't talking about harassment per se, more about the distressing tendency to manufacture bogeymen as necessary. There are a number of editors that, whatever their considerable positive contributions to the wiki may be, ought not to be given credence when they claim vast sock armies are on the march, requiring the rangeblocking of entire states and the like, or the instant denigration of anyone who has a POV opposed to theirs in the subject area as an obvious sock of X. Kind of McCarthy-istic if you ask me.
Tower
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 2nd September 2009, 5:58am) *

QUOTE(gomi @ Tue 1st September 2009, 1:43pm) *
If only we had the equivalent of The Daily Show for Wikipedia!


I would prefer the equivalent of The Benny Hill Show for Wikipedia! boing.gif


All that aimless running around and slapping of heads is a little like RfA Talk page... tongue.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.