Billmasen is something of an unknown quantity in these parts. He ran unsuccessfully for ArbCom a few years back, but otherwise has not been on the radar screen. He just did a total re-write of the "Views of Lyndon LaRouche" article, which has been a topic of discussion here because of the contention of the famed Will Beback/SlimVirgin tag-team that LaRouche is not a reliable source for his own views. Billmasen, however, is taking it to the next level. Although he quotes WP scripture in his talk page rationale, he largely ignores it in practice, leavening the article with his own editorial commentary (what is called, in polite company, Original Research.) I think it is possible that he is essentially acting as a stalking horse for WB, who will defend Billmasen's edits in the traditional way, i.e., by banning anyone who tries to revert them, but will then go all Pontius Pilate and claim that he doesn't necessarily agree with the defamatory nature of the re-write, but someone else did it so it he (WB) need not accept responsibility.

As I surmised, Will Beback is just pleased as punch. It was becoming a bit awkward for him, since SlimVirgin only shows up once in a blue moon to have a 3-day POV bender, and Will was becoming somewhat obviously the sole proprietor of the LaRouche articles. Now with Billmasen on board to to channel Dennis King, the two of them can play "consensus."

In a real encyclopedia, LaRouche is non-notable so I vote delete.

Since they never had anything like "NPOV" on this particular article, it's hard to just say something like "so much for their so-called 'NPOV'," but this really does put it in rather stark relief. It's not even very well-written - I saw at least 5 typos just by skimming it.

Wasn't this called "Criticism of Lyndon Larouche" at one point? They should call it that again, since that's what it is... I suspect this is basically a kind of delayed payback for LL's Obama-bashing during the last couple of years, and he probably deserves it too (if only for that), but that doesn't make it any less hypocritical from WP's perspective. In fact, at this point it's so heavily biased I doubt it's doing the anti-Larouche people any good either.

At one point there was a sort of consensus that relying on Dennis King as a source was a bit of an embarrassment, and even Will Beback seemed to be signing on to that. But he is clearly delighted to have a proxy that has recast the article from the POV of Dennis King. He has a clever little disclaimer in his comment:


He also has this comment, which seems vague in a sly sort of way:

This note to Will Beback, posted by BillMasen, demonstrates that he knows very well how the game is played.

They are wrestling with the challenge of being a Fair Witness.

It's a universal challenge.

Good golly, Miss Molly, no one does "passive-aggressive" like Will Beback. See how he has managed to carry on for 4 solid days without ever answering the question that is being addressed to him.

This guy pretty much nailed it, causing Will to delete his comment.

Maybe, but there are probably a dozen WP admins and a handful of arbs reading this who are too chicken to challenge Will Beback on his shenanigans.

Will Beback ran out of arguments days ago. I predict he's about to ban someone.

Well, it took over a week. Congratulations Hersch, according to Beback, you are the proud father of two new socks.

Not necessarily. There are exceptions. BillMasen, who shows up with a POV that is amazingly similar to Will Beback's, is seen to have "brought fresh eyes to this overlong article," so he's clearly in no danger of being banned.

Those new editors whose POV is not amazingly similar to WB's are subject to The Duck Test, and will be banned. Here's how it works: at Wikipedia:Blocking policy (T-H-L-K-D), it says the following:

So, how can Will Beback block his opponents almost as a reflex? Well, he has referred on talk pages to another policy, which I can't seem to find, that says a sock of a banned user may be blocked by any admin, presumably without regard to conflict of interest. The closest thing I could find was this:

WP:BAN also says this:


Nota bene: I am a banned user. I was banned by a Community Ban. The "community" consisted of Will Beback and JoshuaZ (T-C-L-K-R-D) . Here are the proceedings.

So, WB routinely asserts that his opponents are me. He avoids any public discussion in the form of SPIs. When challenged, which is a rarity, he will rely on the Duck Test (i.e., POV,) plus arguments which I believe go along these lines: I, HK, have publicly acknowledged that I use AOL and I live in southern California. So, right away we may assume that anyone who seems sympathetic to LaRouche and edits from AOL must be me (I recall one case of a guy living in Idaho); plus anyone living in southern California must be me, or minimally my meatpuppet. According to Will's reading of policy, he can make spot-bans of meatpuppets also.

Now, there's an additional wrinkle which I don't fully understand, because Will alludes to it in ambiguous terms. I think that each time he bans a user who geolocates to southern California and does not use AOL, he will add that user's ISP to a list of "known HK ISPs," which means he can vastly expand his banning range to include users who do not geolocate to southern California, but use an ISP from that list. This is how he created this magnificent edifice.

One other tactic which WB now routinely uses is that of stretching the truth just a tiny bit on talk pages:
His most recent scalp is User:Owen Roe, and WP places on the user page a template indicating that Owen is a "suspected sockpuppet of Herschel Krustofsky." I take this to mean that the block was done strictly on the basis of the Duck Test. However, on the talk page for "LaRouche Views," Will implies that the case is proven: "Another drawer full of HK's socks has been found and blocked."

HK, I blame you for the blocking of my brother. And also for his prior absorption into your cult, of course.

It's only a matter of time before you yourself fall under the sway of my Svengali-like powers.

Yes, Herschel

Oh this is great stuff. We just love hearing about Will Beback and his oppression of Lyndon LaRouche supporters. This is the kind of thing you read, and it changes your life.

It changed mine. I had dinner 2 minutes later.

You should try your hand at criticising Wikipedia. I don't think I've ever seen you do it.

My attitude is that you don't have to like LaRouchians, Prem Rewatians, Scientologists, Global Warming Skeptics, or Cold Fusionaries to dislike the way that Wikipedia is used to witch-hunt those groups. Will Beback is a sanctimonious pile of rat feces who exemplifies all the underhanded practices at Wikipedia.

So how does WB make his blocks?

I don't quite understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ons/Boss_Croker mad only two meaningful edits, neither of them reverted, and was blocked two months later.

Does WB just revert anyone asking for sources on LaRouche pages?

And having blocked 'Horace Wheatley', he goes and vandalises pages to revert him. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=385600831

What kinda crack is WB smoking that he feels the need to obfuscate pages such as this one for no gain to 'the project'? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Third_Stone_from_the_Sun

One might assume that it is some sort of tantrum, but I believe it to be more of an intentional smokescreen. WB is making a lot of seemingly random reverts to deflect attention from the very deliberate, POV-motivated reverts such as this one, or this one.

I would, but I fear that this LaRouche stuff being present on the same website would debase any credible criticism I could offer.

Here is a particularly weird case: apparently due to this edit, WB bans 'n' brands one S. Fursa (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

And here's another outstanding ban: Ludwig Beethoven (T-C-L-K-R-D) is now listed as another sock of myself, although Ludwig never edited any article of interest to me. Presumably he was banned for annoying WB by editing [[Transcendental Meditation]]. I would assume that the accusation that he is my sock is simply a convenience for WB, to help him get around this policy.