Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: How to be obtuse
Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Editors > Notable editors > Will Beback
It's the blimp, Frank
Watch and learn, as Will demonstrates the ancient art of how to wear down your opponent by pretending you're a half-wit.
Kato
The LaRouche article has clearly been taken out of context. This LaRouche 'AIDS/Gay bashing' nonsense has been rumbling for years on WP, and stems from some out of context quotes used by political propagandists Berlet and King.

Here is the original from the 1980s. Incidentally, LaRouche's article reads as one would expect. He seems to think British football hooligans were teen gangs (most were in their 20s, 30s and even 40s), who were creating a wave of "lynchings" of AIDS sufferers (which obviously never happened). Then he draws a distinction between the "Protestant ethic" of Britain which he claims "encultered" football violence, and Catholic countries who have a different "tradition of the confessional" and hence no such propensity - which would come as a surprise to the vast organized hooligan gangs in Catholic Italy and Argentina! But that's LaRouche. Why make informed statements, when you can concoct some lunatic theory that doesn't stand up to cursory reading? laugh.gif
sbrown
QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 25th June 2009, 2:42am) *

Then he draws a distinction between the "Protestant ethic" of Britain which he claims "encultered" football violence, and Catholic countries who have a different "tradition of the confessional" and hence no such propensity - which would come as a surprise to the vast organized hooligan gangs in Catholic Italy and Argentina!

Not to mention Glasgow Celtic. If you told one of their supporters theyd been "encultered" to the "Protestant ethic" of Britain you might find something shoved somewhere!

Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 24th June 2009, 6:42pm) *

This LaRouche 'AIDS/Gay bashing' nonsense has been rumbling for years on WP, and stems from some out of context quotes used by political propagandists Berlet and King.
Yes, this was in the heyday of the LaRouche wars. The article from "New Solidarity" is an arguably non-notable primary source, but the Chipster thought that by doing a cut-and-paste job, he could make it look like LaRouche wanted to beat up gays. Out of this content battle came the "cooked quotes" talk sub-page, which has amazingly never been oversighted. But when I called attention to it (and the way Chip was creating new pages at Political Research Associates purely to aid in edit warring at Wikipedia) here and here, the ArbCom studiously ignored it.
It's the blimp, Frank
I was more interested in the charming way in which Will pretends he can't understand anything Leatherstocking says.
Herschelkrustofsky
Will has now graduated to a full-on rampage over the "Views" article, in which he is demanding that this section on gays and AIDS, which he denounces, be replaced with this one, which he has newly authored. However, in an amusing development, Leatherstocking has ascertained that Will also authored the old one.

This is cute, too.
Rhindle
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 30th June 2009, 10:47pm) *


I think you should appeal your ban too. Put him completely over the edge. evilgrin.gif
Herschelkrustofsky
It might work, too. I've thought about it. But then I'd have to edit Wikipedia.
Milton Roe
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 30th June 2009, 10:47pm) *

Will has now graduated to a full-on rampage over the "Views" article, in which he is demanding that this section on gays and AIDS, which he denounces, be replaced with this one, which he has newly authored. However, in an amusing development, Leatherstocking has ascertained that Will also authored the old one.

This is cute, too.

Is Will Beback one of those ever-persecuted-type gay people? If so, it would explain some his ire in the LaRouche matter, which is otherwise nearly inexplicable. I mean, it's not like the LaRouche cult took his money and stole his family. LaRouche isn't Scientology. What can the man ever have possibly done to Beback to get this kind of treatment?

Now, there's nothing wrong with being gay or Jewish. And if you're either one in Germany in 1934, you would have a right to a certain paranoia. But in Los Angeles, 2009, where Mr. Beback resides, playing those cards to explain paranoia just doesn't cut it. Since Will Beback is not Jewish, there's something else going on. But whatever it is, he's obviously gone over the edge, here.

Hey, Will! We laugh at LaRouche! You should, too! And we laugh at you.
A Horse With No Name
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 1st July 2009, 4:47pm) *

It might work, too. I've thought about it. But then I'd have to edit Wikipedia.


Edit? Oh, I don't know -- think of it as Facebook with encyclopedia articles. Just ignore those boring old encyclopedia articles and hang out with the fun kids. tongue.gif
Herschelkrustofsky
Will and Leatherstocking are well into overtime now. The dispute is over an assortment of dubious news clippings about Activists Behaving Badly, which Will wants to make the central focus of the Views of LaRouche article (in place of LaRouche's views, which are considered irrelevant by Will. or at the very least, poorly sourced, coming as they do from LaRouche.) So the epic battle spills over briefly into the Reliable Sources noticeboard, then to the No Original Research noticeboard where the arguments are so abstruse that no one else participates (except for a brief cameo appearance by SlimVirgin,) and now the BLP noticeboard. As always, I'm rooting for Will, because I hope that his stolidly irrational and relentless, grinding approach to pushing his POV will one day win him the Dick of Distinction award that he has worked so hard for so long to achieve.

And when it comes to delivering a line like this with a straight face, no one can top Will Beback.
Herschelkrustofsky
This has finally made it to ANI, with an interesting contribution by Georgewilliamherbert (T-C-L-K-R-D) . He reveals that Will is "the admin working content," whereas George is "the admin working enforcement." He says that this arrangement enables them both to "avoid having a COI." Has such an arrangement ever been mentioned before? In particular, what is the meaning of an "admin working content"?
It's the blimp, Frank
It's back at ANI. Will Beback has been on a editing binge of truly SlimVirginian proportions, and it looks like it's All LaRouche, All the Time (thank God he's not an SPA.) He was bested by the LaRouche guys several times in a row at the Reliable Sources board, and finally he just went ballistic and got them all banned as Herschel socks. Leatherstocking is making a futile protest about it. But LS misses one of the banned editors, Harry Angstrom (T-C-L-K-R-D) . I thought Harry was just collateral damage, because he didn't really participate in the battles, but then I realized something bigger was afoot, because Harry touched the Holy of Holies, i.e. [[Sierra Club#Immigration controversy]]. For Will, this is as big a deal as Animal Rights is for Slim.
Cla68
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Tue 11th August 2009, 6:32am) *

It's back at ANI. Will Beback has been on a editing binge of truly SlimVirginian proportions, and it looks like it's All LaRouche, All the Time (thank God he's not an SPA.) He was bested by the LaRouche guys several times in a row at the Reliable Sources board, and finally he just went ballistic and got them all banned as Herschel socks. Leatherstocking is making a futile protest about it. But LS misses one of the banned editors, Harry Angstrom (T-C-L-K-R-D) . I thought Harry was just collateral damage, because he didn't really participate in the battles, but then I realized something bigger was afoot, because Harry touched the Holy of Holies, i.e. [[Sierra Club#Immigration controversy]]. For Will, this is as big a deal as Animal Rights is for Slim.


Herschel, were those three accounts yours, or is GWH or some unnamed checkuser lying or mistaken?
EricBarbour
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 11th August 2009, 12:26am) *
Herschel, were those three accounts yours, or is GWH or some unnamed checkuser lying or mistaken?

Who cares?
Will Beback is such a tight-rectumed little shit,
he deserves to be sock-tortured.
By Hersch, or by anyone else up for it.
Moulton
Like I was saying, amateur thespianism is the wave of the future for WikiCulture.
Herschelkrustofsky
For those of you who missed my grand mea culpa in another thread, my abusive sock account at Wikipedia was Helen Hochwasser (T-C-L-K-R-D) .
Moulton
More to the point, did you gain any ground by studying and employing the more effective practices of Mr. Baxter?
Herschelkrustofsky
Not really. I was somewhat disconcerted when Poetguy's Sybil-like sock disorder came to light, because I was thoroughly taken in, and was on friendly terms with some of the socks, while having a contentious relationship with others. I wanted to put it out of my mind.
Milton Roe
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 11th August 2009, 7:58am) *

For those of you who missed my grand mea culpa in another thread, my abusive sock account at Wikipedia was Helen Hochwasser (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

Helen Highwater, eh? Instead of being labeled a sock that whole page has been nuked from orbit by Ryulong. My, what special treatment you get on WP.
Moulton
That he could craft characters capable of engaging in dramatic relationships of varying sorts is interesting. That's a skill that an author needs, so as to write a decent drama.

For all the angst and gnashing of teeth over Baxter's shenanigans, he does seem to have a notable ability to create and inhabit a variety of intriguing and engaging characters.
Kato
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 11th August 2009, 10:34pm) *

That he could craft characters capable of engaging in dramatic relationships of varying sorts is interesting. That's a skill that an author needs, so as to write a decent drama.

For all the angst and gnashing of teeth over Baxter's shenanigans, he does seem to have a notable ability to create and inhabit a variety of intriguing and engaging characters.

Not really. None of them were intriguing nor engaging characters. I found them stiff, obsessively pedantic, and just plain odd.
GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 11th August 2009, 3:45pm) *

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 11th August 2009, 10:34pm) *

That he could craft characters capable of engaging in dramatic relationships of varying sorts is interesting. That's a skill that an author needs, so as to write a decent drama.

For all the angst and gnashing of teeth over Baxter's shenanigans, he does seem to have a notable ability to create and inhabit a variety of intriguing and engaging characters.

Not really. None of them were intriguing nor engaging characters. I found them stiff, obsessively pedantic, and just plain odd.


Agree, Taxwoman, for all "her" BDSM pretense was one of the most sexless characters to inhabit the internet.
Milton Roe
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 11th August 2009, 3:13pm) *

QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 11th August 2009, 3:45pm) *

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 11th August 2009, 10:34pm) *

That he could craft characters capable of engaging in dramatic relationships of varying sorts is interesting. That's a skill that an author needs, so as to write a decent drama.

For all the angst and gnashing of teeth over Baxter's shenanigans, he does seem to have a notable ability to create and inhabit a variety of intriguing and engaging characters.

Not really. None of them were intriguing nor engaging characters. I found them stiff, obsessively pedantic, and just plain odd.


Agree, Taxwoman, for all "her" BDSM pretense was one of the most sexless characters to inhabit the internet.

Well, maybe one of the most sexless sex-characters to inhabit the internet. If you're not going to qualify your statement at all, I really can't agree. Just saying "most sexless character" would be facing some really stiff hot robotic competition from some folks on WP. Unless you're an objectophile, theres's not much exciting about the "personalities" of any number of people over there. No, I'm not going to mention usernames. But there's one or two on Arbcom wink.gif
Cla68
I suspect that Will's and GWH's recent actions may have been, at least in part, a reaction to Will's losing the argument over the use of Communist Chinese sources in the LaRouche articles. We'll see what happens in the future as more PRC and Russian articles are unearthed and used in those articles.
Herschelkrustofsky
Will had previously lost a series of other arguments, one on a Russian source, and then the two speedy deletes he did on Wilhelm Lautenbach and Stanislav Menshikov. Will's basic, overpowering obsession at this point is to eliminate any reference to LaRouche as an economist, and have articles that present him only as a controversial demagogue who is the focus of nasty rumors in the press. He has been laboring away on an enormous SV-style talk-page project, basically a dossier of bad things said about LaRouche in the American press back in the 70s/80s. He will go nuts trying to exclude anything favorable from the Russian, Chinese, or Indian press.
Herschelkrustofsky
And now he has begun to implement his long-planned new policy, that the writings of Lyndon LaRouche may not be used as a source for Views of Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). That should be obvious, eh? mellow.gif
Milton Roe
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 12th August 2009, 4:28pm) *

And now he has begun to implement his long-planned new policy, that the writings of Lyndon LaRouche may not be used as a source for Views of Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). That should be obvious, eh? mellow.gif

It's an extension of an older policy that the writings of Charles Sanders Pierce could not be used as references for the views of Pierce.

What was that BLP we recently saw go past, were some writter for the National Review was trying to fix the viewpoint section of his own BLP, referencing his own articles in the Review, and got reverted with the warning that working on your own BLP is excessively COI? You have to sit back and watch as other people tell you what your beliefs are.* That's your brain on Wikipedia.


*N.B. Unless you're a functionary on WP or WMF, in which case you're permitted to do almost anything with your BLP you like. Including removing all the views sections.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.