I think that this whole episode was triggered by what happened two weeks ago, when Beback was challenged by Lar and Cla68 at "Views of LaRouche." He is clearly afraid of them, and since most cowards are bullies, he took it out on every newbie account he could find. Yesterday, he graduated to banning or harassing IP number editors.
Beback is struggling to keep the legacy of Chip Berlet alive. SlimVirgin used to do the heavy lifting in that department, but she seems to have developed other interests.
Full Version: Will Bee Back Ward
Will was probably also annoyed because he was being diverted from his Master Plan, where he will write more articles about Transcendental Meditation than any other editor in history! [cue mad scientist laughter] No one will ever be able to challenge his POV! His latest up-and-coming article is about The Beatles and TM. I believe it is number 37 in the series.
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 5th October 2010, 5:17pm) 
Will was probably also annoyed because he was being diverted from his Master Plan, where he will write more articles about Transcendental Meditation than any other editor in history! [cue mad scientist laughter] No one will ever be able to challenge his POV! His latest up-and-coming article is about The Beatles and TM. I believe it is number 37 in the series.
Would that be The Fonz School of Transcendentalism?
Aaaaay! Prior I!
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 5th October 2010, 10:17pm)
Will was probably also annoyed because he was being diverted from his Master Plan, where he will write more articles about Transcendental Meditation than any other editor in history! [cue mad scientist laughter] No one will ever be able to challenge his POV! His latest up-and-coming article is about The Beatles and TM. I believe it is number 37 in the series.
um,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_at_Rishikesh
Will wrote most of it, spending a ridiculous amount of time on it in April.
This was the pre-Will version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=350013725
Mods,
Could you put this thread in Meta*Discussion so I can split off the stuff that belongs in the Editors Forum?
Thanks,
Jon
Could you put this thread in Meta*Discussion so I can split off the stuff that belongs in the Editors Forum?
Thanks,
Jon
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 5th October 2010, 6:50pm)
Mods,
Could you put this thread in Meta*Discussion so I can split off the stuff that belongs in the Editors Forum?
Done. I'm not sure what you have in mind, but you started the thread, so it's your call. I would be inclined to put it in the Will Beback forum (I'm a fan.)
QUOTE(wikieyeay @ Tue 5th October 2010, 6:41pm)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 5th October 2010, 10:17pm)
Will was probably also annoyed because he was being diverted from his Master Plan, where he will write more articles about Transcendental Meditation than any other editor in history! [cue mad scientist laughter] No one will ever be able to challenge his POV! His latest up-and-coming article is about The Beatles and TM. I believe it is number 37 in the series.
um,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_at_Rishikesh
Will wrote most of it, spending a ridiculous amount of time on it in April.
This was the pre-Will version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=350013725
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Tue 5th October 2010, 9:19am)
I think that this whole episode was triggered by what happened two weeks ago, when Beback was challenged by Lar and Cla68 at "Views of LaRouche." He is clearly afraid of them, and since most cowards are bullies, he took it out on every newbie account he could find. Yesterday, he graduated to banning or harassing IP number editors.
He's now in an epic battle with 2 IP editors, one of which geolocates to Tampa, Florida, and the other to Gießen, Germany. He demands to know whether they are the same person. Of course, the joke is on them, because this is his standard technique for deflecting any questions about his wretched POV pushing.
Edit: correction, the German guy/gal is on to him.
Hersh, did you move to Florida?
See the following choice example of Bebackery:
See the following choice example of Bebackery:
QUOTE
* It says that Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. It looks to me like "Will Beback" is deliberately inserting opinions inteneded to slander LaRouche, while keeping out factual information. 97.96.251.7 (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Banned users aren't permitted here, HK. Please go away. Will Beback talk 04:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Another lame-O attempt to dodge the issue. First you accused me of being 81.210.204.222, then you accuse me of being "HK". 81.210.204.222 was right -- you are attempting to divert the discussion of your inappropriate behaviour. You are violating official procedures that would help to clean up this crap article. 97.96.251.7 (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't accuse you, I asked you. And you never responded, instead making more personal attacks against me. You also never responded to other questions about your involvement. Instead, you make more false accusations against me, including misquoting me from this very page. If you're pretending to be a useful editor you're not doing a good job. Will Beback talk 20:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Banned users aren't permitted here, HK. Please go away. Will Beback talk 04:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Another lame-O attempt to dodge the issue. First you accused me of being 81.210.204.222, then you accuse me of being "HK". 81.210.204.222 was right -- you are attempting to divert the discussion of your inappropriate behaviour. You are violating official procedures that would help to clean up this crap article. 97.96.251.7 (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't accuse you, I asked you. And you never responded, instead making more personal attacks against me. You also never responded to other questions about your involvement. Instead, you make more false accusations against me, including misquoting me from this very page. If you're pretending to be a useful editor you're not doing a good job. Will Beback talk 20:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Wed 13th October 2010, 9:29am)
Hersh, did you move to Florida?
Unbelievable. They actually blocked 97.96.251.7Â (T-C-L-K-R-D)
as a sock, even though he lives in Florida and has made no article edits. This is the purest example I have seen of a POV block. I am now convinced that Georgewilliamherbert is one of Wikipedia's premier assholes. He and Will Beback must be joined at the hip -- if Jimbo is so big on transparency, it would be nice to see a public airing of the Georgewilliamherbert/Will Beback email correspondence.
Hey, Hersch, were you aware that "resistance to redaction" is your hallmark? Works for me -- redaction resistors ought to be banned on sight.
I do not recall any instance in which I was charged with resisting redaction. However, as more and more individuals attempted to confront WB and were convicted by either him or GeorgeWilliamHerbert of being me, their individual editing traits agglomerated with mine, until I became an extremely multi-faceted editing entity with residences scattered all across the country. I should start referring to myself as the "HK Collective."
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Mon 22nd November 2010, 10:58am)
Hey, Hersch, were you aware that "resistance to redaction" is your hallmark?
Will is still holding the award for Most Constipated Wikipedian.He's been put up for too many DICK of Distinction awards, unfortunately.
(Can we give him a Lifetime Achievement Award or somesuch?
How about a poke in the ass with a truncheon? Oh wait, he might enjoy that.)
PS--he just "outed someone". It's okay when Will does it.....
He can be a constipated buffoon, but I think that often he only plays the part in order to get what he wants.
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Tue 23rd November 2010, 10:10am)
He can be a constipated buffoon, but I think that often he only plays the part in order to get what he wants.
I'm almost afraid to ask how that works.
Is it one of those friends vs. enemas things?
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 23rd November 2010, 6:08pm)
Is it one of those friends vs. enemas things?
I check in on Will from time to time because he is a dependable source of lulz. He's still battling it out at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement. First he defended the use of a source which was a self-published UK-based website run by some pals of Chip Berlet. Then he denounced the use of Corriere della Sera as a source because it is "foreign." He's frustrated because he's under a fair amount of scrutiny on that article, so he takes out his frustrations on another article that he thinks no one is watching, Nataliya Vitrenko, where he just deleted half the article because it was LaRouche-related. Hersch, that was supposedly the work of another of your offspring, slightly over a year ago.
That would be Leatherstocking. When he was banned, there was no one claiming that he had a connection to me. WB routinely lies about this sort of thing, after first allowing some time for everyone to forget what happened.
And don't forget that, exactly one year ago, Will tried to claim that someone he was
in dispute with.......was a sock of me.
(The userpage for Dunce_with_a_blade now says it was a sock of Hersh. Of course, Will came along
six months after that little mess, and marked the userpage thus. The talk page still bears the original
accusation, with Alison correcting him. Be prepared for Will, or one of his pals, to oversight those
diffs out of existence--after seeing this thread.)
Will McWhiney. Pathological liar. Incompetent.
in dispute with.......was a sock of me.
(The userpage for Dunce_with_a_blade now says it was a sock of Hersh. Of course, Will came along
six months after that little mess, and marked the userpage thus. The talk page still bears the original
accusation, with Alison correcting him. Be prepared for Will, or one of his pals, to oversight those
diffs out of existence--after seeing this thread.)
Will McWhiney. Pathological liar. Incompetent.
Lulz.
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Mon 13th December 2010, 11:43am)
For those of you reading along, it's Will Beback challenging two LaRouche sources as being too difficult to verify. Turns out the person who long ago added them, was himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Views_of...plete_citations
Can't wait to see how Will responds.
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 13th December 2010, 7:09pm)
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Mon 13th December 2010, 11:43am)
For those of you reading along, it's Will Beback challenging two LaRouche sources as being too difficult to verify. Turns out the person who long ago added them, was himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Views_of...plete_citations
Can't wait to see how Will responds.
Probably too busy watching over my deletions to pick me up on my talkpage.
See here, here and today here.
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Mon 13th December 2010, 11:27am)
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 13th December 2010, 7:09pm)
For those of you reading along, it's Will Beback challenging two LaRouche sources as being too difficult to verify. Turns out the person who long ago added them, was himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Views_of...plete_citations
Can't wait to see how Will responds.
Probably too busy watching over my deletions to pick me up on my talkpage.
See here, here and today here.
QUOTE
You take a more relaxed (I'd call it irresponsible) approach to BLP
Yes, WB is a long-time proponent of that relaxed approach. Heck, if you can't defame people, what's the point of becoming an admin on the Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit?
QUOTE
OK, now restored. It would have been much less hassle, had you asked me what my concerns were, reassured me that you'd been able to check the sources and we'd worked out the remaining issues. I'm not that that unapproachable.--Scott Mac 22:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
There'd be less hassle if you specified the criteria and made sure the article actually meets that criteria. If there's an "ignore all rules" situation then you should probably write an explanation on AN for why the rules needed to be ignored. Admins do have significant discretion, but that shouldn't be abused. Anyway, glad it's resolved now for this article. Will Beback talk 23:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I did specify the criteria - see the arbcom permission I referred to above. My deletion summary indicated I believed it to be a poorly sourced negative BLP. I see nothing problematic with what I did, and a major problem with how you responded. I know you have an objection to the arbcom ruling, but I suggest you take that up with the committee and not with me.--Scott Mac 23:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
There'd be less hassle if you specified the criteria and made sure the article actually meets that criteria. If there's an "ignore all rules" situation then you should probably write an explanation on AN for why the rules needed to be ignored. Admins do have significant discretion, but that shouldn't be abused. Anyway, glad it's resolved now for this article. Will Beback talk 23:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I did specify the criteria - see the arbcom permission I referred to above. My deletion summary indicated I believed it to be a poorly sourced negative BLP. I see nothing problematic with what I did, and a major problem with how you responded. I know you have an objection to the arbcom ruling, but I suggest you take that up with the committee and not with me.--Scott Mac 23:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Gosh! Can I be that clueless and arrogant all the time?.....where do I sign up?
And Scott, I certainly hope you will enjoy the warm feeling of Will and Cirt shitting on your head for months to come.....
What is the arbcom ruling that is being referenced?
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 13th December 2010, 12:09pm)
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Mon 13th December 2010, 11:43am)
For those of you reading along, it's Will Beback challenging two LaRouche sources as being too difficult to verify. Turns out the person who long ago added them, was himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Views_of...plete_citations
Can't wait to see how Will responds.
As of two days later, all we hear so far is ..*... cricketts...*...*....
There is other mischief afoot.
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 14th December 2010, 2:48pm)
There is other mischief afoot.
Very funny. I slappa you face, little boy. Ha ha ha.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.