Wikipediocracy

Beyond My Ken wrote: Also note that Face Book, You Tube and Wikipedia itself are not considered reliable sources and cannot be used in references. Please do not change the text from its current state - you obviously have a conflict of interest in regard to this play and should not be editing it at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken wrote: == You're just floundering around on a subject you don't know shit about ==

You edited Morosco Theatre, and its just an article to you, but it happens to be the first Broadway theatre I did a show at. Go edit something you understand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken wrote: == Well, you are a little pissant..... ==

...aren't you? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beyon ... ish_Rialto] Fuck you, asshole. Your Asperger's is not a "get out of jail free" card. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken wrote: Oh my god, you're right, the world is swirling around me -- Where Am I? Who Am I? "Kiss"? What is "Kiss"?.

No actually, your edits were shit, kemosabe, utterly shit. Don't restore them, they'll just be deleted again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken wrote: == Peter Cooper ==

Cut the crap, kid. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken wrote: == Vandalism and spelling ==

Hello. Vandalizing Wikipedia, by adding "genitalia" to an article, makes you look like an idiot. Misspelling the word, as "genetalia", makes you look like a stupid idiot. If that's how you want to present yourself to the world, you're doing well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken wrote: Also, calling another editor "ignorant" is potentially a personal attack, so I suggest that you review that policy. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken wrote: I respect (most) admins because they do a really difficult job; I respect (almost all) Arbs because they do an entirely impossible job; I would like to meet many of the drama board regulars and ArbCom commentators at a party, so I can sucker punch them in the gut and lay them up for a couple of days, so we'd get some respite from their constant crap - that's how angry they make me. In the long run, I'd rather find a way to reduce the drama, defang the commentators, and lower my blood pressure, while maintaining a healthy colloquy within the community about the administration of the project. How? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

thekohser wrote:Wikipedia: The encyclopedia that personalities like Beyond My Ken are encouraged to edit.

I originally did the bulk of my editing (42,000+ edits) with another ID (now User:Before My Ken), but because of wikihounding which I felt could not be effectively handled by the state of interpretation of Wikipedia policy at the time, I changed ID to avoid the harrassment. With a second ID (now User:Between My Ken) I had very negative interactions with a sockfarm attempting to control the content of various pages connected to an independent film, and I changed to my current (and final) ID, User:Beyond My Ken. After I filed the initial SPI on the puppetmaster, Sorrywrongnumber, one of the socks filed a retaliatory SPI on me. As a result of the positive checkuser result, my accounts were blocked, but after a subsequent discussion on AN/I I was allowed to continue editing under this account. The other accounts were redirected to my current user and talk pages, and were blocked.

I want to be clear that although I have had more than one account in my time on Wikipedia, I have never, with the trivial exception of a few housekeeping edits to my original account, used more than one account at a time, and once I stopped using an account I did not go back to it. What I did could best be described as "using serial accounts".

I made my first edit as a registered user on 26 June 2005. For those interested in edit counts, add 44,600 edits to whatever my current "Beyond My Ken" total is.

Regarding "Ken"

It's a natural mistake to make, but "Ken" in "Beyond My Ken" is not short for the name "Kenneth", it is the English word "ken", derived fron Scottish, and meaning "knowledge". My given name is something else entirely, so "Beyond My Ken" or "BMK" are appropriate appellations for addressing me here on Wikipedia.

Vigilant wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia% ... Fitzgerald

Even better

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_ ... Fitzgerald

Captain Occam wrote:I've had several experiences with Beyond my Ken, and he does seem a lot like a bad-hand account, but I could never identify a specific sockmaster. If you think there's enough evidence that he's Ed Fitzgerald, you should try making an SPI report.

Captain Occam wrote:

Vigilant wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia% ... Fitzgerald

Even better

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_ ... Fitzgerald

I'm not sure I see the connection. Are you saying you think Beyond my Ken is a sock of Ed Fitzgerald?

I've had several experiences with Beyond my Ken, and he does seem a lot like a bad-hand account, but I could never identify a specific sockmaster. If you think there's enough evidence that he's Ed Fitzgerald, you should try making an SPI report.

Captain Occam wrote:

Vigilant wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia% ... Fitzgerald

Even better

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_ ... Fitzgerald

I'm not sure I see the connection. Are you saying you think Beyond my Ken is a sock of Ed Fitzgerald?

I've had several experiences with Beyond my Ken, and he does seem a lot like a bad-hand account, but I could never identify a specific sockmaster. If you think there's enough evidence that he's Ed Fitzgerald, you should try making an SPI report.

07:19, 21 September 2011 Nihonjoe (talk | contribs) moved page User:Ed Fitzgerald to User:Before My Ken (Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Ed Fitzgerald" to "Before My Ken")

mac wrote:

07:19, 21 September 2011 Nihonjoe (talk | contribs) moved page User:Ed Fitzgerald to User:Before My Ken (Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Ed Fitzgerald" to "Before My Ken")

The account was renamed.

User:H_Debussy-Jones has also been censured dozens of times by the admins for violations of WP:OUTING, as can be seen here. While this is not direct evidence of sockpuppetry, I include it here to demonstrate that the admins were "on to him," so to speak, and thus he clearly had sufficient motive to evade detection by creating an alternate username in order to continue his non-neutral editing of pages related to his film and his associates. 2Misters (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed - the following accounts as being the same editor;

Beyond My Ken (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log))
H Debussy-Jones (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log))
Ed Fitzgerald (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log))

{{resolved|Consensus not to impose any sanctions on Ed/BMK beside the status quo. Filer of the SPI and their socks blocked by {{admin|NuclearWarfare}} per Checkuser results in another SPI. User advised that in the future a private email to functionaries-en or arbcom is recommended for such situations. The SPIs will be closed in due course. [[User:Tim Song|Tim Song]] ([[User talk:Tim Song|talk]]) 13:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)}}

Captain Occam wrote:I'm very curious to know what Cla68 thinks of this, seeing how much outing (combined with socking) other people have been able to get away with, contrasted with how little it took to get him indeffed.

The Devil's Advocate wrote:[...]then trying to close that discussion.

Captain Occam wrote:By "after action report" do you mean something you'll be sending to ArbCom, or just something you'll be posting here? After seeing how Beyond my Ken got away with doing several times more than what you got blocked for, I think he really ought to be under some sort of sanction. You'd probably have to wait until you're unblocked before you can expect ArbCom to listen to you about anything like this, though.

Cla68 wrote:

Captain Occam wrote:By "after action report" do you mean something you'll be sending to ArbCom, or just something you'll be posting here? After seeing how Beyond my Ken got away with doing several times more than what you got blocked for, I think he really ought to be under some sort of sanction. You'd probably have to wait until you're unblocked before you can expect ArbCom to listen to you about anything like this, though.

I haven't decided the format and forum yet. By the way, I don't find this statement to be completely accurate. I have had one email from the ArbCom after I resumed contact, which basically said, "Stand by, we're discussing it and it may take a few weeks." I replied by letting them know that I currently have an outstanding Good Article review which took place while I was blocked and thus haven't been able to respond to yet, and that I was in the middle of preparing another article for FA submission. They did not respond. So, I don't find the statement "discussion with Cla68 is ongoing" to be very accurate. If someone is willing and able, perhaps they could post this paragraph to my user talk page and/or Timotheus Cannens' talk page?

Kevin wrote:

Cla68 wrote:

Captain Occam wrote:By "after action report" do you mean something you'll be sending to ArbCom, or just something you'll be posting here? After seeing how Beyond my Ken got away with doing several times more than what you got blocked for, I think he really ought to be under some sort of sanction. You'd probably have to wait until you're unblocked before you can expect ArbCom to listen to you about anything like this, though.

I haven't decided the format and forum yet. By the way, I don't find this statement to be completely accurate. I have had one email from the ArbCom after I resumed contact, which basically said, "Stand by, we're discussing it and it may take a few weeks." I replied by letting them know that I currently have an outstanding Good Article review which took place while I was blocked and thus haven't been able to respond to yet, and that I was in the middle of preparing another article for FA submission. They did not respond. So, I don't find the statement "discussion with Cla68 is ongoing" to be very accurate. If someone is willing and able, perhaps they could post this paragraph to my user talk page and/or Timotheus Cannens' talk page?

Done. And for good measure.

Vigilant wrote:

Kevin wrote:

Cla68 wrote:

Captain Occam wrote:By "after action report" do you mean something you'll be sending to ArbCom, or just something you'll be posting here? After seeing how Beyond my Ken got away with doing several times more than what you got blocked for, I think he really ought to be under some sort of sanction. You'd probably have to wait until you're unblocked before you can expect ArbCom to listen to you about anything like this, though.

I haven't decided the format and forum yet. By the way, I don't find this statement to be completely accurate. I have had one email from the ArbCom after I resumed contact, which basically said, "Stand by, we're discussing it and it may take a few weeks." I replied by letting them know that I currently have an outstanding Good Article review which took place while I was blocked and thus haven't been able to respond to yet, and that I was in the middle of preparing another article for FA submission. They did not respond. So, I don't find the statement "discussion with Cla68 is ongoing" to be very accurate. If someone is willing and able, perhaps they could post this paragraph to my user talk page and/or Timotheus Cannens' talk page?

Done. And for good measure.

How about it Worm That Turned?

Cla68 wrote:

Vigilant wrote:

Kevin wrote:

Cla68 wrote:

Captain Occam wrote:By "after action report" do you mean something you'll be sending to ArbCom, or just something you'll be posting here? After seeing how Beyond my Ken got away with doing several times more than what you got blocked for, I think he really ought to be under some sort of sanction. You'd probably have to wait until you're unblocked before you can expect ArbCom to listen to you about anything like this, though.

I haven't decided the format and forum yet. By the way, I don't find this statement to be completely accurate. I have had one email from the ArbCom after I resumed contact, which basically said, "Stand by, we're discussing it and it may take a few weeks." I replied by letting them know that I currently have an outstanding Good Article review which took place while I was blocked and thus haven't been able to respond to yet, and that I was in the middle of preparing another article for FA submission. They did not respond. So, I don't find the statement "discussion with Cla68 is ongoing" to be very accurate. If someone is willing and able, perhaps they could post this paragraph to my user talk page and/or Timotheus Cannens' talk page?

Done. And for good measure.

How about it Worm That Turned?

Thanks Kevin. ArbCom, if you have any further concerns, I am available to discuss them with you. All you have to do is ask. I still haven't received any further emails. Why don't we use my user talk page where everyone can see our discussion? (Someone please post this to my user talk page)