Wikipediocracy

The strange discussion continues here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commo ... nst_Beta_M . Saibo produces evidence that Beta M cannot have gone to prison, Tarc objects, Saibo calls him out for bullshitting, then there is a strange discussion that would interest linguistic philosophers about whether 'global locking' of an account is the same as 'banning' or not.

Beta M is prohibited from logging in to any Wikimedia project. That is "banned" by any stretch of the definition of the word, and it is how I will refer to this user in discussions. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

But Saibo disagrees. The last word today is from Derrick Coetzee who talks about some mysterious private information which he cannot divulge on the project which values freedom of information more than anything else on the planet.

The probably paid the $5 necessary to unlock his arrest mugshot.

Is there a picture of Beta M anywher on the net?

eppur si muove wrote:Is there a picture of Beta M anywher on the net?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_IqyEco ... r_embedded

Additionally there are plenty of images of him with his brains in his hand.

Peter Damian wrote:

eppur si muove wrote:Is there a picture of Beta M anywher on the net?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_IqyEco ... r_embedded

Pretty much a dead ringer for the mental picture.

Oops I see this thread overlaps with the other one here viewtopic.php?f=15&p=3076#p3076 . Sorry.

lilburne wrote:Additionally there are plenty of images of him with his brains in his hand.

If it really does cost only $5 to get his mugshot from the law, then someone richer than me might find it worthwhile spending that money. Commons might even want a picture for itself ;-)

Peter Cohen mentioned on SilkTork's talk page that a von Gloeden photograph was the lead image of the Wikipedia article on Pederasty (T-H-L). It seemed an odd choice for a lead image, but it has been there for three months, with little recent controversy (there were edit wars over it in the past).

Its insertion was the last of three edits made by an account named Volodio Anarhist (T-C-L), which basically returned the article to the state it had been in in September 2009 (link).

The account's earlier two edits were vandalism to the same article. I don't think it's particularly likely that this was Beta M, but it's still an odd and noteworthy edit. An account with a name mimicking that of a Foundation-banned user goes into an article related to that user's ban, undoes two-and-a-half years of work, in the process re-inserting a controversial image, and no one notices.

HRIP7 wrote:Peter Cohen mentioned on SilkTork's talk page that a von Gloeden photograph was the lead image of the Wikipedia article on Pederasty (T-H-L). It seemed an odd choice for a lead image, but it has been there for three months, with little recent controversy (there were edit wars over it in the past).

Its insertion was the last of three edits made by an account named Volodio Anarhist (T-C-L), which basically returned the article to the state it had been in in September 2009 (link).

The account's earlier two edits were vandalism to the same article. I don't think it's particularly likely that this was Beta M, but it's still an odd and noteworthy edit. An account with a name mimicking that of a Foundation-banned user goes into an article related to that user's ban, undoes two-and-a-half years of work, in the process re-inserting a controversial image, and no one notices.

Does the account name Volodio Anarhist (T-C-L) mimic the name of Beta M in some way?

He signed his name as VolodyA! V Anarhist.

cyofee wrote:He signed his name as VolodyA! V Anarhist.

I see the resemblance now. His sig was different than his user name.

Thanks.

HRIP7 wrote:Peter Cohen mentioned on SilkTork's talk page that a von Gloeden photograph was the lead image of the Wikipedia article on Pederasty (T-H-L). It seemed an odd choice for a lead image, but it has been there for three months, with little recent controversy (there were edit wars over it in the past).

Its insertion was the last of three edits made by an account named Volodio Anarhist (T-C-L), which basically returned the article to the state it had been in in September 2009 (link).

The account's earlier two edits were vandalism to the same article. I don't think it's particularly likely that this was Beta M, but it's still an odd and noteworthy edit. An account with a name mimicking that of a Foundation-banned user goes into an article related to that user's ban, undoes two-and-a-half years of work, in the process re-inserting a controversial image, and no one notices.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was whoever was responsible for this little blow-up.

RED2 wrote: I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was whoever was responsible for this little blow-up.

Thanks, well spotted.

HRIP7 wrote:

RED2 wrote: I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was whoever was responsible for this little blow-up.

Thanks, well spotted.

It's Johnny The Vandal / JtV / "Text" just stirring trouble on pedo-related articles. As he does ...

Alison wrote:

HRIP7 wrote:

RED2 wrote:I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was whoever was responsible for this little blow-up.

Thanks, well spotted.

It's Johnny The Vandal / JtV / "Text" just stirring trouble on pedo-related articles. As he does ...

An "homage" to the real PD?

I wish JtV would email me and tell me exactly which socks are his, and which ones are blamed on him yet aren't him......

EricBarbour wrote:

Alison wrote:

HRIP7 wrote:

RED2 wrote:I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was whoever was responsible for this little blow-up.

Thanks, well spotted.

It's Johnny The Vandal / JtV / "Text" just stirring trouble on pedo-related articles. As he does ...

An "homage" to the real PD?

I wish JtV would email me and tell me exactly which socks are his, and which ones are blamed on him yet aren't him......

That might be a very long mail!

And back again on the foundation list:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 20933.html

PB speaks
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 20940.html

And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented. We
would prefer an established, community-monitored process that we can turn
to when at all possible (and make no mistake, in this case it was needed; I
wish we could give all the specifics, but for privacy reasons, we just
can't). Because we didn't have that, we had to break new ground with the
Office actions policy. I hope we never have to use that again.

"community-monitored". Nonsense. It may be "monitored", but only by the game-players who care what goes on at Meta. Very little good can come of such a process.

lilburne wrote:And back again on the foundation list:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 20933.html

PB speaks
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 20940.html

Interesting that that foundation mailing list thread on Beta M died out very quickly the other day.

Btw, new avatar as ppl were getting too gripey about Penn.

Mod note: final comment removed to avoid respawning diversionary thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mecha_warrior&diff=501961476

Is this really Beta_M, or did someone misinterpret a comment by Tarc?