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.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)
Beta M again
- Peter Damian
- Habitué
- Posts: 4206
- kołdry
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
- Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
- Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
- Location: London
- Contact:
Beta M again
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.
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω
- lilburne
- Habitué
- Posts: 4446
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
- Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
- Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne
Re: Beta M again
The probably paid the $5 necessary to unlock his arrest mugshot.
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined
- eppur si muove
- Habitué
- Posts: 1994
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:28 pm
Re: Beta M again
Is there a picture of Beta M anywher on the net?
- Peter Damian
- Habitué
- Posts: 4206
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
- Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
- Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Beta M again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_IqyEco ... r_embeddedeppur si muove wrote:Is there a picture of Beta M anywher on the net?
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω
- lilburne
- Habitué
- Posts: 4446
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
- Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
- Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne
Re: Beta M again
Additionally there are plenty of images of him with his brains in his hand.
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined
- SB_Johnny
- Habitué
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:26 am
- Wikipedia User: SB_Johnny
- Wikipedia Review Member: SB_Johnny
Re: Beta M again
Pretty much a dead ringer for the mental picture.Peter Damian wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_IqyEco ... r_embeddedeppur si muove wrote:Is there a picture of Beta M anywher on the net?
This is not a signature.✌
- Peter Damian
- Habitué
- Posts: 4206
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
- Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
- Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Beta M again
Oops I see this thread overlaps with the other one here viewtopic.php?f=15&p=3076#p3076 . Sorry.
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω
- eppur si muove
- Habitué
- Posts: 1994
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:28 pm
Re: Beta M again
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 ;-)lilburne wrote:Additionally there are plenty of images of him with his brains in his hand.
- HRIP7
- Denizen
- Posts: 6953
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
- Wikipedia User: Jayen466
- Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
- Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
- Location: UK
Re: Beta M again
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.
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.
Re: Beta M again
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?
Re: Beta M again
He signed his name as VolodyA! V Anarhist.
http://goo.gl/maps/LpI0u - Wikipediocrats around the world
Re: Beta M again
I see the resemblance now. His sig was different than his user name.cyofee wrote:He signed his name as VolodyA! V Anarhist.
Thanks.
Re: Beta M again
I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was whoever was responsible for this little blow-up.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.
- HRIP7
- Denizen
- Posts: 6953
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
- Wikipedia User: Jayen466
- Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
- Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
- Location: UK
Re: Beta M again
Thanks, well spotted.RED2 wrote: I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was whoever was responsible for this little blow-up.
- Alison
- Habitué
- Posts: 1074
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:28 pm
- Wikipedia User: Alison
- Wikipedia Review Member: Alison
- Actual Name: Alison Cassidy
- Location: Cupertino, CA, USA ... maybe
- Contact:
Re: Beta M again
It's Johnny The Vandal / JtV / "Text" just stirring trouble on pedo-related articles. As he does ...HRIP7 wrote:Thanks, well spotted.RED2 wrote: I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was whoever was responsible for this little blow-up.
-- Allie
-
- Posts: 10891
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
- Location: hell
Re: Beta M again
An "homage" to the real PD?Alison wrote:It's Johnny The Vandal / JtV / "Text" just stirring trouble on pedo-related articles. As he does ...HRIP7 wrote:Thanks, well spotted.RED2 wrote:I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was whoever was responsible for this little blow-up.
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......
Re: Beta M again
That might be a very long mail!EricBarbour wrote:An "homage" to the real PD?Alison wrote:It's Johnny The Vandal / JtV / "Text" just stirring trouble on pedo-related articles. As he does ...HRIP7 wrote:Thanks, well spotted.RED2 wrote:I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was whoever was responsible for this little blow-up.
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......
- lilburne
- Habitué
- Posts: 4446
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
- Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
- Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne
Re: Beta M again
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
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 20933.html
PB speaks
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 20940.html
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined
Re: Beta M 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.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.
Re: Beta M again
Interesting that that foundation mailing list thread on Beta M died out very quickly the other day.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
Btw, new avatar as ppl were getting too gripey about Penn.
Mod note: final comment removed to avoid respawning diversionary thread.
"The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door."
- Michaeldsuarez
- Habitué
- Posts: 1764
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:10 am
- Wikipedia User: Michaeldsuarez
- Wikipedia Review Member: Michaeldsuarez
- Location: New York, New York
Re: Beta M again
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?
Is this really Beta_M, or did someone misinterpret a comment by Tarc?