Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:02, 13 April 2009

• 20060127
• 20060409
• 20060508
• 20060713
• 20060906
• 20061017
• 20061117
• 20061207
• 20070101
• 20070201
• 20070301
• 20070401
• 20070501
• 20070601
• 20070701
• 20070801
• 20070901
• 20071101
• 20071201
• 20080101
• 20080201
• 20080301
• 20080401
• 20080501
• 20080601
• 20080701
• 20080801
• 20080901
• 20081001
• 20081101
• 20081201
• 20090101
• 20090201
• 20090301
• 20090401
• 20090701
• 20090801
• 20090901
• 20091001
• 20091101
• 20091201
• 20100101
• 20100201
• 20100301
• 20100401
• 20100501
• 20100601
• 20100701

Misplaced Pages Signpost — 16 March 2009

• News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Manufactured scandal, Misplaced Pages assignments, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

edit protected

{{Edit protected}} Someone needs to remove the sockpuppet tag from the userpage. It is completely unrelated (and disputed) to the current ban. I've been digging through links and archived discussions for a while, thinking I had gone crazy and was just missing the mention, but it seems it really was just added because of that nonsense months ago with his secondary account. -- Ned Scott 03:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

He has a lot of other CU confirmed socks: Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Betacommand and see this. rootology (C)(T) 03:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It still is completely unrelated to his ban and nothing more than a childish pile-on accusation. You might as well list any shortcoming he had as a human being in the ban text. It's misleading and needs to be removed. -- Ned Scott 03:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The socks are the main reason he's STILL banned; this just came up the other day again on AN or ANI with people wanting to unban him. Ned, I was one of the "defend Beta" people for a long while, and chatted with him about it all on IRC. But he just kept up, and then came back again on the various names, which just made everything worse, and he got canned in the end because of that. This is completely common practice for even long-time users that go this route. See User:RMHED for another recent example. rootology (C)(T) 04:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I gotcha. I was thinking these were accounts made before the ban, etc.

On a side note, thinking about this, it's pretty obvious that the only way he'll ever be able to continue with this project, banned or not, is with another account. No reasonable human being would put up with this bullshit. I actually hope that he is successful in evading both the ban and the stigmatism that is so tightly assocated with the name Betacommand. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That will only work if he stays away from topics he has worked on before - which would run counter to his reason for being here. Baseball Bugs carrots 04:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Beta has my sympathy (though rarely and certainly not now my support). However Beta revolved largely around NF images and automated edits. Both of these are important areas, but Beta pursued them a little too single-mindedly, chasing the technical goal rather than the overall community goal. People count, even when you're doing a thankless job.

When Beta comes back, it's going to be very important that he doesn't display familiar behavioural traits. Nudge nudge wink wink - I'm not talking to anyone who's posted in this thread (tho' of course I'd never talk to a banned user). :) Franamax (talk) 05:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I felt BC's difficulty was tangential to the area(s) he worked in; it was his (lack of) communication with the community and his responses to input that was contrary to his viewpoint, even or especially where he was against the consensus; his bots would screw up, but he would not respond promptly or test the fixes, he disregarded concerns expressed about his unilateral interpretation of NCC, he would argue that policy superceded community restrictions placed upon his acting in interpretation of that policy (of itself, that is almost sublime as a matter of critical thinking - but not helpful in a community project). The only way to stop BC doing what BC considered was right, when the majority of the project thought otherwise, was to ban him. When he comes back, presumably under a new name, it is not the areas he chooses to work in he needs to change but the way he chooses to work. It is an extremely difficult ask, but he is a smart young man and if he applied himself to it the way he applied himself to the project previously I see no reason why he cannot achieve it.

I presume you were talking to me, BTW, since I had not previously taken part in this discussion...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

One important thing to consider is that if Beta does return under a new name, any admin could quite fairly block him upon discovery per policy, even if he does none of the previous activities. Since it's Beta, it will cause a monumental firestorm, but any admin would be in the right. Beta, if you decide to come back, be as sociable and willing to discuss on-wiki as you are on IRC, and not do all the bot work, please go through the AC to appeal for the new name, or else your name identity will just be legitimately knocked off by any of us without any viable appeal. I really hope you aren't doing this now. rootology (C)(T) 15:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

In all likelihood, BC is still editing under a new user name: he's shown time and again that he considers any block/ban/restriction as illegitimate. In fact I suspect that some editors know what account he's editing under and, like Ned above, consider this as basically ok. It isn't ok. His last "fresh start" account was used to run unapproved, glitchy bots, it was used to support BC's side in disputes, it showed the same unresponsivness to critics. People are free to believe that the ban is inappropriate but they should respect the consensus behind the indefinite block. If BC wants back in, he needs to state his case not weasel his way in. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If he is, he has managed to avoid detection. This would be one or two ways; he has changed both his behaviour sufficiently to avoid easy recognition and he is not editing areas (Images and bot operation) as he was previously - or he has people helping him avoid detection. If he is editing and the latter is true, then he had better not make any slip ups which can be used to find a link to this account because a great many otherwise good editors might find themselves in a great deal of trouble. I really hope this last scenario is not the case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

In the first scenario, nod'n'a'wink because in our pseudonymous little universe, we really don't ban people, we ban behaviour. Nothing in policy actually says that, but if you're not making trouble, you're basically undetectable. If the Beta moth can avoid the usual candles, all the better - though disclosure to ArbCom would be ideal.

In the second scenario, well I just tried putting beans up my nose this morning (beanth uhp mah nothe) - but I can't imagine how anyone could help a Beta sock avoid detection, since edit records accrue to the editor. I did see some very minor proxy editing due to Beta's continued presence on IRC a while ago, but there's just no way to prevent that if it's done through back channels. In the end, we're all individually responsible for our own edits.

And in the final analysis, BC pretty much drained the pool of supporters sufficiently that with one or two exceptions, they got tired of flopping around gasping for breath. Only a true and complete change of approach is going to work. It would best be done with disclosure to ArbCom, but either way should be invisible to the community, i.e. if the behaviour patterns resume, the exit door is thataway. Franamax (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Im not going to say too much. But Ive been editing other projects. Im currently working on about 5 WMF wikis, (Im not saying which ones, or what account as I want to avoid the bullshit and drama.) Im avoiding NFC materiel. Ive got several projects im working on that involve cross wiki activity. I know en.wp would benefit but besides poking others to address issues I come across Ive stayed away from en.wp editing. I still provide tools and assistance where I can. (Im responsible for TheHelpfulbot's reference section creation task) I also do what I can here an there. Ive made it a point to avoid NFC and I plan to continue to do that. As for bot work people have ignored the majority of my work as been very productive with little issue. people may not agree with this statement but I attempted to implement and address any concerns that people raised. Most of the work that Ive done I end up getting no credit for, but thats the life of a cog in the machine. RFC bot being another one of my creations. ask MessedRocker how many times I re-wrote that for him, when he came to me with an idea. Ive said I just want to get away from the drama, and go back to my roots, behind the scenes quite editing. β 21:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You might have been better off saying nothing at all. Admitting you're engaging in sockpuppetry is liable to thwart your previously quiet efforts. Baseball Bugs carrots 22:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I never said that. what I stated was that I was editing other projects under a new username. other than pointing out issues to others so that they can address them I have not been editing en.wp. (you could call that editing via a proxy user) β 22:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Roger. Thanks for clarifying. Baseball Bugs carrots 22:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

one example of a proxy edit. β 22:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You would still probably be well-advised not to give too much of your game away. :) Baseball Bugs carrots 22:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I stated Im not hiding anything just wanting to avoid the drama queens that like to follow me. β 22:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying that calling attention to your activities may not further that want. Baseball Bugs carrots 22:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

C'mon BC. It doesn't bust my chops if you want to fly under the radar and contribute in a community minded and civil manner. But what was up with that little spat at the betacommandbot talk page the other day that helped precipitate this latest drama? You had no business being there to push your POV. In the space of less than a couple of hours it degenerated into your tagging me as harrassing you, being a vandal, and being told to bug off. Sound familiar? That's utterly unrepentant and doen't suggest that you're really ready to rejoin the community and contribute in a manner that doesn't include belittling other editors and skating past the rules to suit your own objectives. I don't fathom why you saw it necessary to pick that fight. Drama queens? I think you've got the roles wrong, its not drama queens following you, just a bunch of unfortunate courtiers. Wiggy! (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

your blaming me for trying to maintain a edit notice that ive had up for a long time that is very informative and replacing it with a pointy message after being reverted by others several times? I wanted to maintain a edit notice, if you wanted to modify the wording because you had issues with it its a different story than blanking it. β 23:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You're not getting it. It wasn't for you to maintain and the talk page of a blocked editor isn't the forum for that sort of thing. So, yeah, I guess I would be blaming you. You don't seem to get that just picking up and walking away is a viable - and often the best - choice. Wiggy! (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

BC, read WP:BAN; you have no "rights" regarding "your" pages, and you are violating (with my egging you on, it must be admitted) the terms of ban by engaging in discussion here not relating to requesting the lifting of the sanction. This page can be - should be, according to policy - locked up with access only to admins with the content replaced by a notice that says "This editor is persona non grata", leaving you with only the email ArbCom option for any possibility for returning.

It doesn't matter what you want; you have no say in what happens on this site presently, because you got yourself BANNED by only being interested in what Betacommand wants, thinks, believes, and the rest. In the space of an Easter Day you have put back the chance of you returning to this project for perhaps all of 2009, simply because you cannot shut up and understand that you were being told (obliquely) that you were close to being found out under whatever account you have been using. The project really does not need someone so stupid, no matter how smart in other aspects, as to let people know that you have not changed, have no intention of changing, and are still the very instance of the person who got banned a little while back. How are we going to trust someone so arrogantly dumb to edit without getting into further trouble along the way?

Nevermind... I doubt you have the empathy to understand that the people most angry with you are the ones that started out defending you and the good work you have done. I never belonged to that group, and it is even "my" block that stops you from editing under this account name, but I have really tried to leave the door just slightly ajar in the hope that you might reform and be an asset to the community again - and all you have managed to do is stick one, or perhaps two, fingers through it to signal your continuing contempt for the wishes of the community. Way to go, dude... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest a checkuser on en.wiki and then checkusers on all other Wiki projects to weed out the new Beta socks. I also suggest this page be blocked so that Beta can not edit since he is banned (which is obviously hasn't gotten through his thick skull). - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 13, 2009 @ 01:02