Arbcom goes after Betacommand, Another victory for the Free Kulture crowd Options

[-DS-]

The Arbitrary Committee is now going after Betacommand/Δ for doing NFCC enforcement, and it looks like he'll be sanctioned this time.

I think there's a lesson to be learned here folks: just because people complain about something, it doesn't automatically become bad.

[The Joy]

What does Betacommand want? What does he want to do to help Wikipedia?

Has anyone even asked him this?

Betacommand does strike me as the stereotypical programmer who is very brilliant at making bots and doing technical work, but lousy at communication. I think Kelly Martin or someone here once suggested partnering him with someone who could deal with the complaints and then work with Betacommand one-on-one to adjust his actions. Has anyone even suggested this type of arrangement on-wiki?

I don't necessarily like Betacommand's attitude or how he responds to people, but when I see editors storming a person's talkpage and pushing him to the brink, I feel sympathy for him. Last I checked, he did still have supporters. Perhaps they could partner with him? Maybe give him his bot back, but require his mentors to have control and access to it?

Honestly, besides pissing off image-uploaders and being rude to them, what evil has he done (since no longer being an admin)?

[-DS-]

Honestly, besides pissing off image-uploaders and being rude to them, what evil has he done (since no longer being an admin)?

Let me see now.

He started an alternate account and accidentally used it in a revert war. People decided this was "abusive sockpuppetry".

After being indeffed, he started socking to add orphan tags to articles and other such stuff. This, too, was deemed abusive sockpuppetry.

After getting his ban suspended by the Arbitrary Committee and changing his name to that triangle, he pissed off Rlevse by refusing to put "I used to be Betacommand" on his userpage.

Or, in other words, I can't think of anything.

This post has been edited by -DS-:

[LessHorrid vanU]

Honestly, besides pissing off image-uploaders and being rude to them, what evil has he done (since no longer being an admin)?

Let me see now.

He started an alternate account and accidentally used it in a revert war. People decided this was "abusive sockpuppetry".

After being indeffed, he started socking to add orphan tags to articles and other such stuff. This, too, was deemed abusive sockpuppetry.

After getting his ban suspended by the Arbitrary Committee and changing his name to that triangle, he pissed off Rlevse by refusing to put "I used to be Betacommand" on his userpage.

Or, in other words, I can't think of anything.

Almost there, but not quite; He remained Betacommand during the one year suspension, and only changed to "little triangle" after that elapsed and ArbCom irrationally did not re-ban him or even ask the kumoooniteee if it was okay with him being allowed to continue to edit under an old set of restrictions under which he was blocked indefinitely (by me) when he violated them previously - which subsequently became the ban when his numerous appeals at ANI were declined. One of the other less than sensitive things delta then did was to place an image of a ICBM carrying submarine on his userpage with the comment "Once more I'm off to do some work", which also raised the ire of the normal suspects.

Of personal amusement is that I informed delta back in May that he was still community banned, and he needed to not violate the terms of his restrictions if he was not to have his block re-instituted; he removed my comments as "trolling" after first declaring that he was under no restrictions. You have to admire his ability to ignore/forget/misunderstand anything that does not accord with his own viewpoint.

[RMHED]

You have to admire his ability to ignore/forget/misunderstand anything that does not accord with his own viewpoint.

Yes, Wikipedia really does seem to disproportionately attract the mentally ill.

[LessHorrid vanU]

You have to admire his ability to ignore/forget/misunderstand anything that does not accord with his own viewpoint.

Yes, Wikipedia really does seem to disproportionately attract the mentally ill.

When I wrote that, I realised that this is the most common problem among those who edit that place - including those who are not disruptive and even beneficial to the aims of the project - and the basis of most of the criticism directed toward the encyclopedia. Most, if not all, have some form of self confirmation bias which tends to distort their perception.

Nearly everybody really believes that what they do is for the best, even when it does not quite accord with WP policies and practices, and some even feel they should have a) special dispensation, and, b) tokens of gratitude. This is the reason why "discussions" are mostly cases of various parties stating their stance, confirming viewpoints that support their own and criticizing those that are not - there is rarely any cases of people being persuaded one way or another.

Sometimes, it is amazing that articles get written well and are kept in that condition for any length of time.

[lilburne]

Sometimes, it is amazing that articles get written well and are kept in that condition for any length of time.

Can you point to a dozen?