Formal Appointee Number 6

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you indefinitely as it appears that this account is being used for block evasion. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Good. The more admins that try and stop me from exposing the fact that Werieth (talk · contribs), who has made thousands of article space edits, is in fact the banned editor Betacommand (talk · contribs), the better. When I finally find someone in your ranks who is not stupid enough to be taken in by the fact that he uploads a few non-free book cover images whenever these suspicions are raised as the world's lamest 'cover' story (he's doing it right now FFS, right this very second straight after asking you to shut me up), I will list each and every one of you (and other assorted useful idiots who actively assist you), along with the reasons why I think they participated in this farce.

• BlackKite (talk · contribs) - NFCC hardliner, thus wiki-corruption of the ends justify the means sort.
• Kww (talk · contribs) - see BlackKite.
• Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) - I so desperately want to find the reason why this guy is 'agnostic' about the possibility one of the most disruptive and time-sinking editors has returned, but I fear it is just going to be slave to the rules type stupidity - I suspect had he been here he would have just blocked this account per this request, just like the last time (if he disagrees, he can say so here).
• TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) - retardation? Wannabe admin? General stupidity? And seriously, wtf even is this? Seriously, I'm actually wondering what goes through someone's mind to think that serves any purpose whatsoever.
• Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) - fuck knows. A guy who makes blocks like this in the middle of Huggle powered vandal fighting sprees is clearly not giving much thought to anything at all. He probably hasn't even got the first clue he is blocking the person who is capable of laying out the evidence he himself apparently would like to see.

• Actually, yes, sadly, apparently he is well aware of what he is doing, so he can go straight into the Floq column. Although I suppose having a black and white view of sock puppetry is probably one of the entry requirements for SPI clerking - nuanced approaches like weighing up whether catching Betacommand evading a hard earned ban is going to be worth more to Wikipedia than just chalking up the fifty billionth DUCK block is for others to possess, if that sense is even present here at all. Formal Appointee Number 6 (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I am at this point even considering writing this up whole farce for a Wikipediocracy blog - they love finding out about how Wikipedia can't really deal with complex moral situations like this, and they lap up examples of cut your nose off to spite your face crap like this. Formal Appointee Number 6 (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that you provided some diffs to back up your assertions on the SPI, but you can't keep creating a new account every time you get blocked and expect admins to look the other way. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I expect them to see through this sort of bull? Black Kite is an NFCC hardliner. Betacommand made hundreds of thousands of NFCC enforcement edits. His ban evading sock account Werieth is on his way to making hundreds of thousands of NFCC enforcement edits. After many thousands of man hours, after epic levels of discussion and repeated efforts to reform him, the community eventually decided he should be banned. He is ignoring the community. As he always did. Black Kite disagreed with that outcome to the end. The only thing I've done with any of these socks, is point out the many similarities between the two accounts. Same interests. Same behaviour. Same experience. Same views. Same approach to DR. Same approach to critics. Same goddam everything, which is why nobody, not one person, is even bothering to highlight any hole in the case. Werieth wants me to shut up. Black Kite wants me to shut up. Kww, another NFCC hardliner, even blocked me to shut me up. What does it take for you to figure it out? Seriously, you need to sort your act out here, otherwise the next time you here about this probably will be in a Wikipediocracy blog. Don't for a second think that Wereith/Betacommand will care if the ensuing controversy/embarrassment ends your Wikipedia career. Any of you. Including you Black Kite (although I know his ego won't allow him to even entertain the thought that he could be out-manouvred by a half-wit like Beta). He is interested in one thing, and one thing only, his continued ability to edit Wikipedia. And thanks to you, he's getting his fix. The only problem is, other people, and more importantly the quality of the encyclopedia, is suffering (wherever you stand on NFC, the net negative to the project's quality of Betacommand's buggy/error-ridden/not my problem/my way or the highway approach to editing was recognised by most editors in the end, even those who opposed bans to the end). Admins are actually supposed to care about that sort of thing, and more importantly, act to stop it. That's what I was led to expect, anyway. Maybe people like TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a sign of the sort of admin that can be expected in future - who takes stupidity in matters like this to almost professional levels. Formal Appointee Number 6 (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh god no! Why the fuck would I want to be an admin? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. It seemed to me to be the only rational explanation for doing what you did. Formal Appointee Number 6 (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there are ways to raise concerns about sockpuppetry and block evasion without engaging in sockpuppetry and block evasion yourself. I suggest you e-mail your findings to a Wikipedian you trust instead of creating throwaway accounts to post on their talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You're sorry? I don't think so. You can hide behind the rules all you want, but unfortunately for mindless automatons like yourself, there's always one rule that's really going to fuck you in the ass if you don't wake up and smell the coffee once in a while - WP:IAR. You are here to build an encyclopedia, not enforce the rules for their own sake. Not once have you even articulated what actual damage I'm doing to that mission with these socks, unless you're just going to repeat Black Kite's garbage that the truth or importance of accusations like this change depending on who is making them (a view which is as stupid as saying the result of 2+2 depends on the colour of chalk used). And remember, lest you haven't been paying attention too closely, Black Kite has an excuse for acting that way. That doesn't mean you have to be so gullible. So, unless you want to make the quite extraordinary claim that it wouldn't be an improvement to Wikipedia to have an open and transparent investigation into whether or not the notoriously disruptive user Betacommand is, at this very minute, editing articles as the user Werieth, in defiance of a community ban, that was arrived at after many thousands of man hours of drama and diverted editor attention and no less than three arbitration cases (and, with all irony, a multitude of confirmed socks used to ..... evade blocks!), then you had better believe that only thing you need to concern yourself with how I raise my concerns, is what you can do to help me. I don't trust any Wikipedians, and I don't wish any of them to know my email (nor do I expect to have to take the time to create email accounts just to be able to raise serious concerns like this). So, I choose the most convenient way for me. It's up to you if you choose to put the rules, or inconveniencing me, or any other bullshit reason, above the primary goal here. So get with the program already - the rules won't matter in the end. When this gets written up in a blog at a certain site that likes nothing better than to criticise the more dysfunctional aspects of Wikipedia, just like this nonsense, then your excuses and pleas as to why you failed to do the right thing really won't matter. In that narrative, the one you cannot control with blocks, you will be painted as either part of the solution, or part of the problem. If you want to know what it feels like to be in the latter group, well, I'm sure you already know of a few people you could ask. Formal Appointee Number 6 (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Mark, what would such a "trusted Wikipedian" do with such an email? Future Perfect has de facto banned Formal Appointee Number 6: their talk page access has been blocked, the diffs have been removed from the SPI page and they have threatened to block any other editor who repeats this. It has falsely been claimed that Formal Appointee Number 6 and Arnhem 96 have been the subject of a CU linking them to a blocked editor (an editor who cannot be named). This is untrue. That CU was for a different editor some time ago, with no indication to relate them to these accounts today.

You rightly asked at the SPI page for diffs. Formal Appointee Number 6 provided these. I re-posted Formal Appointee Number 6's diffs to the SPI page under my imprimatur (and disclosing where they came from), after having checked these diffs. These are good and relevant diffs, appropriate to that SPI, although workload means that I (or the SPI admin) have no time to discover them for myself.

If Formal Appointee Number 6 is to be blocked, then I can understand why. However we only remove talk: access in exceptional circumstances. I see no reason why I have been blocked from posting these diffs. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) - don't waste your time trading insults with Black Kite (talk · contribs). He is only attacking me (and now you) to deflect attention from the fact that he knew Betacommand's history better than anyone, and is therefore in the best position of any responding admin to quickly put to bed the accusation that Betacommand has returned as Werieth. If there was a single hole in the case, he would have spotted it already, exploiting it to maximum effect to make this whole issue go away as fast as possible, and let his old pal Beta get on with his good work of being his useful idiot. But there are no holes, sadly for him. That's why all he's interested in is 'shooting the messengers'. Ironic, to say the least. Formal Appointee Number 6 (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Only bc/triangle would delete a correctly posted notification of a AN discussion as "remove harassment". LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Hi LHvU. Editors who don't believe that they are edit-warring summarily removing an associated talk-page notice and leaving an indignant comment is commonplace. In this particular case, issuing such notice in relation to an ongoing SPI discussion served no useful purpose; denoting it as 'harassment' is neither inappropriate nor idiosyncratic. Aquegg (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

So if Werieth is a sock, admins who share Betacommand's view on NFC will protect him.

If someone else socks to complain of this though, they're a legitimate target to be blocked, talkpage-blocked, erased from history and even for other previously uninvolved editors to be threatened with instant blocks for merely discussing them on their own talk pages. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)