Bbb23 admin abuse

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats Oh my!
User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 114 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Bbb23 REKT!

Post by CMAwatch » Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:08 pm

#BbbGate
Weaponizing WP:G5
Oops! Didn't think we'd see? It's right there on WikipediaSucks.co!
ericbarbour wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:22 am
[Wikipedia is] a stupid video game, and the "encyclopedia" is an accidental byproduct.

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 114 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Bbb23 logo parody 2

Post by CMAwatch » Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:22 pm

:idea: Guess how much criticism of himself Bbb23 can handle… :lol:
Attachments
bbb23logo768.png
Bbb23 can't handle any criticism of him.
Is such a person suitable as the administrator of a major encyclopedia?
bbb23logo768.png (193.43 KiB) Viewed 1391 times
#BbbGate
Weaponizing WP:G5
Oops! Didn't think we'd see? It's right there on WikipediaSucks.co!
ericbarbour wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:22 am
[Wikipedia is] a stupid video game, and the "encyclopedia" is an accidental byproduct.

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 114 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Doc James Heilman approves of Bbb23. Wikipedia is broken.

Post by CMAwatch » Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:54 pm

URL: http://archive.today/2020.04.06-215042/ ... =949408769

If someone from the board of trustees, the highest authority of the organisation, approves of Bbb23 and his utter misconduct and suppression of all criticism, it means that Wikipedia is seriously broken.

If they were serious about [urlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Goals]their goals[/url], they would have taken action against Bbb23. Sadly, they didn't.

That Bbb23 gag is likely just an April Fool's prank.
#BbbGate
Weaponizing WP:G5
Oops! Didn't think we'd see? It's right there on WikipediaSucks.co!
ericbarbour wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:22 am
[Wikipedia is] a stupid video game, and the "encyclopedia" is an accidental byproduct.

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 114 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Bbb23 talk page now locked.

Post by CMAwatch » Tue Apr 07, 2020 2:39 pm

#BbbGate
Weaponizing WP:G5
Oops! Didn't think we'd see? It's right there on WikipediaSucks.co!
ericbarbour wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:22 am
[Wikipedia is] a stupid video game, and the "encyclopedia" is an accidental byproduct.

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 114 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Criticism from Bbb23 in 2011. + Bbb23 removes link to ArbCom talk

Post by CMAwatch » Tue Apr 07, 2020 7:52 pm

remove, people can find it on their own if they wish to
I Ggguess Bbb23 Hhhas Sssomething Ttto Hhhide.

BbbbbBbbbBbbbBBBBbBbBbBbBBbBbbbbBbBBBbbBBbBbBBbBbbbBbbBbbbbbbbBbbbBbbBBbbbbbBbbbbBbbbbBbbBbbBbbbbb
23


(But I wonder why Bbb23 initiated the thread on April 1st. Co-incidence?)
#BbbGate
Weaponizing WP:G5
Oops! Didn't think we'd see? It's right there on WikipediaSucks.co!
ericbarbour wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:22 am
[Wikipedia is] a stupid video game, and the "encyclopedia" is an accidental byproduct.

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Bbb23 admin abuse

Post by Abd » Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:47 pm

This is largely incoherent. On Reddit, by a throwaway account and then by the ViliGnat, of approving of Bbb23, which was simply not true. Bbb23 had clearly burned out, became over-attached to his activity and not responsive to the policy-based supervision of ArbCom. (I have pointed out that the structure creates that, which was interpreted as "excusing" Bbb23. No, we are all responsible for what we do, even if we had abusive parents, etc.)

What he removed from his talk page, however, was a link to a discussion supporting him -- which demonstrated that Tony Ballioni really didn't understand the issue. Ballioni has a point, but missed the point. ArbCom had not sanctioned him for checkuser errors. Ballioni is correct, a very active checkuser might well make some mistakes, but . . . why was this checkuser so active? It could indicate sua sponte checkuser, when the policy was against that, in general. Even if he was "right."

His removal of that content does not indicate any desire to hide anything. Many users want a clean talk page. Removing comment like that is disapproved, but relatively normal. And he was under attack, very common for admins, so there was revision deletion in the logs. Meaningless. I'd see the real remaining problem here as being Tony Ballioni, a checkuser who doesn't get it. But that's not likely to be considered serious enough to sanction him, and I've seen admins openly defy policy as wrong, in ArbCom cases, and it's blown off as meaningless.

Wikipedia is effed up in many ways, but pinning this as the result of Bad People is barking up the wrong tree and will never generate results worth working for.

User avatar
Ubjectiv
Sucks Noob
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2020 3:25 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Bbb23 admin abuse

Post by Ubjectiv » Thu Apr 09, 2020 7:29 am

To recap:
Tim Hardcastle has habitually used the checkuser function on constructive edittors without cause, blocked constructive edittors without cause, added libellous templates of abusive sockpuppetry onto the userpages and talk pages of innocent users, deleted truthful statements about his actions, abused his talk-page-locking power to suppress truthful statements about his actions, and has done even more-disruptive acts to Wikipedia and its constructive contributors by deleting articles and edits from users who he especially targets. He has further demonstrated his consummate psychopathy by being angry that ArbCom members do not "appreciate" his disruptiveness to Wikipedia.

Tim Hardcastle's disruptive psychopathic behaviors are motivated by his innate desire to assert dominance. That is to say that he delusionally perceives that he inherently possesses other users on Wikipedia, and he perpetrates aggression upon them in order to reinforce that delusion. He is praised by other Wikipedia edittors who share his same psychopathology. The most psychopathic of those is "Dr. K.", who gave Tim an ironic "defender of the wiki" barnstar, in true Orwellian blackwhite fashion. I suspect that Dr. K. is going to make himself a bigger problem to Wikipedia in the future.

I doubt that Tim Hardcastle is gone for good. He takes too much depraved pleasure in harmfully disrupting Wikipedia and its constructive contributors, so I think that he'll be back, though possibly under a new username. The only way that he won't come back to Wikipedia is if he finds some alternative venue in which to cause disruptive harm to innocents, which would be no better.

Although it would be a simple prophylactic solution for Tim Hardcastle to be executed or sentenced to life in solitary confinement in ADX Florence, that would not do much to create compensatory justice for all of the injustice that he has willfully created. Rather, Tim Hardcastle should be put into his rightful role in society, which is to be put into a state of perpetual agony via direct brain stimulation, as he is strapped firmly in place, intubated, and quadrupal-amputated, so that his brain would be a source of perpetual justice until his lifespan runs out. Does anyone else second this proposal?

User avatar
JuiceBeetle
Sucks Mod
Posts: 676
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Bbb23 admin abuse

Post by JuiceBeetle » Fri Apr 10, 2020 11:26 pm

Crow has written a nice essay on Wikipediocracy about Bbb23 in his signature style. It's an entertaining piece, not without truth, therefore I'll republish it here in remembrance of our warrior.
Original: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 26#p262667
Death To Wikipedia wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 9:48 am
Well, nothing illustrates how fucked up Wikipedia is, how in need of complete and total annihilation as an experiment gone wrong, than this sorry episode.

To summarise:
  • It was an open secret among the Wikipedia community, including the higher ups with the power and privileges to prevent abuse, that Bbb23 was playing fast and loose with people's private data, and that whenever he was challenged, he would simply brush people off, sometimes very aggressively, evidently confident his standing in the community and hiding behind the very rules he was breaking would protect him. And yet even then, even then with that as the widely known situation of the state of rot in Denmark, it took multiple complaints to the Arbitration Committee from people with presumably no power or privileges but still presumably in possession of hard evidence of abuse, before anyone even conducted a formal investigation to establish the sheer depth and breadth of his violations.

    It was a serious breach of policy - Wikipedia only has a handful of serious polices, stuff that has legal implications, handling private data being one of them - and yet despite the fact it was clearly a case of habitual and deliberate offending after clear warnings as regards the limits of CheckUser's discretion, and despite the fact the offender disputed the charges entirely, even after "extended discussion" with ArbCom as to exactly how and why they reached their conclusions, he has not been stripped of his ability to use the tool, nor has he been banned. In context, to call the actual outcome a wrist slap is an insult to the dedicated work of the Department of Wrist Slaps.

    What he was doing was so serious, so out of step with the usual level of bending the rules for the greater good that is so often seen in the dark corners of the community where the privilege of making decisions based on confidential information is seen as a means of exerting power and control rather than a huge responsibility with real world consequences, that the entirety of his colleagues in the secret CheckUser bunker, admitted they would not have performed the sort of checks he was performing. And yet not one has been asked to publicly explain, much less been publicly censured for, apparently not performing their primary responsibility - monitoring and reporting their colleagues. We peons are told this happens all the time and we should just trust them, and yet here we are, with the best proof there could have ever been, that it never really happens at all, or if it does, they're doing it wrong.

    Little actual detail of Bbb23's serious crimes have been released, and indeed if it were not for his giant ego, if this matter has been dealt with the way ArbCom thought was appropriate, nobody would have known anything about it. And other than the fact he was routinely colouring outside the lines, we still know virtually nothing. Was he routinely falsifying logs, in the hopes his level of trust among his colleagues would hide the scale and severity of his abuse? Or were his colleagues guilty of routinely allowing Bbb23 to get away with not properly justifying each of his checks in the logs? Since it is clear he was not exploiting any known loophole, since it is clear he was simply ignoring policy and being allowed to do it, what was the precise means by which he got away with it? How many of these checks were done off his own back, and how many were for example, requested by friends, friends whose own experience with policy would have surely told them the checks they were requesting were against policy. Was there a pattern, was Bbb23 the goto guy for certain users, users who are perhaps guilty of serious abuses of their own in their use of other privileges? We were not even told how far back the investigation went, and therefore how many abusive checks he might have ran (the nature of this violation of policy being that it is entirely irrelevant whether the checks successfully identified socking or not). The anonymous "Bbb23" is the only known perpetrator or indeed victim in this scandal, and there will seemingly be no follow up, no further investigation, much less any attempt at rectification, even though it is known that the supposed sanctity and infallibility of their CheckUser system is often used by assorted Wikipediaprats as justification for gross breaches of the BLP policy.

    Even if we assume good faith that the only thing certain Wikipediaprats knew about the incident was Bbb23's explanation, namely he had been mildly censured for "using my CU privileges in ways that violate policy", they still automatically assumed that he was right, that ArbCom was wrong, and they should be strung up for costing Wikipedia a person whose use of the CheckUser tool was "beyond amazing". ArbCom is a committee of fifteen people elected by the community, CheckUsers are appointed and overseen by that very same committee, and we have not been shown any proof they have discharged their duties incorrectly here, only that they have been late and likely ineffective in how they have done it. To call these protestors traitors to Wikipedia, is an understatement. And yet they face no action, aside from a few wounded comments, ArbCom puts up with their every brickbat, their every tantrum, until it essentially bends over and asks, how hard and for how long would you fine folk like to abuse us? We are at your service, our dear sweet princes. The one time anyone evidently has genuine protected Free Speech on Wikipedia, is for the hurling of ill-informed personal abuse and general spouting of revolutionary hate speech toward the one, indeed the only, example of democratically elected functionaries in their otherwise highly undemocratic community.

    The real world identity of Bbb23 is known to the Foundation, and his abuses of policy, pending concrete detail to the contrary from those who investigated it, seem likely to have been illegal acts under the law of California. And yet we have heard nothing in terms of police reports being filed, either from the individuals of ArbCom, or any corporate officer. We do not even know if ArbCom has informed anyone at the Foundation as to the nature of these abuses, even though presumably it is policy that they do so if they reasonably believe a policy with legal implications has been breached in a serious and long term fashion.

    Where potential for policy improvements have been identified in this debacle, most notably the fact it might be a good idea that a CheckUser logs the origin of a check (self, private request, SPI) at the same time as they (supposedly) outline their clear and detailed justification for the check, nobody on the Arbitration Committee has taken responsibility for driving that forward.

    There are a number of Wikipediaprats who seem to hold the view that this was no big deal, that even if this is technically against policy, it's a crime that is necessary to protect Wikipedia, and as such, Bbb23 should be celebrated and rewarded, not sanctioned or shunned. There has been little to no effort from Wikipedia functionaries to push back against these views and put what he has done into perspective; these people, despite surely knowing better unless their community granted qualifications and level of trust to do and say the right thing is meaningless, seem to treat this as if it were a perfectly legitimate debating point, no different to say, allowing their people to tell vandals to fuck off, and indeed quite a number of functionaries actually seem to actually hold this view themselves, which perhaps explains just why it took so long for these crimes to be uncovered.
It says a lot about the nature of Wikipedia, specifically how seriously they take their legal responsibilities as well as how they self-regulate, that there has been a fraction of the amount of detail released and debated over this issue, than any of the relative trivialities they usually deal in even at this highest level of inquiry. It is unsurprising therefore, and perhaps entirely deliberate, that the outside world, specifically the lecturers and legislators the community is cosying up to in some desperate attempt to reassure the world they're a grown up project with serious people, will never even hear of this scandal, much less appreciate the implications for themselves or society, should they be so stupid as to "collaborate" with them, to legitimize them.

Death To Wikipedia.
#Bbbgate

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 114 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Wikipedia falsely advertizes itself.

Post by CMAwatch » Sun Apr 12, 2020 12:42 pm

JuiceBeetle wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 11:26 pm
Crow has written a nice essay on Wikipediocracy about Bbb23 in his signature style. It's an entertaining piece, not without truth, therefore I'll republish it here in remembrance of our warrior.
Original: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 26#p262667
Death To Wikipedia wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 9:48 am
Death To Wikipedia.
Not that I want Wikipedia to “die”, but they are destroying themselves.

If Wikipedia actually was interested in what they boast in their mission statement, they would at least make the following changes:
  • Make Rule WP:G5 and WP:G13 ineffective. These rules are (excuse my language) utter bullshit and counter-productive.
  • Obligate administrators to actually follow WP:5P4 and WP:ADMINACCT. Administrators on Wikipedia have a lot of social pressure.
  • Take action against clearly misbehaving administrators, especially Bbb23 who revoked Aron Manning's talk page access instantly after a bit of criticism.
  • Judge users by their actual edits, not whether they were blocked at some earlier points.
Wikipedia's mission statement evidently is false advertising.
#BbbGate
Weaponizing WP:G5
Oops! Didn't think we'd see? It's right there on WikipediaSucks.co!
ericbarbour wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:22 am
[Wikipedia is] a stupid video game, and the "encyclopedia" is an accidental byproduct.

badmachine
None
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:55 am
Location: Sackotomatoes
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 15 times
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia falsely advertizes itself.

Post by badmachine » Tue Apr 14, 2020 10:59 pm

CMAwatch wrote:
Sun Apr 12, 2020 12:42 pm
JuiceBeetle wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 11:26 pm
Crow has written a nice essay on Wikipediocracy about Bbb23 in his signature style. It's an entertaining piece, not without truth, therefore I'll republish it here in remembrance of our warrior.
Original: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 26#p262667
Death To Wikipedia wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 9:48 am
Death To Wikipedia.
Not that I want Wikipedia to “die”, but they are destroying themselves.

If Wikipedia actually was interested in what they boast in their mission statement, they would at least make the following changes:
  • Make Rule WP:G5 and WP:G13 ineffective. These rules are (excuse my language) utter bullshit and counter-productive.
  • Obligate administrators to actually follow WP:5P4 and WP:ADMINACCT. Administrators on Wikipedia have a lot of social pressure.
  • Take action against clearly misbehaving administrators, especially Bbb23 who revoked Aron Manning's talk page access instantly after a bit of criticism.
  • Judge users by their actual edits, not whether they were blocked at some earlier points.
Wikipedia's mission statement evidently is false advertising.
Wikipedia's mission statement is a bunch of baloney. The best they could do is delete the damned thing and replace it with this:

Image
Conservatives think liberals are wrong. Liberals think conservatives are evil. ― Internet maxim

Post Reply