Page 5 of 22

Re: Bbb23 has abused Wikipedia.

Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 10:12 pm
by CMAwatch
JuiceBeetle wrote:
CMAwatch wrote:Bbb23 has actually deliberately vandalized Wikipedia.
Here is an important report.
it will never be called vandalism.

Of course not.

Why? Because Bbb23 has lobbying power.

Important Reddit comment!

Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:11 am
by CMAwatch
Indented: By pro-Bbb23 Reddit user.
Not indented: By truth-speaking Reddit user.


> And there is no unblock request on their original account.

> The unblock request is on their sockpuppet account.

Does “original” refer to Handroid7 or Chanc20190325?

He made an unblock request on both.

[Edit] Ah, you mean using the {{unblock}} template? Oh, that was only on Handroid7.

> their new account has to have done something to trigger a checkuser check in the first place

No, but Bbb23 scans everything he find.

But if so, it might be WP:TCAG13 that he created.

> A response that is not acceptance of the terms given in the offer.

Yes, he did say that he is not going to do anti-circumcision editing and be more careful before botching another edit.

> And that in their unblock request, they were specifically told to disclose all their accounts. They did not.

> So despite having the rules on socks explained to them, they STILL try to hide socks.

> So clearly they are not interested in learning no.

A few minutes later, before Bbb23's next response, he actually did disclose it.

But Anonymous201910 was created to ask a sensitive question on the German Wikipedia reference desk that he did not want to have it associated with the original account (WP:SOCKLEGIT), and it has not done even one edit on the English Wikipedia, so that account is unrelated to the issue, yet Bbb23 decided to humiliate him more than needed.

Also, if you take a look at Handroid7's innovative work (this is just one of many), you can't tell me he is not serious about making Wikipedia better.

By erasing 60+ of his legitimate articles and redirects, Bbb23 has unnecessarily added damage to Wikipedia. Even if his account was from a ban evasion, it does not change that his content was actually good.

Whatever he did wrong on his past account, he certainly deserves another try.

The only time he actually actively damaged Wikipedia were his anti-circumcision edits.

Indesputably, the ban-evasive account creation was indeed unlawful, but not actively damaged Wikipedia. From a purely logical point of view, it was just like any other account creation, as if he was “reset” or “reborn”.

I am not trying to justify his ban evasion, but I am sure that there are some lucky Wikipedians running around freely that have evaded their bans years ago without getting caught. But because they made thousands of good edits in the mean time, it does not matter anymore from today's point of view.

The evasion policy was presumably made to help keeping vandals out that have bad intentions.

Most readers of Wikipedia care about the content itself, and in that regard, Bbb23 has done the real damage.

In the mind of Bbb23

Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2019 5:56 pm
by CMAwatch
Here is an article about Reddit, but it should also provide insights about Wikipedia:

How to Deal With Unfair Moderators on Reddit

Also read: The mind of a dictator.

More deleted stuff

Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2019 6:05 pm
by CMAwatch
Bbb23 really loves to delete stuff.

Some deletions are understandable, but many of his deletions, especially the G5 ones, are legitimate articles.

Bbb23 is the ultimate censorship machine of Wikipedia.

When will Wikimedia Foundation finally stop hibernating? Bbb23 is toxic!

Bbb23 is damaging Wikipedia! When will they finally realize it?!

Re: Bbb23

Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2019 6:16 pm
by CMAwatch
CrowsNest wrote:No reasons given.......

Welcome to Bbb23.

No reasons, no logic, just Bbb Bbb Bbb Bbb Bbb Bbb Bbb Bbblocks. Bbb23

Bbb Bbb Bbb
BB Bb B 2 3
Bbb Bbb Bbb “I love harassing Wikipedia members!”

Re: Bbb23

Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2019 6:28 pm
by CMAwatch
CrowsNest wrote:By a narrow margin, it is now official.....
Bbb23 asserted that concerns had been addressed and further discussion would be unfruitful. Concerns about GiantSnowman's use of the tool were unresolved at that point and Bbb23's closure was premature, given the circumstances at the time.

Passed 6 to 5 at 18:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Bbb23 basically abused his position to prevent the community from examining legitimate concerns over another Administrator's conduct. Just as he has done many times before, particularly for his Admin protege and long time boyfriend, Drmies.

This may seem insignificant, but it should be seen for what it is - an opportunity to file an Arbitration Case against Bbb23 himself, seeking his desysopping for repeated failings, the very next time he shuts down an AN/I with his characteristic arrogant contempt. Which he will do, because that is who he is. This was not an issue of policy knowledge of or a genuine mistake, this happened because of what Bbb23 is at his very core, a fucking scumbag.

Could not agree more.

Bbb23 is an unpredictable virus on Wikipedia.

Disagree with him, and no logic in the world matters.

The slightest thing that is wrong by his definition = mouth shut.

Bbb23 shuts mouths.

Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2019 8:09 pm
by CMAwatch
CMAwatch wrote: by his definition

Also, as proven by the Handroid7 case, his definition is unclear.

Handroid7 asked about his definition as sincere as he could, Bbb23 just replied with “Enough. TPA revoked.”

Go figure.

Re: Bbb23

Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2019 7:26 am
by JuiceBeetle


Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2019 4:37 pm
by CMAwatch
Is this thread going to be pinned?

Bbb23 is, by far, the most abusive and aggressive Wikipedia administrator, according to community consensus.

Relevant enough for sticky thrad.

Re: Pinned?

Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2019 4:47 pm
by Graaf Statler
CMAwatch wrote:Is this thread going to be pinned?

Bbb23 is, by far, the most abusive and aggressive Wikipedia administrator, according to community consensus.

Relevant enough for sticky thrad.

I don't think so.

*Bbb23 is, by far, the most abusive and aggressive Wikipedia administrator,

*according to community consensus.

If so, why don't they boot him out?