Page 6 of 13

Re: Bbb23

PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:18 am
by JuiceBeetle
CMAwatch wrote:Is this thread going to be pinned?

Eric changed the topic type, but the phpBB forum is not good enough to actually pin it.

Re: Pinned?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2019 12:01 pm
by CMAwatch
Graaf Statler wrote:I don't think so.

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


There is enough evidence.

They don't boot him because he is legally immune there.

Re: Bbb23

PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2019 12:04 pm
by JuiceBeetle
Because booting a checkuser-admin in his position requires many pages of evidence of undebatable abuse and a long-standing editor willing to risk getting banned to make the arbcom case.

Re: Bbb23

PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2019 12:14 pm
by Abd
JuiceBeetle wrote:Because booting a checkuser-admin in his position required many pages of evidence of undebatable abuse and a long-standing editor willing to risk getting banned to make the arbcom case.
I attempted to warn ArbCom of the dangers of shooting the messenger. Very obvious: when a case is filed, the subject of the case should be narrow, the question presented. But in fact, if a case is filed over abuse, everyone who supports the abuser will scour the history of the filer and their behavior, looking for anything that can be attacked. It makes cases far more convoluted.

There a many characteristics of ArbCom and AC procedure that make it ineffective. ArbCom actually attempted to create a process for reforming itself, and the community shouted it down. There is no responsible supervision on Wikipedia, it's mob rule, with very little refinement and sophistication. So you have some members of a mod who are smart. It is still a mob and overall the pressure is to knee-jerk responses and not consideration of ultimate purpose.

Re: Bbb23

PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2019 4:33 pm
by Kumioko
Abd wrote:
JuiceBeetle wrote:Because booting a checkuser-admin in his position required many pages of evidence of undebatable abuse and a long-standing editor willing to risk getting banned to make the arbcom case.
I attempted to warn ArbCom of the dangers of shooting the messenger. Very obvious: when a case is filed, the subject of the case should be narrow, the question presented. But in fact, if a case is filed over abuse, everyone who supports the abuser will scour the history of the filer and their behavior, looking for anything that can be attacked. It makes cases far more convoluted.

There a many characteristics of ArbCom and AC procedure that make it ineffective. ArbCom actually attempted to create a process for reforming itself, and the community shouted it down. There is no responsible supervision on Wikipedia, it's mob rule, with very little refinement and sophistication. So you have some members of a mod who are smart. It is still a mob and overall the pressure is to knee-jerk responses and not consideration of ultimate purpose.

Therein lies the problem. Literally no one in the Wikipedia community nor the Arbcom nor the WMF are going to lift a finger to do anything about Bbb23's abuse because it doesn't affect them. As long as he focuses his Checkuser searches on new users, no one is going to care and that's what helps people like me.

I know Bbb23 is going to checkuser everything that moves, so I edit from as many networks as possible and with multiple accounts. I get caught and then anyone that creates a new account at that location forever is assumed to be a sock. Although lately 99% of the accounts I have created have been attributed to The Dog and rapper vandal, it still has the same effect. That has had the effect of, over time, causing almost every open network in the DC area to be locked and every account that's created there outside events where the person can be vetted assumed to be a sock.

Bbb23, the evil monster.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2019 4:44 pm
by CMAwatch
Kumioko wrote:because it doesn't affect them.


But it affects entire Wikipedia.

Handroid7's innovative pages include:

* Moderatorship abuse (What an irony…)
* Comparison of mobile phone cameras ( a LOT of work, apparently! )

And these are just a few of >60 pages he created, all destroyed by Bbb23 within minutes!

If Bbb23 does not give a damn about his great legitimate work, he apparently does not give a damn about free information and collaborative contributions, the original purpose of Wikipedia.

Bbb23 is a disgraceful figure on Wikipedia.

The case against G13

PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2019 4:52 pm
by CMAwatch
Handroid7 also wrote an essay against rule G13.

Is that what motivated Bbb23 to screw him over?

Re: Bbb23, the evil monster.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:08 pm
by JuiceBeetle
CMAwatch wrote:* Moderatorship abuse (What an irony…)

That would be an interesting article if it could be sourced. However that's the hard part of the job.
In this form this is no more than an idea, not notable. If expanded, it might be used as an essay in project namespace or on meta.

Re: Bbb23, the evil monster.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:35 pm
by Kumioko
JuiceBeetle wrote:
CMAwatch wrote:* Moderatorship abuse (What an irony…)

That would be an interesting article if it could be sourced. However that's the hard part of the job.
In this form this is no more than an idea, not notable. If expanded, it might be used as an essay in project namespace or on meta.

Yeah the WMF and the community go out of their way to make sure that any evidence that could show abusive admin or functionary conduct is hidden, they make it exceptionally difficult to do anything about them and they actively enable their abuse.

Re: Bbb23, the evil monster.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2019 7:02 pm
by CMAwatch
JuiceBeetle wrote: if it could be sourced.

In the meantime, it could be marked as {{unsourced}}, and it was in the draft namespace anyway.

Therefore, perfectly OK.