https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ed_sources
The Arbitration Committee (before Beeblebrox was elected to it) quite rightly warned Wikipedia Administrators against prematurely closing legitimate noticeboard inquiries.not vandalism, not sanctionable, not going to go anywhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Beeblebrox has done just that, and his stated grounds are clearly false and biased. David Gerard was not accused of vandalism by the OP, and AS USUAL, Gerard's attempts to defend himself against what has been alleged, which clearly are sanctionable, are self serving distortions both policy and fact.
Certainly in the case of the Daily Mail, largely because "the Daily Mail is generally unreliable" is a proveably false statement, David Gerard's habit of removing first, leaving it to others to find better sources later, is manifestly harming Wikipedia's basic mission.
There is a reason nobody but David Gerard is conducting a mass removal of Daily Mail links. Gerard is Wikipedia's most vociferous anti-Mafia zealot.
This naked abuse of power by Beeblebrox to ensure proper inquiry into Gerard's clear and obvious attempt to achieve an improper FAITACOMPLI (to use an Arbitration Committee term of art) is prevented, is disgusting.
Even more disgusting, was the blithely contemptuous way he dismissed the complaint, by a Wikipedia editor of 10,000+ edits, 15+ years service, and a relatively clean block log.....
Is that the desired conduct of an Arbitrator?NOPE
No. It's disgusting in its contempt.
Which is unsurprising, because Beeblebrox himself, is disgusting. Racism being just one of his many personality traits.
But Beeblebrox's abuse of power here, in furtherance of an established political objective of Wikipedia (depreciation of reliable but right wing and popular sources), is unlikely to be remedied on Wikipedia, because on Wikipedia, power is everything.
The debate is CLOSED. Shut down. Over.
You might naturally think therefore that this incident would be ripe for debate on Wikipediocracy, the supposedly independent corruption investigators. Think again. Not for nothing has Beeblebrox done his best to curry favour and preference from their Board Admin Jake the Sellout, rapidly becoming one of their most valued forum members.
Beeblebrox is a corrupt scumbag. That is why he was re-elected
to high office on Wikipedia, post Framgate. He reflects what they are, rather than what the world wants them to be. They elect the leaders that are most like them. Absolute scum.
Not only is the debate closed, if you object on Wikipedia, Beeblebrox will undoubtedly block you, and then probably also gloat about it to his scummy Mail hating mates on Wikipediocracy too.
Wikipediocracy can do nothing to stop it, because they are it.