Beeblebrox spills his guts on Wikipediocracy about an issue he suppressed on Wikipedia because it's not for the "public"

Evil admin for many years, tossed out in 2020, now infesting Wikipediocracy
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Beeblebrox spills his guts on Wikipediocracy about an issue he suppressed on Wikipedia because it's not for the "public"

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Thu Aug 12, 2021 7:33 pm

You can't make this shit up.

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 50#p293697
If you can't tell why some revisions were suppressed, that means it worked as intended. All three of you have been here long enough to be aware this is not a discussion that is going to be held in public. If you'd like the oversight team or the full committee to review my actions, feel free to contact them and I'll recuse myself from any such conversation. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
I guess Wikipediocracy isn't "public"?

:lol:

Funny but tragic, because of course, this is all about a user with serious mental health issues.

:|

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4708
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1187 times
Been thanked: 1899 times

Re: Beeblebrox spills his guts on Wikipediocracy about an issue he suppressed on Wikipedia because it's not for the "pub

Post by ericbarbour » Thu Aug 12, 2021 10:56 pm

Great. I was under the impression he was gone for good.

The book wiki article, which I will now have to expand........yes folks, Chris literally did say "fuck off, peasants, I'm untouchable now" after he was re-sysopped in 2010. And that revision was oversighted.
Chris Sherlock

One of the earliest members of Wikipedia's allegedly-nonexistent "cabal", Ta_bu_shi_da_yu (T-C-F-R-B) (see also Tbsdy lives (T-C-F-R-B), Letsbefiends (T-C-F-R-B), 203.217.39.91, chris.sherlock79@gmail.com as of 2016) was a principal author of, and excuse-maker for, Wikipedia's chronic inability to handle or use experts in various fields of knowledge. Chris was, like Jimmy Wales, in favor of discouraging Wikipedia editing by knowledgeable people, and of encouraging edits by random nobodies, regardless of their lack of knowledge or bias. He also supported the hard core of Wikipedia insiders slavishly, and started a number of ugly disputes. Close Wiki-Friend of David Gerard and co-founder of Wikipedia's incompetent "Aussie mafia", he helped to found the highly dysfunctional Wikimedia Australia.

background

IT professional from Sydney, Australia. Claims to be a devout Protestant Christian, appears to be politically liberal. Employee of Australian Customs, has obviously edited Wikipedia during work hours.

WP work, Ta bu shi da yu

As Ta bu shi da yu, he appeared in June 2004. One of his first achievements: the creation of the exploding whale article, a classic of Wikipedian Internet-meme stupidity. He was also very fond of Windows XP, the Seiko Epson company, and actress Holly Valance. Soon he was a regular pest on Deletion Review and individual AFDs and MFDs, usually voting to keep. Somehow he fell into dispute with Netoholic, and was mentioned in Netoholic's (pointless) November 2004 arbitration. Chris was poking his nose into all kinds of arbitrations and other issues, which became a habit.[1][2][3]

Thanks to his appetite for drama and abuse, he went through no less than three RFAs prior to 2006. The first one, October 2004, was a complete success. He really liked Mark Pellegrini, judging by this.

An RFC was opened in February 2005. The complaint: he reverted, then protected, the article about the year "2004", thus attracting some criticism from people trying to edit the page. Insiders called it "frivolous" and ignored it.

He claimed to be quitting Wikipedia in March 2005, yet in May, he returned and asked for another RFA. This time, he was accused of "vandalizing" the precious "Dalek" article by Tony Sidaway, and withdrew his request. He was still mostly noted for the "exploding whale". Quote: "Request from Ta bu shi da yu: I'm feeling pretty low right now (yes, my own fault). If people could respect my decision to withdraw and stop voting, I would very much appreciate it. I feel positively terrible about the whole business and would like to put it behind me. I'm well aware that I made a really stupid mistake and I honestly don't need it pointed out anymore. In my own defense, I was making a joke. This backfired very badly (I blanked the page accidently then added the picture of the Dalek attacking soon after - the blanking was unintentional but the joke was intentional) and I'm feeling pretty down about it and am in the process of beating myself up about it. A special note to Everyking: stop sticking the knife in please. You know very well that you got yourself into hotwater over the Ashlee Simpson article. At the time you got blocked, which you didn't like no doubt, but this was done because you were under an arbcom injunction that needed to be enforced. I didn't take pleasure in blocking you and I don't thank you for introducing this into my RFA. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)"

He enlisted a friend to nominate him for a third RFA in June 2005, and got in despite some criticisms.

A second RFC was opened in February 2006, for deleting images that might be copyright violations. Despite evidence that many of them were deleted properly, "While I think that Ta bu shi da yu's heart is in the right place, I feel there is an abuse of process that needs to be discussed." It helped to illustrate that Wikipedia's process for handling images was not well-developed at the time. Nevertheless, it was a pointless and wasteful squabble.

Quote from WR, April 2006:

"I feel that how good the information in Wikipedia is should not be determined because you are an "expert", but because the material is good an follows mandatory site policies, such as:"

" Neutrality,"
" Lack of originality (we shouldn't make stuff up),"
" Accuracy, and"
" Reliable sources."

"Chris goes on to describe how he thinks good articles get written (by being analyzed by a bunch of ignorant jackasses on the Featured Article Candidate pages). In fact it's the opposite: most of the good Wikipedia content is written by experts who haven't had the experience of meeting idiots like Chris and his friend Antaeus Feldspar. Most of the idiocies that Wikipedia propagates come about because they let people edit who don't know what they are talking about. There is a way to stop a vandal who writes "George Bush is a monkey", but there is no way to stop the equally destructive behaviour of the clueless fools."

Also in April, he posted a rant on a blog about how much he hated Wikipedia Review. "Yay to my post :P Wikipedia Review is evil. The Internet should be Wikipedia Review free. And so should Wikipedia, which is why Blu’s site was removed from the article “Criticism of Wikipedia”. And to those who also aren’t aware of it, the Wikipedia Review has a history of posting libel. I was perhaps unfair in calling it Blu Aardvark’s site. However, it is the place that people go when they get banned from Wikipedia. However, in reference to my previous comment: people should be aware that the link to Wikipedia Review is no longer on the article “Criticisms of Wikipedia” – particularly when the site admins like Selina post pornographic images and say that it is an image of one of our female admins. Add this to the fact that we really don’t count them as notable enough and the link has been removed. This is a good case of an external link being removed from an article. And yes, I am a Wikipedia admin."

A category called "Good-looking Wikipedians" was opened in early 2006, with Chris featured prominently. It was mocked on Wikipedia Review, and then quickly deleted. Chris was already well-known to WR regulars for relentlessly attacking WR moderator Adrian "Blissyu2" Meredith, very early in WR's history.[4]

In June 2006, Sam Vaknin gave Chris an opportunity to put down an essay on what Wikipedia "is", and Vaknin's response was not surprising: "Boringly predictable responses. Utter lack of grasp of any of the arguments I made. Juvenile presentation. I expected nothing more of an anonymous Wikipedian (statistically, an obese and schizod (sic) teenager with no life and grandiose compensatory fantasies)."

He got married in December 2006, and announced it on AN/I.[5]

After supporting many wargamers and causing much strife, Chris finally disappeared in November 2007, after an ugly AN/I battle, and had all of his userpage archives deleted. Quote: "Ta bu shi da yu is engaging in massive internal spamming/votestacking for a deletion discussion in blatant violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking, and refuses to stop despite a request on his talk page. John254 03:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)" Yet he maintained at least one sockpuppet account, used to vote-stack and canvass in that very same AN/I argument.[6]
WP work, TBSDY Lives

In January 2008, he attempted to return under the name Tbsdy lives. Apparently, he was re-given his administrative powers, with no RFA and no public discussion. This account quickly became a lightning-rod for moronic complaints.[7][8][9] He didn't like Giano, as with a lot of other Wikipedia insiders.[10][11]

In February 2010, a sockpuppet investigation was opened, and promptly closed by Chris's little administrator friends. He had offered to stand for recall, but removed his name. It was mentioned in this WR post, also in February 2010 (note that the two diffs listed there have mysteriously disappeared from the Wikipedia database). Quote:"Now that's class. Eight days between "I pledge to respect the community" and "fuck off, peasants, I'm untouchable now" has got to be some kind of record."

In May, the complaints became excessive[12], and Chris closed out his TBSDY account.

He is suspected of editing Wikipedia to this day, via other undiscovered socks. Very quietly.

2016

An incident in May 2016 caused him to threaten suicide on Wikimedia-l, an event that was quickly hushed up. Unfortunately, the media noticed. [13][14]. See also WO thread.

Quoting his message in full:

"I've just been blocked forever. I've been bullied, and I'm having suicidal thoughts."

"I don't know what to do now."

"Right now I'm reaching out to anyone who might listen. I've been called obsessive, someone who attacks people, I've not been listened to and I've been lectured on policy by people who quote three letter shortcuts at me without reading the policy."

"An admin just told me that I had submitted too many kilobytes which violated some sort of policy. When I pointed out that half of the kilobytes were references I was ignored. When I pointed out that the one reverting me was deleting no contentious stuff I was told I was being contentious. When I pointed out I had been told I'm not allowed to use primary sources in any way and the policy was its ok but to use it with care, and all I was doing was checking a company directorship, I was ignored. "

"I wrote your [exploding whale] article. I invented your [citation needed] tag. I started your admins noticeboard. "

"But I'm not well, and nobody on Wikipedia seems to be kind. You are all so busy power tripping that you forget there is a real, live person on the other side. A person who is wounded. I haven't always been this depressed. Not anxious. I stupidly logged into my account yesterday, one that nobody knew I used, and tried to edit the Salim Mehajer article. I was surprised it wasn't there, but I've never been so obstructed I all my life. It's not even that there was a disagreement, it was like I wasn't worth anything. I spent hours of my time researching the article, trying to do a good job. But in an instant the material was ripped away, and I was called obsessed. "

"That's not what I was called when I rewrote the [USA PATRIOT Act] article. People told me it was long, but they were encouraging. My hard work was appreciated. "

"I've never attacked the subject of the article, Salim Mehajer. But when I was called obsessive, I guess something broke inside me. I reached badly and called the guy who called me obsessive a twit. Then I wrote a bitter article and posted it on my blog. You can read it here:"

http://randomtechnicalstuff.blogspot.co ... -such.html

"Then I stewed. I couldn't stop thinking about how I'd tried to get a decent article sorted out again, but I just couldn't seem to get traction."

"I originally had taken material from the [City of Auburn] article that was about the individual. I should have realised it was partisan, and it was a bad judgement call. I write done more material, but it was far too negative. I guess o didn't see it that way at the time. "

"I recall I went to bed and the next day I was accused of writing an attack article and an admin slapped on not one but two template telling me I was about to be blocked. Then I discovered the article had been deleted. Nobody had notified me. I couldn't work out what had happened. Then I realised it had been deleted. "

"So I tried again. This time I started from scratch. I started to edit very carefully. I started with a paragraph stub which just very, very briefly noted Mehajor is a deputy mayor and property developer. I think I wrote a short paragraph Bout his wedding which was very notable. It's in the history."

"Then it was put up for deletion again. In the A7 category. I'm rusty at Wikipedia, sure, but what? A7? It was for notability. But, I thought, how? The man is highly significant! Not a day goes by without the media talking of his exploits!"

"So I objected. The editor rounded on me. He's famous for being famous, like a Kardashian! he said. But I said, he was a deputy mayor and he's been in the Australian media extensively! It's not just his wedding (which was notorious) - it's his property deals, and his companies, and he got his entire council sacked! And he is in court all the time and is under an AFP investigation! That *is* notable!"

"But, I was told, there's not enough In the article. I was referred to another acronym about notability. But I know about notability policy, I thought. It's about the subject, not the content of the article.., desperately I hunted through the policy git the section on this. I'd read it before, years ago. If the article was deleted before I got a chance to object, I'd be called a troll, or worse. I'd be blocked for recreating it. In the nick of time I found the section and objected, and I asked to have it put on Articles For Deletion. And I pointed out I was literally editing the article when it was almost deleted - because it didn't establish enough context. But, I thought, how do you establish context of the article is deleted midway through editing it? "

"The editor took off the CSD template. I breathed a sigh of relief. Then they stick on a {notability} template. This, I was informed, meant that the article could be merged, redirected, or deleted if notability couldn't be determined. But, I thought - I just established that! I didn't want it to be deleted midway through editing, and redirecting would have been as bad. And merged and redirected to what? It was already redirected to [City of Auburn Council#History], but that was clearly wrong. No, it was going to be deleted. I objected, and eventually removed the template, to strenuous objections from the one who put it on. I suggested it be put up for deletion and offered to do it myself. But the editor seemed reluctant. So, I reasoned, well if they truly feel that way they list it for deletion. At least then we'll get consensus one way or another. "

"So, now templates less but incomplete, I started to add material. I decided to start off with his early life. This was good, but every time I tried to add more material I found I was getting edit conflicts because that same editor appeared to have watchlisted the article. I sent the a message asking then to hold off editing. I also asked them not to remove huge swathes of information."

"Then I got to the bit where a court case was referred to. To establish context, I quoted both the widely reported words said by the accused and the defendant. I used a secondary source that was very reliable - the Australian ABC News website. This was summarily removed. The edit summary read BLP violation. "

"Eh? I know what BLP is, but that can't be right. I asked why on the talk page. "It's because of BLPCRIME" they said. "You can't do it". But, I said, I don't want to summarise their words, that could look worse for Mehajer! And I need to explain the case fairly do the reader knows what it's about... I was told to read the policy. Grumbling, I read it to refresh my memory. It read that non-public figures should not have allegations put on articles. Well, I thought, this does t apply here - Mehajer is a very public figure and this was reported widely. "

"And on and on it went. Every time I edited the article I would be edited as quickly. It was like I was being stalked. Eventually, however, the exasperation of that editor was too much. He listed the article on Requests For Comment. But, I thought, I remember RFC back in the day. We used to hash these things out on the talk page first! And normally there was some sort of compromise - line the opposing party would say "why not summarise it thusly" and you'd look at it and go "well, OK, but I'd summarise it like this". And the partite would come up with something reasonable. Not do this editor - it was no information on the case at all, just that there had been a case. "

"So then things went very bad. He decided to ask at the Australisn Wikipedias Noticeboard. From there, a South Ausyrslusn editor turned up, took a look at the section that detailed vehicle incidents and just removed it. Then on the talk page he panned the edits as "obsessive" and "trivial". In fact, he was just getting started..,"

""the compilation of all the companies he's a director of, many of which are so non-notable the author has had to refer to business registration records, is an atrocious case of original research and absolutely does not belong in this article. These are such trivial details that no journalist has bothered to compile them in any of the tens of thousands of stories about him for a reason.""

"I was gob smacked. I had sourced every one if the companies to a secondary source. One of the sources was an article in The Australian, a major Aussie newspaper. It pointed to a PDF which detailed a list of companies associated with Mehajer."

"And at this point we end at the beginning. I rage quit, then I was messages by an editor from Perth, who taunted me, telling me I had relevance deprivation syndrome. I was already feeling fragile, but this egged me on I suppose. If I'd been feeling less fragile I just would have let it go. "

"So I did something inexcusable. I told the editor who had been stalking me what I thought of them. I swore at them and called them bad names. It was reverted."

"I continued editing. It was hell or high water! I knew if I could just ask them to explain there decisions I could get the article into shape. So I asked again why non-controversial material was removed. Nobody would answer. I put back material and wrote a long talk message. I was reverted with a response that didn't answer why it was a problem. I kept tweeting because there was nothing else I could do. Even important material, utterly non-controversial, was removed."

"Eventually, however, they started to suggest what the issues were. They said it was fine to include his traffic offenses, but it had to be cut down. But, I explained, it's actually only one sentence and I detailed what the offenses were otherwise it might give an impression his offenses were a lot worse than they were! I asked what they should be changed to. And, I pointed out, you still haven't explained why the other material is a violation of Biographies of Living People!"

"There was no response. Instead, I was reverted. So I reverted again because no answer had been provided."

"Then I got a message. I was told that actually the admin hadn't read the material but he'd noticed that the total kilobytes of text had ballooned. But, I said on my talk page - half of that size is in references! Irrelevant, I was told. You aren't editing to consensus. If someone removes material, under no circumstances must you ready it until you discuss it."

"But the other editor is refusing to discuss it with me! Again I pointed out the bits that were being removed without being discussed. Tough I was told."

"In sheer bloody minded frustration I reverted the admin. Then I posted to the admins incident page pleading for someone to see reason. Then I got yet another message telling me I had been reported for edit warring."

"I tried post, got in the first bit to appeal. But then I tried list more, to plead my innocence and rotary to make someone understand I ha dead at the end if my tether. My wife came in and startled me. I literally jumped and yelled, severely startling her badly. I felt dreadful. "

"Then I raced out of the house, got in my car and parked in a quiet spot. I posted to the only place I had left. A bitter post, stating who I had been and what I had contributed and what I had just been through. "

"This wax reverted by the admin Nick-D, from Western Australia who banned my rage quitted account (whose passwords scrambled, so it's inaccessible anyway) and had my mobile IP address blocked got a week, though I had tried to explain I would be home later and it's best block my other IP address which is my NBN IP. It was, I had said in the message, a relief. "

"But not only was this rolled back, but the user page was locked."

"My despair and humiliation is total. So here I sit, contemplating the mess my life is in and how it's not worth even the ability to edit Wikipedia, Wikipedia the project I loved and I gave do much if my time and date to. A project where I worked to gain consensus and wrote amazing article with others, and researched for and went to meet ups and borrow books from the library to ensure the world got the best possible information I could locate about a subject."

"I know I'm not well. I have fought this feeling for a decade. It's why I left the Tbsdy_lives account when Brad emailed me. At least then you gave me small degree of dignity, and deleted my user pages."

"There is no more dignity to be given me. I've used up my portion. "

"And I sit here in my car and contemplate suicide. My despair is total. There is not a kind one amongst you. You have taken my right of appeal, my ability to protest and my dignity. You have let others mock me, and I have failed to contribute to Wikipedias great mission - one I feel so keenly."

"I failed. I'm not sure what I'm going to do next. I will drive, I don't know where. I pray my family forgives me."

"Chris"
"Ta bu shi da yu"
Apparently he was whining about Salim Mehajer, minor politician turned felon shortly after Chris's 2016 tantrum. And now I'm wondering if WWGB is yet another of Mr. Sherlock's seeeekret sockpuppets.

If those fuckers were not running a cult, Chris Sherlock would be "Globally B&" for life. He is NOT an "asset"--except maybe to Aussie Wikipedians who want to control content. He's been good buddies with David Gerard for a loooong time, as expected. What a useless meatsack.

AND HE'S BEEN DOING THIS BULLSHIT FOR SEVENTEEN YEARS. Remember that.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4708
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1187 times
Been thanked: 1899 times

Re: Beeblebrox spills his guts on Wikipediocracy about an issue he suppressed on Wikipedia because it's not for the "pub

Post by ericbarbour » Tue May 14, 2024 10:57 pm

Reminder of the thing this thread was about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ta_b ... pedian.jpg
Ta_bu_shi_da_yu,_Wikipedian.jpg
Ta_bu_shi_da_yu,_Wikipedian.jpg (82.69 KiB) Viewed 471 times
Last edited by ericbarbour on Tue May 14, 2024 10:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply