Crap or questionable articles

[Bbb23sucks]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikibase

Random non-notable MediaWiki extension. Originally created as a redirect by David Gerard in 2005, later made a full article by a WMF employee in 2017. Never challenged in any way.

[Bbb23sucks]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Kalniete

Poorly sourced anti-communist propaganda. Sources include:
1) Reconciliation of European Histories Group. An EU-funded anti-communist group.
2) ERR - Estonian state media.
3) Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes - a Czech state-funded anti-communist think tank.
4) Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation - an anti-communist CIA-funded think tank.

Literally includes the sentence "A large part of the Latvian society was shocked after she was not re-nominated as Latvia's EU Commissioner." Tell me that's not biased.

This userpage is hilarious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tataral

An IP pointed this out in 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =512676660. Still ignored as of 2023.

[Bbb23sucks]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H. ... i_comments

This is a "good" article. Passed RfD too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... i_comments

[Bbb23sucks]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_bots

More non-notable wikicruft. Never even RfD'd. Was created in 2020 and has seen little editing besides vandalism.

[Bbb23sucks]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uwu

WP:NOTDICT, WP:CRUFT, WP:POPCULTURE. Need I say more.

Interestingly, only "UwU" has an article but not "OwO". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... edirect=no

Maybe some Wikipediot will create one after reading this.

[Bbb23sucks]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia

A literal crap article. Goes into very specific detail, which was mainly written by our favorite pervert, Dronebogus. He even edit warred to keep it.

The talk page is also hilarious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Coprophilia

[ericbarbour]

The talk page is also hilarious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Coprophilia

Ask me about Matthew Buck sometime. Or maybe don't--he's not an admin on en-WP or Commons anymore and has almost given up on the whole rotten thing. (He had a prominent role in making it smell. Wanna see his nipple clamp?)

[badmachine]

The talk page is also hilarious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Coprophilia

Ask me about Matthew Buck sometime. Or maybe don't--he's not an admin on en-WP or Commons anymore and has almost given up on the whole rotten thing. (He had a prominent role in making it smell. Wanna see his nipple clamp?)

that talkpage is hilarious as promised. i had never heard of a "plate job" before.

tell us about mattbuck especially if hes into degenerate poopsex

[ericbarbour]

tell us about mattbuck especially if hes into degenerate poopsex

first, the nipple clamp
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... MMB_01.jpg

then some book wiki cringe, okay?

His en-WP account dates from April 2006. "I'm a fan of sci-fi, especially Torchwood, Doctor Who, Stargate and Star Trek fiction. I play Neveron, watch Formula One, and sometimes update my website." And that is exactly what he has edited on Wikipedia, as well as mathematics articles. Big Wiki-fanboy. [1]

He showed up on Commons March 2007. After posting and tagging photos, he was "rewarded" with adminship on Commons, May 2008.

Matt loves to steal images from Flickr (provided they are tagged with a free-use license), a popular pastime on Commons. Judging from his personal photos, he is extremely fond of British railways and occasional nipple clamps.

Some choice quotes by Matt, he usually votes in deletion reviews to keep. Especially if genitals are evident.

[2]"We do not appear to have any other images of people actually having sex with sex dolls, which seems like a surprising oversight. If sex dolls are at all within scope (which given there's an en.wp article they are), surely photos of them being used for their intended purpose are within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)"

[3]"Commons needs more sexual images. There are trains of all different shapes and sizes, and similarly there are penises, breasts, vaginas and anuses of all different shapes and sizes - it's our job to show this, not to just choose one penis we think is best and delete all others. As for sex acts, we barely have any images at all. Fellatio has only 19 images in the main category, and not many in subcategories, and most of those are cartoons. We have no photos of men performing fellatio. A total of two images of Anilingus; maybe around 50 for Cunnilingus, but almost no photos and certainly no photos which I'd want to use on an article on the subject, much less a how-to book, which, lest we forget, are also created by Wikimedia projects. We have one, yes one photo of anal sex, no photos of mammary intercourse, sex while sitting or standing, spooning or even the missionary position. One photo of fingering, three of a woman on top. Heck, of the handjob, possibly the world's most common sex act, we have a total of seven files, of which only two are photos. To sum up, I have no idea where all this mass of pornographic media you're complaining about is, but it sure as hell isn't on Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)"

Matt, along with fellow Commons genital-protectionists Greg Maxwell, Thogo, Shoemaker's Holiday, Kameraad Pjotr, Mercy, and Abigor, won a joint Wikipedia Review "DICK of Distinction" award in 2011. [4]

In Category:Nudity_and_sexuality-related_deletion_requests/kept, Matt has voted to keep virtually every image listed -- 150 at last count.

Buck thought it was "horrible" that the WMF global-banned Beta M.
Buck is a PhD in mathematics. How's that for poop? And that's only a sample.

[Bbb23sucks]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexual_lighting