Catégorie:Verbes auxiliaires

Définition, traduction, prononciation, anagramme et synonyme sur le dictionnaire libre Wiktionnaire.

Voir aussi [[w:auxiliaire (verbe)|

THIS SITE HAS BEEN HACKED

🚨[modifier le wikicode]

The Wikipedia Administratior Bbb23s real name is TIM HARDCASTLE and he lives in renovated septic tank that is barely livable and is covered in rust and still smells heavily of sewage. Any normal person could not bare a second of it but For bbb23 it just cultivates more bullying power. He supposedly has a degree in geology but he failed because he spent too much time bullying people on wikipedia. He cant afford a house so he just lives in septic tank where bullies people online 18 hours a day

MORE[modifier le wikicode]

MathXplore, please stop jimbo-shilling

Bbb23 is a Wikipedia "Administrator" who is highly corrupt and been exposed many times before.


Preface:


I would like to say that know matter how deep you have gotten into Wikipedia - whether you just started editing or have been editing for years - for you to know the truth (and if you are in the Wikipedia Cabal, to hopefully push for reform for the better).


Bbb23 abuse essay please read the essay here: http://tinyurl.com/Bbb23abuse


Bbb23's actions have also violations California law: https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1198&start=180


More abuse: https://archive.is/8bzX7


Another admin STALKING users: https://archive.ph/t26y6


Which one of these users is legally banned:

  • Kumioko, who contributed over a million edits and did nothing wrong. https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=432
  • Zedebe, an admin who HACKED another user and leaked they're private information on an off-wiki forum: https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2143

Kumioko is legally banned for violating TOS, Zedebe supposedly is just fine and isnt even blocked.


I hope after reading those, you are willing to sign this petition: https://www.change.org/p/ban-bbb23-from-editing-wikipedia


I also recommend that you read the wikipediasucks.co and wikipediocracy.com forums.


Admins exposed:


Bbb23:


http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=262726#p262667


http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9504


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive250#Request_for_review_of_administrator_Bbb23;_concerns_of_abuse_of_position_and_harassment,_vindictiveness


Admin Abuse:


Bbb23:


https://archive.ph/2020.04.07-181749/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CueCat%23Bbb23_Harrassment_and_repeated_UNDO_of_valid_records#Bbb23_Harrassment_and_repeated_UNDO_of_valid_records


https://archive.ph/l2hfp


Bbb23 vandalizes a page: https://archive.is/cJg0B

...later realizes his mistake: https://archive.is/3D2YI


More Bbb23 vandalism (this time he doesn't fix it): https://archive.is/ES8jk


Bbb23 (and Wikipedia) reverts valid edits just because the user was a sockpuppet (and he defends his vandalism later): https://archive.is/qDIsG


https://old.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/3l4no8/wikipedia_oversightcheckusers_admins_ponyobbb23/


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Franchisemichael (archive: https://archive.is/6133u)


General bad behavior:


Bbb23:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LynnWysong#Accusations_and_evidence


https://archive.is/AUUpJ


Bbb23 can't take criticism: http://archive.ph/Bdcee


Even from experienced editors: http://archive.vn/OVY8q


Good articles:


https://g-liu.com/blog/2009/09/why-other-people-really-hate-wikipedia-administrators-as-well/


Blogs:


http://wikipedia-sucks-badly.blogspot.com


Victims of abuse:


https://archive.is/DXoRL


https://archive.is/I3eL5


https://archive.vn/NKQj6


https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2022/08/blocked-by-wikipedia.html


The broken system:


One can easily get other blocked by exploiting checkusers, this can even be done accidentally! (more info: https://archive.ph/eiza7 [note: you don't even have to share an IP or user-agent, merely acting like them or eluding to sockpuppetry may get them blocked])


https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2258&p=20905


Wikipedia user identities revealed:


Many more can be found here: archive.is/Ku5u7


Tamzin:


Name: Tamzin Hadasa Kelly

Birth name: Thomas Harrison Kelly

Birth date: April 14, 1996 (age 26)

Residence: 215 Stites Ave, Cape May Point, NJ 08212 (image: https://files.catbox.moe/o3cu94.png archive: https://archive.is/lvZ59)

Previous residences: 404 Constitution NE Ave, APT 12, Washington, DC 20002-5924 (left in April 2017) | 138 Puritan Rd, Swampscott, MA 01907-2716 (left in May 2022)

Father: Michael T Kelly

Mother: Madelyn S Kelly

Other addresses: 615 Healdsburg Ave Unit 306, Santa Rosa, CA 95401-5169

Phone number: (781) 307-8065


Bbb23:


Name: Tim Hardcastle

Location: Believed to reside in France. (Might have moved to Nevada)


Especially fond of young boys and girls.


Drmies:


Name: Michel Aaij

Job: Professor (rating by students: https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/professor?tid=997791)

Work: Auburn University, Montgomery (work page: https://www.aum.edu/associate-professor-michel-aaij-edits-new-book-examining-church-reformer-boniface/)

Medical: Type I diabetes (source: https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/2017/08/03/th/530729001/)

E-mail: maaij1@aum.edu


LilianaUwU:


Twitter: https://twitter.com/VeiledLilyUwU

Image https://twitter.com/VeiledLilyUwU/status/1407974459923963905


Ian Thomson:


A graduate of the University of South Carolina, where he gained a reputation for making female students uncomfortable in the Thomas Cooper library.


TheresNoTime:


Name: Samuel Tarling

Photos: https://archive.is/CGucS https://archive.is/d5OOd


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


Wikipedia Review is evil. The Internet should be Wikipedia Review free. And so should Wikipedia, which is why Blus site was removed from the article Criticism of Wikipedia. And to those who also arent aware of it, the Wikipedia Review has a history of posting libel. I was perhaps unfair in calling it Blu Aardvarks 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 dont 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.com.au/2016/05/dont-bite-newbies-why-wikipedia-is-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"


Praxidicae:


Name: CHRISSY ANDERSON

Residence: Portland, Oregon


CHRISSY ANDERSON spends her life doing exactly what she always wanted: doting on those she loves. A former fashion executive, she is a writer, wife and mother whose own life events inspired THE LIFE LIST. She lives in Portland, Oregon, with the love of her life and her beautiful daughter.


Anecdotes about admins:


Bbb23:


Bbb23 is the corruptocrat who unilaterally blanked the SPI I filed on Jytdog (who was later banned for, guess what, sockpuppetry!) and his (possible) IP sock as "disruptive". Didn't even decline it, just wiped it out.



Bbb23 is one of those admins who feels they can do anything that want and often do. Anyone who challenges them is attacked, berated and bullied until they either leave or give in.



Bbb23 is the new Betacommand. An emotionless robot who continually steps all over people and violates the spirit of the project but is allowed to do so because "he does useful work others don't want to do".



http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9504


" Eh... No. This is rational. Bear with me and I will explain.


The idea is something related to WP:DENY, it says that not only should no-one communicate with the banned users, but all the banned users contributions should be removed. This will encourage the banned users to go away, and stop them damaging the encyclopedia. This is normally good, because banned users are POV pushing, spamming, vandalising and causing mayhem, and reverting their contributions is a good idea.


But sometimes the sock was making useful edits, and then you find JamesBWatson adding thousands of errors to articles with Autowikibrowser. After doing this some indigent editors might complain that he has bollocked a whole bunch of articles and revert him, but there is no real harm done (other than a few BLP violations re-added by an admin, which could look bad?)


Sometimes the sock might also have created articles, categories and critical templates. Deleting these might be problematic and cause other admins to complain and try to restore some of the stuff causally G5 binned. This is not a problem either.


No the whole G5 / WP:DENY system is totally what is best for the encyclopedia and saves other editors lots of work. "



The real world identity of Bbb23 is known to the Foundation, and his abuses of policy, pending concrete detail to the contrary from those who investigated it, seem likely to have been illegal acts under the law of California. And yet we have heard nothing in terms of police reports being filed, either from the individuals of Arbcom, or any corporate officer. We do not even know if Arbcom has informed anyone at the Foundation as to the nature of these abuses, even though presumably it is policy that they do so if they reasonably believe a policy with legal implications has been breached in a serious and long term fashion.


Not that I want Wikipedia to die, but they are destroying themselves.


If Wikipedia actually was interested in what they boast in their mission statement, they would at least make the following changes:

Make Rule WP:G5 and WP:G13 ineffective. These rules are (excuse my language) utter bullshit and counter-productive.

Obligate administrators to actually follow WP:5P4 and WP:ADMINACCT. Administrators on Wikipedia have a lot of social pressure.

Take action against clearly misbehaving administrators, especially Bbb23 who revoked Aron Manning's talk page access instantly after a bit of criticism.

Judge users by their actual edits, not whether they were blocked at some earlier points.



In April 2014, he blocked an IP address that was making minor, and harmless, changes to biographies, and carefully reverted every one of the changes. It appeared totally pointless.


A personal correspondence on Wikipediocracy with a user called "Mr. Wallace" led to him/her making this interesting set of comments:


"Interesting a user on RationalWiki called Credulous contributed to the Adnan Oktar/Harun Yahya article there and disappeared the day before BBb23 was created on Wikipedia. [59] According to this edit, he had contributed to the SkepticWiki site: [60] The only other person I can think of is Tilman Bayer. He is known to have anti-creationist views and his userpage HaeB was created at roughly the same time as Bbb23 was created." (sic)

Another possibility: a hardened skeptic and geologist from Las Vegas named Tim Hardcastle, who also went by the names "DrAdequate" and "Actualist". [61]Even a photo[62][63][64][65][66] "Interestingly he has since been banned from the internationalskeptics.com forum in early 2010." [[Special:Contributions/95.181.164.59|95.181.164.59]] ([[User talk:95.181.164.59#top|talk]]) 05:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


Beeblebrox:


Let me introduce you to Beeblebrox. If you don't know, he's an English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee member. If you don't know what that is, he's one of the twelve most powerful volunteers on English Wikipedia, on of the few people democratically elected to a position of high office. His role is necessarily a position of high trust, and moral leadership. His duties include overseeing the good conduct of Wikipedia's hundred or so ordinary Administrators, and the adherence to the privacy policy of the handful of Admins with CheckUser powers.


So, theory out the way. Let's see what Beeblebrox is in practice, and more importantly, what that says about the low moral standards and high level corruption that defines the toxic Wikipedia community.


On any given day, Beeblebrox can be found being an absolute scumbag, breaking every principle, rule and behavioural code that he is theoretically not just bound by himself, but is expected to enforce in Wikipedia's hundreds of thousands of editors.


A typical day these days, now that he has inexplicably decided to become an integral part of the Wikipediocracy forum (to even the embarrassment of his own ArbCom peers, some of whom are also members, but all of whom have at least tried to maintain a dignified air when posting), starts as follows.....Beeblebrox joins a thread on the Wikipediocracy forum about a Commons user called Fae.


<broken link>


Fae is a valued volunteer of the Wikimedia movement, having made hundreds of thousands of edits to Commons in particular. Fae had floated a idea on Commons that users might somehow display a "tip jar" on their user pages, and thus directly benefit from donations.


It's a little out there, but harmless, and indeed in certain circumstances, potentially useful. Not circumstances that affect Beeblebrox, only in cases where a user has shown a true commitment to the mission of Commons, which necessarily takes time and expense. You can be a committed Wikipedia editor without ever leaving your mom's basement, but to be truly useful to Commons, can involve lots of travelling and of course, expensive equipment. The same was true of Wikinews, which is perhaps why Traditional English Wikipedia people like Beeblebrox worked so hard to kill it. They're not so much trying to kill Commons, as perform a slow takeover, replacing Commons people with their own and thus making their culture the same as Wikipedia, which would be tantamount to killing it.


Enter Beeblebrox then. The thread on Wikipediocracy was started by the clueless twat Giraffe Stapler, whose cluelessness is so high he somehow cast this as Fae trying to obtain funds from the WMF. At least I think that's what he meant. As is normal for Wikipediocracy, a topic was posted but the poster offered no context or analysis except the title, "Fae wants a taste of that sweet, sweet WMF money", and one throwaway line, "Are you tired of volunteering and getting nothing in return?".


To an outsider, it might not even be obvious why the thread was started. They might be particularly confused since the idea that it might somehow be possible to find some way to compensate editors for their efforts (on Wikipedia, naturally) is often floated on Wikipediocracy as a potential reform. People like Wikipedia Administrator No Ledge whine incessantly on there about how they're expected to work for free, while the WMF staff get rich off their backs. Naturally, there's nobody on that forum brave enough or indeed intelligent enough to tell that English Wikipedia Administrator that he's not working a job, he's engaged in a voluntary effort, and he can fuck off any time he likes. You need people around who aren't addicts, to tell addicts that they're addicts.


To us, well, we know that Wikipediocracy is not much more than a social club for English Wikipedia editors like No Ledge. What they hate, Wikipediocracy hates. And they truly hate Commons, because they dare to be an independent project not subject to the insane bureaucracy and toxic power games of the English Wikipedia community. English Wikipedia editors see Commons as nothing more than a photo album for English Wikipedia. As usual, this is a view that flies in the face of WMF bylaws, and is rather insulting to all the other language Wikipedia's too, all of whom make use of the multi language central hosted media repository.


One image hosted in Commons can be displayed on all the Wikipedias. Fuck that shit, is the usual response of the notoriously racist, toxic and insular English Wikipedia volunteers. People like the ironically Italian born Giano, who greedily want their images hosted locally on English Wikipedia, largely because they're copyright morons and react with incandescent rage even when their images are deleted on Commons for entirely legitimate means. If Beeblebrox were doing his job, that toxic asshole would have been binned off long ago. He survives because of the widely known and uniquely English Wikipedia problem of the Vested Contributor (edits equal immunity).


Unsurprisingly, a famous example of that is English Wikipedia Administrator(!) Ritchie333, who responded to one such valid deletion not by doing what the rules say he should do, not per the good conduct standard theoretically set out and ensured by Beeblebrox and his peers, but by running straight to Wikipediocracy to viciously attack individuals and the community, up to and including floating the idea of a mass attack as revenge. Classy eh? I would have to check to see if Beeblebrox was around back then, but in all honesty, if I just lied and said he was, and that he either did nothing, or even enthusiastically joined in, you would believe me, right? If the cap fits.....


Because of course, Beeblebrox gladly shares all these rabidly hostile but usually entirely unfair views of Commons, because to accept Commons as a truly independent project means he would have to accept that he isn't as powerful as he thinks he is. This is perhaps a big reason why he is so attracted to the Wikipediocracy community, who happily fellate him. Odd behaviour, for alleged Wikipedia critics. But they are nothing if not odd.


For broadly similar reasons, Fae in particular is hated by Wikipediocracy. That forum is a haven for the sort of bullying racist homophobic bastards that are slowly, far too slowly, being squeezed out of the still all too white straight male English Wikipedia community, a demographic Beeblebrox of course fits to a tee.


The proudly different Fae, who has never been afraid to stand up to bullies, was banned by Wikipedia long before these slow and creeping reforms. Only recently, one of English Wikipedia's most valued and experienced editors, Guy Macon, was in receipt of a veritable wrist slap of a two day block, for having been a transphobic troll in the way he responded to Fae drafting an attempted appeal. This is what passes as a tough stance on intolerance, under the moral leadership of Beeblebrox.


So naturally, when Beeblebrox saw a thread about Fae on Wikipediocracy, he of course couldn't suppress his instinct to pile on. Like a massive loser, ticking all the boxes for the stereotype of a Wikinerd, he was the first responder, adding only a lame Star Trek meme.


Suitably alerted by Wikipediocracy lighting up Fae to an inherently biased audience, which contrary to his denials is of course exactly what CANVASSING is meant to prevent, Beeblebrox then duly headed over to Commons to place the following comment.....

We could call it "OnlyFae" it'll be great. Nothing ould possibly go wrong with this rock-solid idea to panhandle on Commons! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It is what it is. Inflammatory. Trollish. Unconstructive. Unhelpful. Mean.


Of course one of the main issues with the English Wikipedia community, is that the higher up the food chain you get, the less likely you are to be sanctioned for such things. Behaviour like this from established and entrenched users, is truly normalised on English Wikipedia. And the fish rots from the head down. It probably no longer even occurs to Beeblebrox that even this one little comment, breaks multiple user behaviour policies he is theoretically meant to be enforcing and emulating as a leadership figure, which, unsurprisingly in their written form, still present the theoretical model of user participation on Wikipedia - be kind, be respectful, be constructive, be nice, don't be a bully, don't be a dick, don't waste other people's time and precious Admin resources by needless starting fires and pursing personal feuds that have to be put out.


To put it even more simply, don't be a dick suffices. Beeblebrox had a choice. If he felt like he needed to oppose this proposal, he could have simply said it was a bad idea, add a non personal reason why, and be done with it.


As you can probably pick up, there was more to this than his mere disapproval of the idea. This was about Beeblebrox hating Fae, and being presented with an opportunity by his scuzzy hate filled mates at Wikipediocracy, to express it. We can't know why, but it seems reasonable to assume that the lady doth protest too much, and he is indeed, homophobic.


The thread on Wikipediocracy meanwhile rumbled on in their patented way, and eventually Beeblebrox couldn't restrain himself, and jumped right in, two footed. Not with specific or helpful commentary of course. That would be far too close to the alleged Wikipediocracy mission of informing the media and the public. No, he participated in close alignment with Wikipediocracy's true mission, being an extension of the toxic elements of the Wikipedia community.


It's so bad, it bears quoting in full.

In their mind they are the most beloved user Commons ever had, after all they have made so very many contributions! I forget who told me about that, again and again and again.


The fact that they can't get elected as an admin or get on the volunteer response team is only because of homophobia, it can't possibly because nobody trusts them.

What a nasty little turd, eh? A blatant and severe personal attack in the very first line, and it only went downhill from there.


He wasn't done. The next morning, he had more.....

Aaaand now Fae has decided to make a new thread complaining about this thread and claiming they are frightened of me. Apparently my comments, which he clearly reads regularly, are super scary and commons should somehow get me fired from the oversight team on en.wp. Good luck with that Fae, enjoy your continued lurking here. Just so we're clear, we all already know you lurk here, you've made that exceedingly obvious many times, so this isn't the "gotcha" you imagine it is.

Take a moment to pause and reflect on what Wikipediocracy's alleged mission is. And take another moment to consider what Beeblebrox's position and role in the Wikimedia movement is. Are you experiencing a little vomit in your throat? Good. That means you're normal. You might make a good Wikipedia critic.


If you're thinking you might want to make a trip to Alaska solely to find out where Beeblebrox lives, knock on his door, and bury an axe in his skull, well, you might not be normal, but at least you're unbalanced in the right direction. The world truly needs psycho killers who make it their just mission to kill homophobic bullies, especially those who rest so comfortably in closeted positions of power in movements that on paper, profess their inclusive credentials as a means to extract monies from gullible fools.


That aspect of this affair is just one of the many things that of course could have been raised on Wikipediocracy as a useful data point to educate the public as to the broad brush problems with the Wikimedia movement, but funnily enough, it entirely escaped their notice. The price of preferring to have members like Giraffe Stapler and Vigilant, rather than serious Wikipedia critics.


The price of wanting to be a forum that is a willing English Wikipedia ally in the interminable one sided war against all the other projects that defines the Wikimedia family of sister projects, rather than being an observer looking upon events from on high. From 50,000 feet, one might say. Maybe occasionally prodding at weaknesses here and there, but only to produce experimental results that can then be analysed and documented for the benefit of humanity.


Anyway, I've said too much. I don't want to confuse Wikipediocracy with matters of high level critical strategy, I know how such things hurt their tiny brains, not being critics at all.


Back to the analysis.




Fae had indeed, quite reasonably, raised Beeblebrox's behaviour as an issue to debate on the Commons Administrator noticeboard.


https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=587625762#Beeblebrox


Broadly summarised, because Fae did rather get lost in the weeds of specifics, it's unacceptable for a Commons editor to be trolling other Commons editors in this way. The unconstructive, inflammatory, insulting nature of the posts, is unsurprisingly, against Commons policy.


And let's keep it really simple. It is harassment. And Beeblebrox's method of making use of both on and off site venues to do so, and in a way that flaunted the fact they knew who that editor is in real life, is an aggravating factor. For context, in a similar case a few years ago, this alone was considered sufficient for the WMF to immediately and permanently globally ban an English Wikipedia editor from all WMF sites and events, as a clear and present danger to the safety of not just their target, but in all likelihood, all other editors who might meet the profile of editors they hated (in their case, outspoken women looking to change Wikipedia's sexist culture).


This and other actions were clear historical signs that the WMF is perfectly willing to enforce minimal standards over the heads of local governance when necessary (because in their wisdom the local community had chosen to deal with that editor with only an interaction ban, and even that took the full time, effort and further distress of having to have a full Arbitration case). This is why Beeblebrox was reelected to ArbCom after the Framgate controversy, because the English Wikipedia community knows where he stands on that issue. Individual's safety matters little when contrasted against the rights of Vested Contributors and the ability of the English Wikipedia community to protect it's own.


Fae has reasonable grounds to believe the intent of Beeblebrox here was not just to annoy him and make him hate rather than love contributing to Commons, which is itself classified as harassment in both the local English Wikipedia rulebook and the wider global anti-harassment policy, it is to actually upset him, to cause some kind of visceral physical reaction. We can't know if Fae is actually afraid or not, but we can put ourselves in the shoes of someone who is subjected to these attacks, and factor in the fact it is part of an extremely long running campaign of hate, and draw our own conclusions as to what a reasonable person would be feeling.


Put simply, they would be upset. They would be looking for a reason why this is being tolerated.


Which brings us back to Beeblebrox. Does he even have a reason for this latest misconduct? Other than wanting to upset Fae. None that I can see. Beeblebrox makes vague allegations both on Wikipediocracy and on Commons that it is Fae who is harassing him, but he offers no evidence, and without it, it's reasonable to see these as the pathetic excuses of a bully, for whom blaming the victim is a natural and indeed necessary part of their damaged psyche.


Don't take my word for it, Beeblebrox out and out did it on Commons......

Yes, it's all my fault. the great and powerful Fae is utterly blameless and has not made a habit of accusing me of bad faith in every single discussion I comment in. What this is really about is me mocking their ridiculous idea that they deserves "tips" for their volunteer work here. Canvassing, by the normally understood definition, canvassing is encouraging a certain group to comment in a specific conversation. Commenting on an off-wiki criticism site is not canvassing if one does not do that, and I have not. Fae clearly keeps abreast of what is said over there, so he can make this same tired accusation every time. Unless commons is intending to ban all users from commenting on any offsite forum, there's not much to do here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

What an utter fanny.


If there is one thing worse than a bully, it's a snivelling coward. Rather than hold his hands up and admit that yes, he's trying to bully and upset Fae, and he's been caught bang to rights, he rather hilariously tries to claim Fae made him do it.


Fae is of course not great and powerful. On Commons, where there is no such thing as a Vested Contributor, he is just an ordinary editor like Beeblebrox, subject to the same rules as everyone else. Beeblebrox has way more power, by virtue of his other roles and responsibilities outside of Commons, one of which is indeed the ability to read information that has been suppressed from public view on Wikipedia. He being part of the team whose job it is to suppress it.


To take a not so random example, information like Fae's home address, should a Wikipediocracy poster ever think it would be a fun idea to post that on Wikipedia. Perhaps because they were encouraged to do so by a harassment campaign participated in on that very forum by someone who resides at the very highest levels of English Wikipedia governance. Wikipedia editors know all too well that they inhabit a feudal type society, so if they see that Beeblebrox hates Fae, wants to cause him harm, if not physically then at least emotionally, then for sure, the lesser peons lower down the foodchain, will see an opportunity for advancement here, by assisting Beeblebrox in their hate campaign.


What I found most hilarious was that Beeblebrox openly admitted to having deliberately mocked Fae, as if perhaps that was somehow a lesser crime than harassment. Mocking is of course the screwdriver in the bullies toolbox. The hammer is the personal attack. The power drill is the fact Beeblebrox admits he knew Fae would see his comments on Wikipediocracy, he knew it would upset him, and he knew it would offer him even more opportunities to stick the knife in once Fae had inevitably reacted.


It would have been odd, after all, for Beeblebrox to just randomly drop a statement like "[Fae has] made a habit of accusing me of bad faith in every single discussion I comment in" in some random Commons proposal. That right there is a serious accusation, if not harassment then the lesser but also serious crime of hounding, and under the very rules that Beeblebrox oversees at English Wikipedia, he knows that if you truly feel that way, there is only one permitted way of raising it. You file a complaint at a noticeboard, and you present your evidence.


Beeblebrox hasn't done that. And he has offered no evidence. Probably because he made it up. It is what it looks like, a rather pathetic attempt by a powerful bully to escape scrutiny by throwing mud, and seeing if any of it sticks.


2/3


Again, I want to stress, if this were just an ordinary editor doing this, rather than someone in Beeblebrox's position, I'd not even be interested as a Wikipedia critic. Stuff like that happens quite quite a lot in the rough and tumble affair of hashing out ordinary inter-editor disputes on Wikipedia. It is feudal. Mud is an integral part of their sense of justice. It is pointless and toxic, hence why their Administrators, guided by the policies enforced and the principles regularly repeated by the Arbitration Committee, expect editors to abide by the requirement of precisely where and how such complaints should be filed, and will block them if they refuse.


Enter a mysterious stranger. Someone calling themselves Celtic Minded stepped up, and decided to add their two cents to the Commons debate on what Beeblebrox had done, why it was so horrible, and what should be done about it. He said nothing particularly outrageous. He merely pointed out how important it was that a community like Commons should take what Beeblebrox has done seriously, see it for what it is, harassment, and should act accordingly.


Well, didn't that upset one particular person? A man named Ymblanter dropped out of nowhere, blocking Celtic Minded on obviously bogus grounds. The reason why I always laugh at those who claim Commons is somehow broken and English Wikipedia is a bastion of good governance in comparison, is that in this case, an obviously bad block was swiftly undone. A complete contrast to how it would have gone on English Wikipedia.


Wikipedia is only as toxic as it is, because when they see a user like Celtic Minded, someone who is obviously familiar with policy and is seeking to have powerful people held to account, they are swift and merciless in their tarring and feathering. They make up any excuse, and happily break any rule, to achieve the basic objective - keep outsiders out. And to make sure any insiders who want to make trouble for the powerful and connected, at least have to put everything they have on the line.


English Wikipedia would have never unblocked, and their Admins would definitely have demanded to know Celtic Minded's original account as a condition of them ever being unblocked, even though that wouldn't have lead to an unblock. Why? Well, you can hardly intimidate someone who you know nothing about. They would have absolutely broken even the ArbCom mandated no fishing rule, to inspect that person's private data, just to see if they could prove their guesswork that this is a banned user.


Sick stuff. Nakedly corrupt.


Commons couldn't be more different. Refreshingly different. They recognised that Ymblanter had not adequately given a policy compliant reason for the block. Admins are powerful, but they can't just block people based on a hunch they might have bad intentions, or might be evading a block.


The local Commons Administrators recognised Celtic Minded hadn't said anything that was particularly disruptive or harmful to Commons, and to block someone saying what they were saying for the vague reasons given, would look like what it probably was, an effort by powerful Commons Administrator to protect an even more powerful user from a completely different project.


You can see why they tried to shut Celtic Minded up. If Beeblebrox was blocked on Commons for harassment, there's no telling where that could lead. You would hope he would resign, but you couldn't bank on it. A coward is what a coward does.


Much to Ymblanter's annoyance, it didn't work. The block was overturned, and Celtic Minded continued to participate in a very helpful way, reminding people that yes, as Beeblebrox had surprisingly admitted, this was about the very serious matter about what to do about a Commons editor who admits to having mocked another Commons editor, and in a way they knew would be harmful.


And that it wasn't as Beeblebrox rather ridiculously suggested, a proposal to ban every Commons editor from commenting on Wikipediocracy. Hilarious as it Is to see an actual Wikipedia ArbCom member try to play silly games and generally treat Commons Admins as if they are fools. It was about only one Commons editor, him, and what they had specifically said on Wikipediocracy and how it relates to what they did on Commons.


Just purely helpful stuff. But clearly Celtic Minded had rattled a few cages. Clearly there was a panic at the highest levels of the cult, who quite rightly fear above all else, media coverage of their dirty corruption scandals. Bad for donations. And it hardly gets dirtier than Beeblebrox getting away scot free with obvious harassment. Not even expected to apologise. Not even a stern look, as he gloats and goads and revels in the fact he really might get away with it scot free? The Daily Mail woud eat that shit up.


So, what to do? Well, in the fine traditions of secretive and mafia like organisations, someone went over the heads of the local chapter, and got the job done instead.


Celtic Minded is globally locked. Not blocked on Commons, because as far as they can see, he still hasn't done anything wrong, but for reasons nobody will ever tell them, or indeed anyone, he has been silenced, totally. No appeal possible. Cancelled.


Seriously, try and find out, if you're interested to know who Beeblebrox's mysterious White Knight is, if it isn't Beeblebrox himself. Ask who it was that triggered this global lock.


This is the only publicly available information.....

01:11, 30 August 2021 Martin Urbanec talk contribs changed status for global account "User:Celtic Minded@global": set locked; unset (none) (Globally banned user)

.....and it's almost certain you're not going to be given any more, no matter how nicely you ask.


You might see theories and suspicions on Wikipediocracy, but I wouldn't put much store in those. Consider the source, after all. Beeblebrox's best mates, and a forum that is wildly hostile to Commons, women and minorities? They're going to offer any theory that avoids, deflects or otherwise obscure the central point here.


The Wikipedia cult was in trouble. Beeblebrox getting blocked on Commons for harassment would be a BIG FUCKING DEAL. It would at a stroke, undermine so many things they hold dear. It would lead to questions, questions that remain open in the wake of Framgate. Are these people really responsible and committed to upholding even a MINIMUM global standard of first identifying and then acting upon clear and obvious harassment? If not in general, then on those that are high up in the food chain?


And if not, how far are they prepare to go to ensure the untouchables are indeed, truly untouchable. Making unjustifiable blocks just because you can, is a given, a common or garden variety of Wikipedia corruption. But have they done more? Not for nothing does this global lock have all the hallmarks of a fishing expedition. An illegal invasion of personal privacy. A step that the local Commons Administrators were quite clear on, as they should be, can only be done in specific circumstances, which were not present at the time of Ymblanter's abusive block, and perhaps still don't even exist now.


Where is the paperwork? There is none. No SPI. Nobody publicly expressing any specific and actionable concerns, no request filed to the Stewards. Just happened out of nowhere.


Which is, as any serious critic knows, EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS when the cult has flipped into all out self preservation mode.


As such, if you ask questions about this strange global lock, either as an outsider or an insider who doesn't want Beeblebrox to know their main account identity, you will be blocked. And you can take that to the bank


The price of even being allowed to ask who Beeblebrox's mysterious White Knight is, the person who has effectively nullified any chance of Beeblebrox being rightfully blocked on Commons as an harasser (by making sure the intelligent, informed and unafraid Celtic Minded cannot participate) is that Beeblebrox must know your main account. In a project like English Wikipedia, where harassment is normalised, then of course, being able to harass anyone who accuses you of harassment as a condition of them making the accusation, is considered normal.


I can offer you an ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that the person who reported Celtic Minded to the Stewards, and indeed anyone who performed any of the necessary technical checks if that is how it was confirmed, or compiled a behavioural case if that is the route, will be someone whose entire sense of self is wrapped up in English Wikipedia. Their main or only home. Not a movement person and not someone who sees Commons as their home wiki. Someone to whom Beeblebrox actually has power, and needs to be obeyed or fellated, if you know what's good for you.


I am of course assuming there was even a semblance of process and record keeping such that we could even find out. The threat here was perhaps so severe, I expect Beeblebrox might simply have said on IRC, hey, can someone rid me of this problem? And someone did. No paperwork required.


He will vehemently protest at that possibility of course, but fuck him. If he wants to deny that this is what actually happened, well, tell everyone what did happen. I cannot think of a single reason why secrecy is mandated here. No reason at all why the logical path of Celtic Minded going from being unblocked on Commons after being subjected to an unjust block by Ymblanter, to being globally locked on all projects (but still not being blocked on Commons). It looks like what it probably is.


The wrong headed approach of English Wikipedia Administrators was laid bare when Ymblanter gloated....

Just to note for bystanders that this user was, not quite unsurprisingly, globally locked as a sockpuppet of a globally banned user.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Quite unsurprisingly?


Let that sink in. Let that sit for a minute. Ymblanter saw a brand new Commons account with obvious knowledge of policy pointing out quite correctly, in a very polite way, that Beeblebrox had indeed made a personal attack on a Commons user, and laid out the reasons why that should be met with a sanction, since Beeblebrox didn't seem minded to even accept that is what he had done, much less apologise.


Ymblanter's first instinct as a Commons Administrator, most likely because they are also an English Wikipedia Administrator who probably really does need to get in Beeblebrox's good books, was to assume this was a person wanted to harm Commons, and was probably already blocked on Commons. Neither is true (we aren't even seeing any evidence here that Celtic Minded is actually blocked on Commons).


There was never even the remotest possibility in Ymblanter's mind, then or now, that this really could have been a case of an established Commons user registering another account to safely contribute to a report of harassment on Commons by a powerful English Wikipedia user.


This can't be because Ymblanter is stupid. More likely, he just really, really, doesn't like the idea that outsiders, or smart insiders, should EVER be allowed to challenge the authority and abusive actions of insiders. Especially his own, but also those like Beeblebrox, who hold his own future as an English Wikipedia Administrator in their hands.


The cult mindset writ large. The palpable stupidity and indeed fear of a Mong class, ruled over by a handful of very clever and very deceitful manipulative bastards of the SUPER PROTECTED class. People who get some kind of sick kick out of knowing that EVERYONE, be they insider or outsider knows and can see, that Beeblebrox is an harasser, and he is getting away with it.


Think about it. Beeblebrox knows what he did. Inconceivable that he doesn't.


Commons being what it is, there are multiple people there who are prepared to state quite clearly that, even if they're too afraid to go as far as calling this harassment, are brave enough to call Beeblebrox out for obvious misconduct.


Beeblebrox doesn't care. Could give less of a shit. Is arrogantly laughing in their faces, defiant to the end. And why would he need to do anything else? This is the equivalent of serfs chucking little pebbles at the castle walls, in protest at his Lordship's unfair tax regime. Pointless. If it is paid any attention at all by the Lord, it is only to take some sort of sick amusement at just how powerful he is. That he can literary laugh and moon the peasants below.


Celtic Minded was their Robin Hood. He could do what they can't. He could fire arrows of truth right over the castle walls, and right into Beeblebrox's eye, causing him understandable discomfort. Not nice to be told you're a thieving bastard, especially when you're a thieving bastard. You much prefer the serfs believed your propaganda, and happily existed in a world where Robin Hood is the REAL criminal.

Yeah, a sock of a user who runs a much nastier off-wiki forum that I've just been informed has an entire subforum dedicated to talking shit about me in particular. Thanks to the local admins and the steward who had the good sense to see that they were an obvious block-evading troll. Are we done here? I think we're done here. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)




How very dare he.


3/3


Unfortunately, Robin Hood is fiction. In Wikipedia land, the hero never wins.


Take note, Commons. Listen to your Feudal Lord, your visitor from the much nicer Kingdom across the water.


I THINK WE ARE DONE HERE is the Lord's proclamation.


You better know your place, serfs. Dangerous business, saying stuff like this.....

Fæ is one of the most productive contributors to Commons, maybe the most productive. He asked the perfectly reasonable question of whether it would be OK to put a notice on his user page to try to raise some money to cover his costs. He didn't presume it was OK: he opened the subject in what I think was a completely reasonable and appropriate manner.User:Beeblebrox chose to be pretty mean about this in his response. The "OnlyFæ" remark may have been clever, but it was uncalled for. I completely understand how Fæ saw it as sexualizing, and either that was Beeblebrox's intent (way out of line) or something he should have foreseen. And since instead of apologizing, Beeblebrox piled on, I'm leaning toward that having been the intent.

.....even if you are wise enough to then say that you of course don't want anything to happen except to give the Lord a verbal rebuke.


Take that, your Lordship! A verbal rebuke. OUCH!


A verbal rebuke will of course have no effect on a scumbag like Beeblebrox, and I feel sorry for anyone who thinks it would.


Beeblebrox is untouchable. Stronger comments like this......

This is clearly harassment on Commons and off. Teh number of edits or other projects do not matter. The "stfu" comment is enough to warrant action.--Jetam2 (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

......are easily ignored, because of course, the canvassing has had an effect, and toxic English Wikipedia scum have come crawling out of the woodwork to claim, quite ridiculously, that there is nothing to see here.


Yeah right.




There was enough to see here, enough of a threat to both Beeblebrox and the reputation of the WMF, that someone out there has taken extraordinary measures, probably even illegal measures, to silence the one person who looked like they were minded to make sure that either Beeblebrox got sanctioned, or those who didn't want him sanctioned, were forced to nail their true colours to the mast.


People like that obvious retard Davey.

I'm disappointed with the stfu remark but lets be honest I've said worse as has everyone else .... Anyway I'm not seeing anything actionable/sanactionable/blockable or even anything worth caring over tbh

Davey is a typical low quality English Wikipedia import to the Commons community, someone who obviously has serious problems with temper control that the toxic English Wikipedia community have largely ignored due to their deprecation of civility in all its forms, and so naturally he says and does anything at Commons that reduces the prospect that assholes like him could ever be reigned in at Commons. Which might even be attributing more intelligence to him than he actually has, he really does read like he has a mental reasoning condition at times.


The motives of a die hard English Wikipedia asshole like Serial need no such explaining.

This is, naturally, none of the things it is being presented as (harassment compounded by personal attacks)

As is typical of the English Wikipedia community, behaviour encouraged by Beeblebrox because it is beneficial to their preferred societal model, he doesn't back up this obvious lie, he just says it, and expects everyone else to believe it. I am always amazed that people like this actually seem to genuinely get upset when other people decide on this evidence, this Trumpian like attitude to truth, that the time for talking is over, and the time for placing axes in heads is at hand.


There was a time when Wikipediocracy cared about stuff like this, and would shouting it from the rooftops, demanding answers. That time is long gone. They sold out, and they sold out hard. Today it's a forum solely for senior English Wikipedia editors, run for and probably by, or at least with the close and necessary cooperation of, senior Wikipedia editors.


You can no more challenge Beeblebrox on the facts at Wikipediocracy, than you can at English Wikipedia. And now we see, you can't even challenge him on Commons.


The dead hand of corruption reaches far and wide, and it can especially reach over and around those local projects who don't want to do things the way English Wikipedia does. Projects who, inspired by the WMF, do actually want to take a firm line against harassment. Who do want to ensure minimum standards exist and are enforced, especially on people who, in the words of one user, should know better.


As Robin Bood said, Beeblebrox does know better. He does know what he did, and he does know it is wrong. He does know the very least he could and should do, is admit what he did, apologise, and commit to being a better person. Standard stuff.


The unspoken truth is, it matters not. He can do whatever the fuck he wants, to anyone who is lower in the food chain than him. Which is 99.999% of all movement members. Someone will always have his back. Probably people very close to him in the secretive ranks of true power at English Wikipedia.


The very scary prospect for Wikipedia here of course, is the very real prospect that he was assisted in having Robin Hood despatched to the gallows, by Wikipediocracy. That he probably gleefully and with greedy little hands, grasped at any and all help his new friends offered him. Dirty, filthy, scummy hands. Hands that are usually attached to people who are, quite rightly, at a very minimum indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia, if not Globally Banned. And we all know what that takes to acheive the latter. Racists, pedophiles and stalkers.


We will never be told who the globally banned user Celtic Minded allegedly is. You know why? Probably because there isn't one. Because it hardly tracks, does it? Why would a racist or a pedophile care that Beeblebrox had personally attacked someone, and probably for homophobic reasons?


Beeblebrox is super protected. He has the highest level of protection and assistance that it is possible to obtain in the movement. Secret, self interested, status protecting, movement undermining acts of naked corruption.


All because he feels a little too constrained by the requirement that even Fae, and perhaps especially Fae, is entitled to expect protection from harassment from other users while simply going about his perfectly reasonable business on a project he is welcome on and is appreciated, according to all local custom and governance.


Someone had to act to protect Beeblebrox from himself and protect the movement from Beeblebrox, all because his inability to control his base impulses could have led to him being rightfully blocked on Commons, leading to major controversy for the movement, and lead to Beeblebrox being the reason Beeblebrox has to become only the second ever Arbitration Committee Member to resign.


Never forget, in among all this, Beeblebrox made a real, actual statement that it is Fae who is harassing him. And jokingly or not, he also made a clear and direct statement that Fae has made him feel afraid. And never forget that in both cases, he chose not to make those accusations in the correct way, choosing not to back up these claims with evidence, and in the latter, not even in an appropriate forum. Which might surprise you, since he is after all, a Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Member.


The irony is palpable.


If you're unhappy about any of this, well, I am morally obligated not to sway you in how you choose to express your dissatisfaction.


Me, I choose to document things. It is Beeblebrox's stupid lot in life that he can't seem to stop himself from giving me things to document.


I am laughing at the idea he thinks I own this forum, or some idiot told him that because that's their rather dumb assesment of the situation.


Yes, you have a whole subforum here dedicated to only you, and there's a simple reason for it.


I mean, I could be wrong, but has there ever been an English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Member, which has never been all that much of a badge of honour and integrity, who has been as astoundingly open in how they flaunt their unsuitability for the role?


Has there ever been a better example of how and why Wikipedia is what it is? A toxic shithole where harassment and any number of -isms are so par for the course, they are barely even recognised.


Because an obvious and out and proud and defiantly unapologetic scumbag like Beeblebrox, can and has achieved popular democratic support. He is Wikipedia.


You get the leaders you deserve. And you sure as shit get the leaders you elect.


He is yours. He is you. Own it.


And don't you fucking DARE complain that your clear eyed choices have consequences.


HTD.


Wikipedia hypocrisy:


https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-06-28/Arbitration_report&oldid=965474636


Well, Doesn't the work of those who you are blocking also count?


Suppressed truths:




Various admins:


@Fram: I'm trying to piece together what the context for Drmies' first oversighted diff was given what you said here, and I guess I have a rather pointed question. During or soon after another editor's successful unblock appeal, did you call the unblocked editor a pedophile resulting in the diff being suppressed as potentially libelous information?|Wug·a·po·des 09:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


Insane admins:


Tamzin:


" While some (but not all) systems may have aggressive or violent parts, in practice this energy usually winds up directed toward the system's body not toward others. "


Tamzin is insane



«Here is more about some of Tamzin's various personalities. Turns out some are male, some are female and some are plural.


https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tamzin/340/112/16:_An_RfA_debrief&oldid=1087192047#Dramatis_personae


They each have individual names, isn't that special?


He forgot to list the one he mentioned earlier which likes to warn people and block them. That one has been on a roll.


https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/Tamzin&offset=&limit=250&type=&user=Tamzin


This used to be called "demonic possession". Has he tried an exorcist? Maybe they can be cast into a herd of pigs or something.»


Aren't shared accounts forbidden (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SHAREDACCOUNT)?



https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tamzin/340/112/16:_An_RfA_debrief&oldid=1087192047#Dramatis_personae


If one of their personalities edits using the admin account of another, is it considered socking?


Laughing at admins:


https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1512


https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/download/file.php?id=339&sid=2cef806c2e6425635fd2164e8c6856ef


https://www.quora.com/Has-Bbb23-been-misbehaving-Wikipedia-administrator


More accurate userpage: https://archive.is/d49kC


https://archive.is/iqBqz


" bbb23, he is such an arrogant twat he thinks he farts butterflies and poops junior mints. "


https://ifunny.co/tags/drmies


Misc.:


https://archive.is/JyDfh


http://archive.ph/pGwbx


https://archive.vn/lqJKE


And lastly, I leave you with:


Wikipedia revolution


Remove all admins


Ban users democratically


Delete anime spam


Make wikipedia


Democracy


Collective


Overthrow the WMF


Unblock the users who built wikipedia ban admins


Vote to create and delete articles


Admins only block objective spam


No more drama


Ban incivility no matter who


Only discuss users issues on dedicated pages


Arise, wretched of the earth

Arise, convicts of hunger

Reason thunders in its volcano

This is the eruption of the end

Of the past let us wipe the slate clean

Masses, slaves, arise, arise

The world is about to change its foundation

We are nothing, let us be everything


Chorus

This is the final struggle

Let us gather together, and tomorrow

The Internationale

Will be the human race


There are no supreme saviors

Neither God, nor Caesar, nor tribune.

Producers, let us save ourselves

Decree on the common welfare

That the thief return his plunder,

That the spirit be pulled from its prison

Let us fan the forge ourselves

Strike the iron while it is hot


Chorus


The state represses and the law cheats

The tax bleeds the unfortunate

No duty is imposed on the rich

"Rights of the poor" is a hollow phrase

Enough languishing in custody

Equality wants other laws:

No rights without obligations, it says,

And as well, no obligations without rights


Chorus


Hideous in their self-deification

Kings of the mine and rail

Have they ever done anything other

Than steal work?

Into the coffers of that lot,

What work creates has melted

In demanding that they give it back

The people wants only its due.


Chorus


The kings make us drunk with their fumes,

Peace among ourselves, war to the tyrants!

Let the armies go on strike,

Guns in the air, and break ranks

If these cannibals insist

In making heroes of us,

Soon they will know our bullets

Are for our generals


Chorus


Laborers, peasants, we are

The great party of workers

The earth belongs only to men

The idle will go reside elsewhere

How much of our flesh they feed on,

But if the ravens and vultures

Disappear one of these days

The sun will still shine


Chorus


Stand up, ones who are branded by the curse,

All the world's starving and enslaved!

Our outraged minds are boiling,

Ready to lead us into a deadly fight.

We will destroy this world of violence

Down to the foundations, and then

We will build our new world.

He who was nothing will become everything!


Refrain:

(×2) This is our final

and decisive battle;

With the Internationale

humanity will rise up!


No one will grant us deliverance,

Not god, nor tsar, nor hero.

We will win our liberation,

With our very own hands.

To throw down oppression with a skilled hand,

To take back what is ours

Fire up the furnace and hammer boldly,

while the iron is still hot!


Refrain


You've sucked enough of our blood, you vampires,

With prison, taxes and poverty!

You have all the power, all the blessings of the world,

And our rights are but an empty sound!

We'll make our own lives in a different way

And here is our battle cry:

All the power to the people of labour!

And away with all the parasites!


Refrain


Contemptible you are in your wealth,

You kings of coal and steel!

You had your thrones, parasites,

At our backs erected.

All the factories, all the chambers

All were made by our hands.

It's time! We demand the return

Of that which was stolen from us.


Refrain


Enough of the will of kings

Stupefying us into the haze of war!

War to the tyrants! Peace to the people!

Go on strike, sons of the army!

And if the tyrants tell us

To fall heroically in battle for them

Then, murderers, we will point

The muzzles of our cannons at you!


Refrain


Only we, the workers of the worldwide

Great army of labor,

Have the right to own the land,

But the parasites never!

And if the great thunder rolls

Over the pack of dogs and executioners,

For us, the sun will forever

Shine on with its fiery beams.


Refrain


I just thought it was his IQ, thanks for clearing up my misconceptions.


The perfect insult to a terrible username.


Bbbeheading of Bbb23IQ


You not a?

Hello, and feel free to leave a message below.

]] sur l’encyclopédie Wikipédia Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg