Bbb23 chastised by Arbcom, quits Wikipedia (on April Fool's Day)

[Osborne]

We all have our kinks.

Speaking of tolerance or enjoyment of crap, how do you people tolerate this font?

• Terrible: I, l, 1
• Not bad: 0,O,Ø,∅

Yeah, our kink is fonts.
I like Poppins, but not for body content. It's better for stylized text.
Therefore I use Noto Serif with my user style.
(Off topic, but it's time to change the topic...)

[Giraffe Stapler]

I assume when you say "the COPA statute" you aren't talking about COPA but CalOPPA? It really doesn't matter because you are wrong in either case.

Maybe wait for the answer before drawing the conclusion? As was obvious to anyone reading all the posts, the original law I refer to is CalOPPA, the later one is the CCPA.

So it's my fault that you don't even know the names of the legislation you are pretending to understand?

Here's an idiots guide that may help certain people understand how easy it would be for a lawyer to make some serious money out of this, even if it never even comes to court.

https://www.termsfeed.com/blog/ccpa-vs-caloppa/

The only wrinkle I can see, is that Wikipedia could wriggle out of liability under both statutes by virtue of being a non-profit...

Wikipedia doesn't have to "wriggle out" of CCPA because the law explicitly sets out criteria for which entities it applies to - Wikipedia does not meet those criteria. The law was not intended to apply to things like Wikipedia.

CCPA has been written with data brokers and aggregation of data in mind. The definition of personally identifiable information is deliberately broadened to things which directly or indirectly identify someone. If you want me to say that CCPA considers Ip addresses to be PPI, then here you go - yes, it does. It also considers geolocation data to be personally identifying. (But they still aren't. They can be used in combination with other information to build up a profile of someone for whom you have PPI. That is the focus of CCPA.)

It also makes clear the really big bucks can be made by any lawyer who successfully shows that Bbb23 wasn't just accessing PII he had no cause to, but if he was allowing third parties to see it too. And before anyone suggests that surely Bbb23 wouldn't have been stupid enough to reveal illegally obtained CU data to non-CheckUsers, well, for a start, he seems like the kind of guy who would, but even if he didn't, anyone with half a brain could persuade a judge that the combination of private communications and public logging that typically occurs when one of Bbb23's mates asks him to do a check and he finds socking, constitutes release to a third party. Nudge nudge wink wink, and all that.

The laws don't say what you think and want them to say. Read Wikipedia's privacy policy. They are totally covered in terms of CalOPPA. Probably in terms of CCPA as well, even though it explicitly does not apply to them. Now read the Access to nonpublic personal data policy. See all the cases in which people with access to secret info can disclose it to other people? And even if Bbb23 violated that policy, it's an internal Wikipedia policy, not a law. Now please stop talking out of your ass and playing internet lawyer.

[Midsize Jake]

The laws don't say what you think and want them to say. Read Wikipedia's privacy policy. They are totally covered in terms of CalOPPA. Probably in terms of CCPA as well, even though it explicitly does not apply to them. Now read the Access to nonpublic personal data policy. See all the cases in which people with access to secret info can disclose it to other people? And even if Bbb23 violated that policy, it's an internal Wikipedia policy, not a law.

Well shit, at this rate it's gonna be months before we can get this guy thrown in the slammer.

[Moral Hazard]

We all have our kinks.

Speaking of tolerance or enjoyment of crap, how do you people tolerate this font?

• Terrible: I, l, 1
• Not bad: 0,O,Ø,∅

Yeah, our kink is fonts.
I like Poppins, but not for body content. It's better for stylized text.
Therefore I use Noto Serif with my user style.

I removed my off-topic whine, which actually was caused by my use of Calibri (T-H-L) as my default sans-serif font, a mistake I shall not make again.

One potential source of confusion in Calibri is a visible homoglyph, a pair of easily confused characters: the lowercase letter L and the uppercase letter i (l and I) of the Latin script are effectively indistinguishable; this is true of many other common fonts, however.

You can say that again.

One potential source of confusion in Calibri is a visible homoglyph, a pair of easily confused characters: the lowercase letter L and the uppercase letter i (l and I) of the Latin script are effectively indistinguishable; this is true of many other common fonts, however.

IBM Plex (T-H-L) sans-text is much more legible. IBM Plex mono is a good choice for programming; IBM Plex serif is very good for text, but it lacks support for OpenType (T-H-L) Math:
List of OpenType Math fonts (Mozilla)
For now, Cambria and Cambria Math (T-H-L) are my default fonts.

[Death To Wikipedia]

I'm laughing because the word "aggregate" was literally the first thing I saw when I loaded up the Privacy Policy that apparently covers Wikipedia here.

Why don't you stop fucking around and just state in as few words as possible, why you think no law has been violated, if, as we have to assume is the case based on what little has been disclosed, Bbb23 accessed and potentially released IP addresses he had no cause to be looking at under the Privacy Policy (which is after all why he got told to stop fucking doing it, right?), that he likely did it a lot, in full knowledge disclosure could potentially harm the person it identifies, and he carried on doing it even after he had been warned not to, and that none of the stuff discovered in this investigation has been reported to either the WMF or law enforcement, despite them being the only people who can give a real name to the authorities?

All I can see here are two loopholes, this idea that CalOPPA doesn't explicitly cover IP addresses, even after they have been defined as PII in later law, and CCPA doesn't apply to non-profits, even though Wikipedia is a bulk collector and disseminator of PII. If these loopholes are your entire argument, like I said, I'm fine with that, because I would love nothing more than Wikipedia being seen as an exploiter of loopholes to justify not having made a good faith effort to comply with the spirit, if not the letter, of California privacy law.

[Moral Hazard]

Assholes tend not to find judges or juries sympathetic.

Corporate officers prefer to teach assholes lessons rather than to reward them for being assholes.

It is difficult for assholes to hide that they are assholes.

[Beeblebrox]

Well, that was just a glorious takedown.

[Moral Hazard]

Well, that was just a glorious takedown.

I was unable to find Mr. Majestyk's wise advice to the little shit, which was something like this, likely after another beat down:

I hope you don't mind some advice, but I cannot help but think that this being a criminal and ass-kicker doesn't agree with you.

Maybe you should find a new line of work?

The advice was followed.

Elmore Leonard was an artist.

Fred Rogers was too.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Why don't you stop fucking around and just state in as few words as possible, why you think no law has been violated, if, as we have to assume is the case based on what little has been disclosed, Bbb23 accessed and potentially released IP addresses he had no cause to be looking at under the Privacy Policy (which is after all why he got told to stop fucking doing it, right?), that he likely did it a lot, in full knowledge disclosure could potentially harm the person it identifies, and he carried on doing it even after he had been warned not to, and that none of the stuff discovered in this investigation has been reported to either the WMF or law enforcement, despite them being the only people who can give a real name to the authorities?

I'm not a fan of Bbb23 and I think he should have been stripped of his rights, but you seem to be living in your own personal revenge fantasy where he's going to jail for breaking your imaginary laws. If my explanations didn't take the first time, I'm not going to repeat them. Good luck with the bar exams.

[Poetlister]

Why don't you stop fucking around and just state in as few words as possible, why you think no law has been violated

If you are sure that there is a breach of the law, then it is your duty to report it to the appropriate authorities. It's a waste of everyone's time to report it here. I doubt that many people here feel able to rule authoritatively whether any law has been violated, and I'm pretty sure that nobody here has the power to do anything about it.

[Death To Wikipedia]

This is where reading the thread would have helped. Who would I be reporting, and with what evidence? There are people reading and even posting in this place who know who Bbb23 is and are under a duty to report what they know, when they come to know it. They choose not to. Pointing that out is not a waste of time.

[Poetlister]

"Who would I be reporting, and with what evidence?" A good question. So if you come across a man shot to death and another man running away with a smoking gun, would you refuse to report it? Tell the authorities and let them contact the WMF with a warrant if they think there's an offence.

[Giraffe Stapler]

"Who would I be reporting, and with what evidence?" A good question. So if you come across a man shot to death and another man running away with a smoking gun, would you refuse to report it?

I suspect you need to identify the two people in question for Crow to decide whether to report it or not.

[Death To Wikipedia]

You're reaching. I don't have first hand knowledge of any crime here, I am not a witness, I would just be some dude telling the police that I believe an anonymous jerkweed on the internet who goes by the handle "Bbb23" has been illegally accessing Wikipedia user's private information and those whose duty it is to report such behaviour when they discover it, lest they be seen as accessories after the fact under the law, have apparently not done so. It's hearsay. With the best will in the world, no warrant is being issued for that, because, well, all the murders and shit. Also, the loopholes. I see no reason here why I, a private citizen who frankly wouldn't piss on a Californian if they were on fire, would take the time to report this to the police, when I can be more effective highlighting that it probably should have been reported by those with first hand knowledge of the evidence of illegality, or if they see none (or indeed were advised by Legal there was none) they could have made that clear in a public report of the circumstances leading to Bbb23's warning, but to educate the world that instead, the way the Wikipedians went, was to try and brush the whole thing under the carpet from the get go.

[ArsenalFan]

The Twitter account @Bbb23 is permanently suspended. If only Wikipedia did something similar years ago, Wikipedia would be much less of a cesspool.

[Poetlister]

The Twitter account @Bbb23 is permanently suspended. If only Wikipedia did something similar years ago, Wikipedia would be much less of a cesspool.

Isn't there someone at Twitter who is not unfamiliar to Wikipedia watchers?

[ArsenalFan]

As of May 26, Bbb23 (Bbw23) has been active over the past few days and he is blocking and adding sock tags. This is a sign of a possible return. If he returns to being active every day like he used to, I hope Bbw23 gets punished hard by ArbCom. Hopefully this will include his CheckUser rights being revoked.

[Eric Corbett]

I think we all know that he won't.

In medieval English courts circumstantial evidence was considered sufficient to convict accused witches; Wikipedia is simply taking a long time to catch up with 21st-century jurisprudence, where actual evidence is required.

[Poetlister]

I think we all know that he won't.

In medieval English courts circumstantial evidence was considered sufficient to convict accused witches; Wikipedia is simply taking a long time to catch up with 21st-century jurisprudence, where actual evidence is required.

Wikipedia works in reverse. Actual evidence of malpractice by checkusers is ignored.

[Pudeo]

Update. Contrary to what some people think, I am not "back". It is true that recently I have popped in and used my admin and CU tools, but that doesn't signify my return to Wikipedia. Although it might appear superficially contradictory, if anything, I am angrier than I was two months ago. Nothing fundamental has changed since ArbCom's warning, and my read of the situation is nothing will. For those who have supported me, thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

diff

[Midsize Jake]

Update. Contrary to what some people think, I am not "back". It is true that recently I have popped in and used my admin and CU tools, but that doesn't signify my return to Wikipedia. Although it might appear superficially contradictory, if anything, I am angrier than I was two months ago. Nothing fundamental has changed since ArbCom's warning, and my read of the situation is nothing will. For those who have supported me, thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

"Sure, I shoot up every once in a while, because if I don't, I get the withdrawal symptoms and withdrawal is a real drag. Besides, my dealer has to eat too, right? But like, no way am I a junkie anymore. I stopped that shit cold, man. And it's not like the heroin has gotten any more pure since the day I quit, and I know that for a fact because I've been injecting it practically every other day since. So if you can find me some better shit, please let me know and I'll shoot that too. Thanks!"

[Osborne]

I am angrier than I was two months ago.

Anger issues? Bullying newcomers is no longer a release?

So if you can find me some better shit, please let me know and I'll shoot that too. Thanks!"

He's probably working 12hours a day leveling one of his socks to meet RfA requirements.
Imagine having a CU account to tagteam with if somebody dares to question him... well, no need to imagine, it already happened.

[Poetlister]

Imagine having a CU account to tagteam with if somebody dares to question him... well, no need to imagine, it already happened.

SlimVirgin and Jayjg, anyone?

[ArsenalFan]

I am angrier than I was two months ago.

Aww, sweet! Love seeing Bbw23, my worst enemy, angrier than he was on April Fool's Day. Can't wait to see how angry Bbw23 is when he loses his CheckUser tools.

[Earthy Astringent]

I am angrier than I was two months ago.

Aww, sweet! Love seeing Bbw23, my worst enemy, angrier than he was on April Fool's Day. Can't wait to see how angry Bbw23 is when he loses his CheckUser tools.

Fuck you BBB23. Stay angry asshole.

[Poetlister]

I hate to disappoint people, but I very much doubt that he'll lose his tools in the immediate future. It takes an awful lot to get a desysop, and I expect it's even harder to get a de-CU.

[Osborne]

Yep, he's back silently under the radar, just to satisfy those in great need of his help. Apparently, he's still the only checkuser on enwiki /s.

[Poetlister]

Yep, he's back silently under the radar, just to satisfy those in great need of his help. Apparently, he's still the only checkuser on enwiki /s.

That's the problem. If the other CUs aren't pulling their weight, firstly he feels he's essential and secondly so do the powers that be. As a result, he can do what he likes without check or opposition.

[MrErnie]

Ruh Roh! C/U access has been revoked by Arbcom.

link

[Zoloft]

Ruh Roh! C/U access has been revoked by Arbcom.

link

Worth a copy:

Revocation of CheckUser access for Bbb23
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In April, the Arbitration Committee privately warned Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that his use of the CheckUser tool had been contrary to local and global policies prohibiting checking accounts where there is insufficient evidence to suspect abusive sockpuppetry ("fishing"). The committee additionally imposed specific restrictions on Bbb23's use of the CheckUser tool in ambiguous cases otherwise considered to be within the discretion of individual CheckUsers. Bbb23 has subsequently communicated to the committee that he is unwilling to comply with these restrictions, continued to run similar questionable checks, and refused to explain these checks on request. Accordingly, Bbb23's CheckUser access is revoked.
Support: Joe Roe, Bradv, Beeblebrox, Maxim, David Fuchs, xeno, Worm That Turned, SoWhy, Casliber, Newyorkbrad, DGG
Oppose:
Recuse: KrakatoaKatie
Inactive: GorillaWarfare, Mkdw
For the Arbitration Committee, – Joe (talk) 11:23 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Revocation of CheckUser access for Bbb23

[Midsize Jake]

I'm impressed!

Heck, if they can manage to do this, who knows what else could be achieved? An end to railroading behavior? Sincere attempts to simplify and reconcile inconsistencies within the rule-set? Real progress in closing the gender gap? More people participating under their real names? Increased public recognition of subsidiary projects?

Okay, not really, but I'm still impressed.

[Sendo]

The drama orchestrated by his friends to intimidate ArbCom has failed. I pity the people who (naively or otherwise) went gaga in his defense at the time. He's a narcissistic and recalcitrant person, who should not even be a pending changes reviewer, but he amassed power and clique that protected him for years. (Someone should read like 5-10 archives of his talkkpage to see for themselves). ArbCom findings clearly confirm all these (as described in this quote).

Bbb23 has subsequently communicated to the committee that he is unwilling to comply with these restrictions, continued to run similar questionable checks, and refused to explain these checks on request.

But note that, even though he had the effrontery to tell ArbCom that he's above the enwiki and global policies, he's still admin, so I believe, this is not the end of it. It's actually the beginning. Expect more drama and revelations.

Thank you ArbCom.

[Ritchie333]

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would throw a street party for Bbb23 getting desysopped; however stripping them of the checkuser rights does strike me as a smart first move. Without CU, he can only block on hard evidence, and can be overturned by any admin who disagrees, who then gets "second mover" advantage. We'll then be able to see how he copes with having his decisions overturned and overruled.

I'll also be interested to see how much Wikipedia gets overrun by sockfarms now. I'm predicting no change myself.

[Poetlister]

There's a discussion here, which begins:

* Thanks to Bbb23 for your long and distinguished service as a checkuser. Thanks also to Arbcom. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
* It's disappointing but not unexpected. I trust the various arbitrators involved in making this decision will now step up and undertake more routine SPI work. Nick (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
* Ahaha, no. They don't care. Reyk YO! 09:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

If the other CUs had done a bit more work, this might never have happened. If they don't have time to do the CU work, let them resign and get others. I'm sure a few people here would be happy to do it.

[Osborne]

* Thanks to Bbb23 for your long and distinguished service as a checkuser. Thanks also to Arbcom. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Cheeky

[ArmasRebane]

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would throw a street party for Bbb23 getting desysopped; however stripping them of the checkuser rights does strike me as a smart first move. Without CU, he can only block on hard evidence, and can be overturned by any admin who disagrees, who then gets "second mover" advantage. We'll then be able to see how he copes with having his decisions overturned and overruled.

I'll also be interested to see how much Wikipedia gets overrun by sockfarms now. I'm predicting no change myself.

I imagine that there's a similar effect as to the current policing situation—that is, a lot of irrelevant and not-at-all harmful behavior is magnified by Bbb's behavior.

[Eric Corbett]

I think that's exactly right, and not only by Bbb's behaviour. Berean Hunter, for instance, is just as bad. It's very clear that the checkusers have been allowed to run amok, without any real oversight.

I've always found it a curious anomaly that a site so committed to allowing anonymous editing should care how many usernames/ip addresses its editors use. And blocking all VPN access is medieval.

[The Garbage Scow]

There's a discussion here, which begins:

* Thanks to Bbb23 for your long and distinguished service as a checkuser. Thanks also to Arbcom. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
* It's disappointing but not unexpected. I trust the various arbitrators involved in making this decision will now step up and undertake more routine SPI work. Nick (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
* Ahaha, no. They don't care. Reyk YO! 09:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

If the other CUs had done a bit more work, this might never have happened. If they don't have time to do the CU work, let them resign and get others. I'm sure a few people here would be happy to do it.

That's a very real problem for them. They've become far too dependent upon one person and now that he's clearly let his power go to his head and is no longer a reliable partner, they're in a bad place. Seems they should have a minimum activity requirement for folks with CU access and remove the tool from people who aren't using it, similar to the automatic desysop for inactive admins. There are a lot of lazy people on Wikipedia willing to let overly ambitious people like Bbb23 and Betacommand run wild as long as they're completing a complicated or mundane task. It's not a good way to operate. If someone wants this tool they should be transparent that they're actively using it for the benefit of Wikipedia or have it removed.

[The Garbage Scow]

And blocking all VPN access is medieval.

Not to mention all of T-Mobile for the entire USA, and other wide-reaching rangeblocks. But, you know, anything that allows them to not require registration for editing is fine in their eyes.

[Beeblebrox]

There's a lot of wrong to unpack in these posts, I'll stick to the highlights:

-There are in fact activity requirements for functionaries, and they are substantially more strict than those for admins and require they be actively using their tools. link

-Monthly activity statistics are published
(although I note this is currently slightly out of date)
link

-Bbb23's "retirement " back in April did not cause any significant issues during his absence, suggesting we actually have plenty of CUs to handle SPI. The issue with Bbb23 was his discretionary checks outside of SPI.

-Betacommand has been blocked since 2012.

[Eric Corbett]

-Bbb23's "retirement " back in April did not cause any significant issues during his absence, suggesting we actually have plenty of CUs to handle SPI.

That's one interpretation.

Another is that checkusers are pretty useless.

[Earthy Astringent]

Well, that was just a glorious takedown.

A shotgun stock to one’s nads tends to have that effect.

[ZettaComposer]

We'll then be able to see how he copes with having his decisions overturned and overruled.

Given his extraordinarily childish reaction to a private (until he made it public) warning by Arbcom and subsequent actions since then I don’t have a lot of hope for his ability to remain a productive admin. I’m not a health expert but his “angry” April talk page statement and some of the comments he’s made on the notice board is just plain concerning. I hope he uses this opportunity to get some literal fresh air.

[Osborne]

Given his extraordinarily childish reaction to a private (until he made it public) warning by Arbcom ...
his “angry” April talk page statement and some of the comments he’s made on the notice board is just plain concerning.

That side of Bbb was always present and becoming more prominent in recent years, but admins chose to not see it.

[tarantino]

-Betacommand has been blocked since 2012.

Werieth (T-C-L), who you all chose to ignore, made 55K edits between 2012 and 2014.

[ArsenalFan]

Did I just read that Bbb23 has officially lost his CheckUser rights?

If this is official, I am crying! THANK YOU ARBCOM!!!

SUCK IT BBB23!

[ArsenalFan]

I cannot tell how happy I am after I just read Bbb23 had his CU rights revoked!

MASSIVE, MASSIVE thank you to ArbCom. You're the best, around, nothing's gonna ever gonna keep you down.

ArbCom, forget what the badmins say when they defend Bbb23. You're the best. The admins are trying to keep you down.

Now innocent editors that Bbb23 would have blocked had he still retained CU rights will have an easier pathway to socking.

[ArsenalFan]

So, let's see:

1. Bbb23 has the least aesthetically-defensible username out there.
2. He bullied a ton of users with his incivility for years.
3. He ignored my unblock request 3 years ago.
4. He gets angry in early April because he received a warning about his bullying. He said that he was even angrier a few weeks ago because nothing has change. Now, since he lost CU rights, he must be the angriest person out of 7.5 billion in the entire world.

The angrier he is, the happier we are.

SUCK IT, BBB23! Stay angry.

[ArsenalFan]

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would throw a street party for Bbb23 getting desysopped; however stripping them of the checkuser rights does strike me as a smart first move. Without CU, he can only block on hard evidence, and can be overturned by any admin who disagrees, who then gets "second mover" advantage. We'll then be able to see how he copes with having his decisions overturned and overruled.

I'll also be interested to see how much Wikipedia gets overrun by sockfarms now. I'm predicting no change myself.

Now that it will be easier to sock, there is a good chance that if a sockmaster hears that Bbb23 is not a CheckUser anymore, they're probably going to create more accounts, depending on how hard other CUs are. I do see much less attacks on Bbb23 though.

[Earthy Astringent]

The angrier he is, the happier we are.

SUCK IT, BBB23! Stay angry.