I'm a Quoran and that question is abusive and I expect it is likely to disappear if reported. As well, the same question has been asked more than once. Here is what I find (times are EST, GMT-5) (Forum time is PST, GMT-8):
This question:
Created by Anonymous 5 Dec 2019 3:24 AM 3 Public Followers 174 Views Last Followed Dec 7
The First Answer: [
https://www.quora.com/How-come-the-Wiki ... roughton-2]John Broughton[/url] 6 Dec 2019 7:57 PM, by modestly experienced Quoran, claims high WP experience, which is plausible, has written 670 Answers, is real-name [Quora requires real-name accounts, but any account may post anonymously. If an Anonymous account violates policy, the real-name account may be sanctioned], and he has 59 followers and is following 59. Not a coincidence. Some people will follow you if you follow them, and if they glance at your content and find it of interest. This user, then, has weight. 44 views on the answer.
This answer refers to what amounts to the same question asked repeatedly. It is a cogent answer by a Kool-Aid drinker, which is common for nice Wikipedians who don't want to believe the shit that goes on. And part of the reason is that they are inured to claims of "shit going on" by the clueless and by trolls. So they miss the real stuff, and if they do find it and are not clueless themselves, they realize that confronting it could be wiki-suicide. And so goes the wiki.
The Second Answer:
Anonymous, 7 Dec 2019 6:12 AM, updated 16 Dec at about 8 pm, massive rant. Upvoted by two.
https://www.quora.com/profile/Fraser-Bridges-1 (no edits, one follower-- a legit Quoran who follows many. Some follow almost everyone. The other is an established Quoran, Daniel Ortega, the same as the other upvoters. This is essentially meaningless.
Also, Handroid7’s legitimate criticism report of Bbb23 was labelled as a personal attack.
Ridiculous.
Was that because he called Bbb23 “shady”? If that factually correct statement already counts as a personal attack, they are evidently lying about welcoming criticism.
Wikipedia has no voice, no responsible person, so it cannot lie. Site pages make claims about policy that may represent wishful thinking. If one knows the difference between personal attack and criticism, one may criticize Wikipedia and Wikipedians, but "shady" is not a fact, it is a judgment that will be seen as a personal attack. Even true and legitimate criticism is dangerous on Wikipedia, so Handroid7 was far outside of what might be expected to survive. Even in this Quora post, to claim something is false can be criticism, to claim it is a lie can be personal attack.
Words with emotional impact dominate how most of us think. In a word, they can make us stupid.
From looking at this, I can tell who CMAwatch is (within one of two people). It's obvious, but now has better confirmation. I find this deceptive, essentially classic sock puppetry, to create accounts that pretend to be independent. I do think there are two persons involved, probably. If so, working closely together. As is seen here, almost openly. Make it fully open and I will have no problem with it.
The other questions:
https://www.quora.com/How-has-Bbb23-jus ... 5000-users added anonymously
https://www.quora.com/Has-BBB23-been-mi ... inistrator added anonymously 9 Nov 2019 7:41 PM.
Cogent answer by Todd Allen. Anonymous Answers added December 8, mentions someone known to us
JuiceBeetle, comment? -- and another anonymous Answer Jan. 12, 2019.
Police will investigate anonymous tips, but such are never evidence. (Which is why the identity of a "whistleblower" is generally irrelevant unless a whistleblower is prosecuted for lying -- and opinion is not a lie.) Yet on the internet, fake news proliferates because of the "I like it" effect. People repeat stories they like and when someone hears a story from more than one source -- they think -- they give it special credence and themselves repeat it. GamerGate. Deja vu all over again.
Is BBB23 abusive? Probably. To some degree, many WP admins are and they tend to get more intensely abusive over time, as they burn out. The system abuses them, also. This kind of shotgun, highly reactive criticism postpones the day, because it will arouse defense. To actually get an admin reprimanded or desysopped takes far more than that. I did it, once each. And, of course, that led to what I'd been warned about, I was banned. If I were to do this again, I would arrange for far more independent support first. And it would still be dangerous.
"If they are not shooting at you, you are not doing anything worth wasting bullets on." I knew I was onto something when I started to document AngloPyramidologist and started being attacked by an army of sock puppets, with threats of everything I'd written being deleted. But being shot at doesn't mean one is right. It is only that being shot at shows some critical interests are being threatened, interests of people that are willing to shoot.
