I have taken the initiative to remove all the POV violating, unsourced garbage and in-jokes from the article, which was most of the article. We are running an encyclopedia, not a fan site for your little project.

(97800, Sat 19 Jan 2019, 14:24, 1 reply, 6 years ago)

Acknowledged, but is full protection necessary? In stripping the 'cruft' from the article it could be argued that you've also removed a lot of its points of interest for readers, and now you've prevented anyone from adding anything back.
It all seems a little excessive
( $$ ✅, Sun 24 Mar 2019, 10:37, Reply)

This is an encyclopedia, not a forum to publish a needlessly detailed blow-by-blow guide to a website of questionable notability whose membership have specifically targeted Wikipedia for hard-to-find vandalism.
As the website has specifically targeted this Project for vandalism, and as the article's prior contributors have clearly not had the best interests of the Project in mind (in terms of crafting a neutral, factual, verifiable encyclopedia article), I doubt unprotection would be beneficial, either to the subject of the article, nor to the Project. There is nothing salvageable in the content removed, and I am beginning to wonder whether or not the subject should have an article in the first place.
(97800, Tue 26 Mar 2019, 19:42, Reply)

You have removed an awful lot of content without any prior discussion and then protected the article to prevent editing or adding anything back -
in a way this smacks of an abuse of admin privileges based largely upon personal opinion (the removal of content without discussion and consensus first would be considered vandalism perhaps, were you not an admin). As just one notable example, a newsletter that is sent to 100,000 people every week is very notable yet you have removed the section entirely. Whilst I agree that some of the article could have been trimmed and sourced better, I agree with the above editor in that the amount you removed is indeed excessive and I ask that you remove the block or at least downgrade to a semi-protect againt IP vandals.
( $$ ✅, Wed 27 Mar 2019, 19:05, Reply)

I believe you are acting in an unprofessional and retaliatory fashion.
As a neutral user to this matter, I would like to add this: Wikipedia is not b3ta's soap box, but it is equally neither yours. Protecting the page and removing nearly all of the content from it is an abuse of power. The semi-protection on the page is also un-necessary, as it is not a vandalised page. You have done this to concrete your edit to avoid public criticism. The current revision of the page does not make any sense, with sentences cut off mid-way.
(97800, Thu 11 Apr 2019, 22:28, Reply)

lol semi

( bent reznor the brownward spiral, Sat 25 May 2019, 12:07, Reply)

B3ta is a humor website which should be taken with a grain of salt. To do otherwise is disingenuous and a total calumny.
B3ta does have a value as an article as it is a source of many popular internet memes and virals. I am sure even you have received something a B3tan has made in a humorous email from a friend or associate, although you are probably not aware of it.
(dribble, Sun 27 Dec 2020, 19:31, Reply)

This article has been flagged as "relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject" for over five years now.
Surely b3ta has gotten enough press/blog/interview coverage since then that we can use a third-party source to pick out the "prominent" memes, rather than relying on passing editors adding their own favourites over the years?
( Turtle Power & Knuckles, Tue 12 Apr 2022, 1:03, Reply)