Bbb23 admin abuse

[CMAwatch]

The block evasion policy is designed to [url=http://archive.ph/l2hfp#95%]systematically suppress constructive criticism.[/url]

If a user is blocked, he can not speak up without evading their flawed and logic-lacking ban evasion policy.

A deliberate Catch-22.

If they are not willing to accept constructive criticism and acknowledge their flaws, they are killing innovation.

[CMAwatch]

Paranoidly rollbacks sock edit for the sake of reverting a sock edit, then realizing that edit was perfectly fine!

ScrewBbb23-20191117.png (39.81 KiB) Viewed 2836 times

If this happened once, it probably happened 1000 times, most prominently while burning Handroid7's entire library of good articles and redirects.

[CMAwatch]

Bbb23 has reinstated vandalism!

See it for yourself!

[CMAwatch]

Some other user has now reverted that Bbb23 vandalism.

But this proves that Bbb23 reverts edits and deletes pages without checking.

Bbb23 only checks users, not edits.


An admin that reverts without looking first should be banned immediately. Who knows how much damage he has already done?

Compare that to Handroid7: An innocent and prolific Wikipedia editor, whose months worth of work was burned by Bbbbb23.


To hell with Bbb23.

[Abd]

Some other user has now reverted that Bbb23 vandalism.

But this proves that Bbb23 reverts edits and deletes pages without checking.

Bbb23 only checks users, not edits.

An admin that reverts without looking first should be banned immediately. Who knows how much damage he has already done?

Compare that to Handroid7: An innocent and prolific Wikipedia editor, whose months worth of work was burned by Bbbbb23.

To hell with Bbb23.

A bit of attitude here? it is common to revert sock edits without checking them. and it can get one in trouble. A clever sock can set this up. vandalize an article with IP, best a proxy of some kind, and then revert it with the account that is going to be whacked as a sock. What would really be best would be to tag those reverts in a way that would make it easy to review them all, if anyone cares. Otherwise those watching the article will very possibly review it. I see nothing particularly abnormal here. Yes, it looks bad, and may have been set up to be so.

Yes, there can be damage, but the general wiki theory, the Kool-Aid, is that the person is banned because their editing is dangerous in some way. This is typical of "wiki" philosophy. I.e., primitive, knee-jerk, not really seeking to optimize reliability and efficiency, just "quick," i.e., "wiki."

[CMAwatch]

A clever sock can set this up. vandalize an article with IP, best a proxy of some kind, and then revert it with the account that is going to be whacked as a sock.

Has that ever happened?

What would really be best would be to tag those reverts in a way that would make it easy to review them all, if anyone cares. Otherwise those watching the article will very possibly review it. I see nothing particularly abnormal here. Yes, it looks bad, and may have been set up to be so.

Yes, there can be damage, but the general wiki theory, the Kool-Aid, is that the person is banned because their editing is dangerous in some way. This is typical of "wiki" philosophy. I.e., primitive, knee-jerk, not really seeking to optimize reliability and efficiency, just "quick," i.e., "wiki."

If they actually feel sorry about accidentially damaging articles, then they should reinstate all of Handroid7's good contents and redirects, and unblock him too.

Another issue is Bbb23's extreme egoism. It is evidently barely possible to communicate to him without triggering him.

[CMAwatch]

Side note: Hell Yes! Finally a fresh new forum software! The outage was a pity, but now, a fresh new software. Great.
———————————————————————————

More examples of Bbb23 being Bbb23:

• http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... f=8&t=9504 (Mirror)
• The blocking admin was asked multiple times to justify his action, as required by the admin accountability policy. Instead, he escalated the block, revoked talk page access, and declined an unblock request on the old account, although this is prohibited for the blocking admin.
• 2013: Request for review of administrator Bbb23; concerns of abuse of position and harassment, vindictiveness
• One notorious rogue administrator who goes by the online persona of BBB23 has become infamous for blocking good faith editors responding to reasonable talk page edit requests.
• Checkuser rights have been abused previously resulting in removal of admins. For one, you may follow the arbitration case which was referred to in a news paper article that correctly concluded that linking account to real people is pure speculation. Another admin was removed for abusing the system in collusion with other favourable admins. (Mirror).
• Some more misbehaviour.
• Suppression of truth.
• Tweet from 2012 (!): “@Wikipedia Malicious vandals JFHJr and Bbb23 must be blocked from editing NOW. Please RT”
• Bbb23 rollbacking user exposing his policy violation.
• Search results of “Bbb23 Wikipedia”: Google | DuckDuckGo.
• Bbb23 neglects his meta talk page entirely, which is now edit-protected.
  
• →→ From there: “It has been over a week now since I talked to you, but you don't even seem you have any responsibility to respond despite me proving how your TPA ban was made-up. You leave me no choice but to give you your only warning since you don't care if you're wrong. If you do this to any other user ever, I will report to have you warned and be de-sysoped if you continue harassing other users by frivolously banning them from their own TP. Since you're unlikely to unblock me or even feel any responsibility towards correcting your mistake, this is my last message to you until I make a request per the six-month offer. You can oppose it, but that won't discourage me from reporting your frivolous bans and harassment. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC) ”
• “Standard rollback may only be used in certain situations – editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed.” So when will Bbb23's rollback rights be removed?
• Quora user shares experiences with BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBNBBBBB bBbBbb Bbb Bb b Bb B Bb B b B bB bB bb 23.

Bbb23 is likely a misanthropist, full of hate.

His hostile behavioural patterns strongly suggest sociopathy. He can't be cured.

Also, as stated by Handroid7 in the Bbb23 abuse report as a side note, his name actually looks like an error code, which describes him pretty well.

I wonder whether he is a real life sociopath as well, or just inside his “castle walls” of administratorship, from where he can abuse anyone, which he has done for years.

I bet Bbb23 is an old wimp in real life.

As long as B. b. b. 23 is not terminated from Wikipedia, his parasitism will leave scars on Wikipedia that even ArbCom fails to acknowledge (they silence anyone who questions them).

Ultimately, Bbb23 should be able to logically justify his hostile actions towards innocent and productive users. If he can't, why is he still here?

I wonder what exactly motivates Bbb23 to spend his entire life doing that.
Is there any personal benefit for him?

[CMAwatch]

This excellent film was sent to me by friends.
It perfectly portrays Wikipedia's admin culture, especially Bbb23. #BbbGate #Bbbcalypse
[youtube]iKcWu0tsiZM[/youtube]

[JuiceBeetle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM
Epic

[CMAwatch]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM
Epic

And it accurately describes Wikipedia's administrator culture, especially B…B…B…2…3.