Bbb23 admin abuse

[CMAwatch]

I found this neat easter egg on the PasteBin account of Handroid7:

Bbb23 username generator!

I gave it a try:

Ppp10, Nnn36, Aaa86, Lll48, Iii94, Kkk36, Zzz70, Ooo12, Uuu04, Ggg51, Sss09, Fff32, Kkk26, Bbb16, Lll11, Yyy28, Sss77, Ggg63, Uuu12, Bbb10, Mmm38, Iii97, Ggg07, Ggg98, Iii08, Ccc68, Zzz49, Jjj90, Sss40, Xxx00, Zzz53, Lll89, Qqq97, Hhh36, Aaa69, Rrr39, Uuu51, Www11, Hhh37, Mmm77, Ccc41, Vvv70, Lll64, Ggg76, Rrr43, Bbb21, Ppp27, Ggg72, Fff33, Ooo03, Jjj10, Xxx76, Yyy74, Lll38, Fff04, Nnn46, Ccc71, Fff06, Ttt47, Sss77, Ttt10, Qqq77, Mmm10, Ddd37, Uuu74, Mmm86, Ggg22, Sss57, Uuu95, Qqq75, Qqq25, Kkk67, Sss96, Hhh69, Ppp12, Ppp26, Zzz60, Ddd15, Vvv69, Uuu11, Yyy55, Ooo98, Ddd24, Lll31, Rrr49, Ooo29, Yyy61, Www86, Ggg71, Aaa64, Vvv24, Zzz47, Aaa23, Bbb18, Ooo84, Ooo89, Ggg05, Kkk89, Iii73, Zzz29, Nnn34, Ggg74, Rrr84, Hhh05, Iii09, Ddd24, Zzz71, Fff13

Better avoid these user names.

Bbb23 sounds like a spammer's user name, and Bbb23 is indeed disruptive. All the time.

[CMAwatch]

BBB23 admits that he is clueless, in an edit comment:

http://archive.ph/nTKB7#selection-138.0-138.2

“mass rollback, don't know what I'm doing as usual”

[CMAwatch]

If Bbb23 actually cared about the goals of Wikipedia, he would not have demolished Handroid7's legitimate (and amazing) work.

He would not have deleted all of his good redirects.

He would embrace constructive criticism instead of silencing it.

Bbb23 does EVIDENTLY NOT CARE about Wikipedia's goals.

He should be impeached RIGHT NOW actually.

If ArbCom does not see the evident harm that Bbb23 is causing, they are living under a rock.

[JuiceBeetle]

You'll love this edit comment to Bbb23:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =929467828

If it's a troll then stop poking the troll. Please grow up and move on.

Context:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... desysopped

[CMAwatch]

You'll love this edit comment to Bbb23

Indeed.

I like it

[CMAwatch]

Not seeing that Bbb23 is clearly abusing his privileges is downright blind. (read more)

[CMAwatch]

https://www.quora.com/Which-websites-have-misbehaving-moderators-What-are-your-experiences/answers/182810746

[JuiceBeetle]

Most accurate description of bad actor admins, I've read:

https://www.quora.com/Are-Wikipedia-adm ... y-O-Hughes ( Former Wikipedia admin)

Then we have the 15% of Wikipedia administrators who are bad. These are people who, more often than not, are typically younger white men who spend a large amount of time on Wikipedia, some in excess of 16 to 18 hours a day. Instead of helping editors, they seek to hurt them. They will block accounts with little reason and no appeal. They often break the sites own rules themselves, using their administrator tools to circumvent protections and also to harass and harm other editor’s accounts. A tell-tale sign of a bad administrator is often one who ignores Wikipedia’s own rules about civility and conduct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?di ... at_Sunrise
The above example is a case of a very senior administrator telling another user to “F**k off”. This violates Wikipedia’s own standard of conduct, yet the administrator was not only allowed to remain in their position, but later actually protected by other administrators from a filed complaint.

Last but certainly not least are the 5% of administrators who are dangerous. These are people who think nothing about using administrator tools to trace someone’s ip address, locate them in the real world, and harass them through both their online and real world identity. This often includes attempting to contact the person’s employer and seek to cause harm to the Wikipedia editor in that venue.

One of the absolute worse cases I ever saw was an administrator who traced an ip address to an Air Force base, determined the exact times at which a person there was editing Wikipedia, then contacted the Air Force Inspector General’s Office, stating that a service member on active duty was editing Wikipedia during working hours on Air Force computers. The administrator further provided logs of when the person had been online as well as, of course, their real world identity. The person was suspended from network access, almost lost their security clearance, and very nearly was bought up on charges by the Air Force. And why did the administrator do this? Just for the hell of it because of the most minor of a dispute on an article.

https://www.quora.com/Are-Wikipedia-adm ... e-Langlois

I think the answer here is it depends. Some are and some aren't. The haste majority of the admins are and in fact it’s really only a few that aren't. Unfortunately Some of the ones that aren't are among the most active.

The other, larger problem is the process for removing bad ones isn't very good, takes a long time and often punishes the victims before the bad admin ever gets punished and the other admins. In fact in almost 100% of the cases where an admin has been developed it was only because the actions affected another admin. My advice, don't even edit Wikipedia and save yourself the aggravation and abuse you are bound to receive.

[Abd]

I responded to the Quoran and got a great comment back. The admin he names was Future Perfect at Sunrise. Utterly outrageous. He was utterly outrageous years ago, yet enabled by the mob.

[Abd]

https://www.quora.com/Which-websites-have-misbehaving-moderators-What-are-your-experiences/answers/182810746

This anonymous Quora Answer is useless. First of all, the Question has no definition of "misbehaving." The anonymous user claims that Bbb23 blocked them. No information is given allowing any review. Wikipedia admins block thousands upon thousands of accounts. Yes, it is possible that the block was in error, but talk page access was then cut off. If it was cut off by Bbb23, the blocking admin, that would be misbehavior, by Wikipedia standards, but by complaining anonymously, the user makes it impossible to even judge that. In other words, this is a useless complaint, like others we see, often. There is actual abuse, in addition to actual error. But unless people with information disclose it and provide evidence, nothing can be done about it.

It is difficult enough to confront Wikipedia abuse being open and providing ample evidence. I did it, successfully, and I was warned that if I did, I'd be banned, by a user with high experience (and reputation.) The real problem is the community. Wikipedia pretends that the community is in charge. It is not, the structure guarantees that the community, as such, has no coherent voice. Rather Wikipedia is an adhocracy, with a structure that allows small factions to dominate, if they are organized in some way. Lynch mobs have leaders, but if the leaders are protected, lynch mobs can literally get away with murder, at least for a time.

Every attempt to create structures that would allow genuine community consensus to arise and be measured was crushed, immediately. I do understand why. The Iron Law of Oligarchy, and empowered groups protect their own power, it's incredibly natural. To move behind that takes organizational wisdom, which is almost always lacking.

The question was about web sites, but most web sites have responsible owners, who are the last court of appeal against a possible abusive moderator. Whatever a site owner decides is not abusive, by definition -- unless the owner has a contract with someone. They don't, generally. Communities assume that the site is theirs, when it is not. They are merely allowed to use it for a time. Then the moderators are agents of the owner, not of the community. An oligarchy may pretend that it is trustee for the community, but if the community has no coherence, it's only pretense.

Here, Sucks is owned, and moderators operate with the permission of the Owners. [Technically, there is one Owner, who has delegated administration, and administration has delegated moderation to several moderators. The technical Owner may have an agreement with those who are routinely considered Owners here.