Bbb23 admin abuse

[CMAwatch]

Bbb23 might be a sociopath, as suggested by his behavioural patterns.

Bbb23's tactic:

He emotionally stresses and abuses users (e.g. by deleting all of Handroid7's legitimate work), then when users try to legitimately defend themselves, one phrase out of the entire 13KB abuse report gets called out. What about the other 100 phrases?

Considering how Bbb23 emotionally abuses users without one drop of sympathy, it is very possible.

Handroid7 tried to stay as sincere as possible, and Bbb23 called it “trolling”, without elaborating.

I bet there is no way to communicate to Bbb23 without risking to get banned.

Handroid7 was such a prolific contributor, and Bbb23 deletes all of it.

After how brutally Bbb23 treats users, they are expected to behave 100% sincere. And if it's 99% sincere, that 1% will be labelled WP:NOTHERE.

Shame on Bbb23.

[CMAwatch]

There is also truckloads of confirmation bias involved.

Wikipedia users are officially encouraged to criticize administrators when needed, but when they actually do, e.g. Handroid7, they get screwed over and their mouth gets shut.

If that is not corruption, I don't know what is.

[CMAwatch]

Relevant essay:


Questioning Wikipedia's innovation-killing evasion policy.

Encouraged read.

Download the essay here (attachment).

[CMAwatch]

During research, I came across this revert of Bbb23.
Somebody asked what the difference between “HS” and “IS” is for Canon camera model names.
Bbb23 has done that rollback without specifying any reason.
B-B-B-Rrrevert23

[CMAwatch]

The permission is granted by Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, after community consultation and vetting of the editor by the committee's members. Although CheckUsers are not required to be administrators, nearly all CheckUser members up to this point have been. CheckUsers must be 18 years of age or older and have signed the Wikimedia Foundation's confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information before being appointed. The use of the CheckUser tool on the English Wikipedia is monitored and controlled by the Arbitration Committee, and CheckUsers may have their permissions revoked by the Arbitration Committee for misuse or abuse of the CheckUser permission.

Is ArbCom sleeping?

Wake up! Bbb23 is harassing users and aggressively blocking them!

The entire community hates Bbb23!

[CMAwatch]

"Fishing" is to check an account where there is no credible evidence to suspect sockpuppetry. Checks are inappropriate unless there is evidence suggesting abusive sock-puppetry.

Bbb23 has fished countless times.

Wake up, ArabCom!

[JuiceBeetle]

During research, I came across this revert of Bbb23.
Bbb23 has done that rollback without specifying any reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canon_PowerShot_S&diff=901876342&oldid=897216321 (Tag: Rollback)

ferret:however it's easier to get in trouble with rollback
...
ferret:use rollback wrong once and the wrong person sees it...
...
ferret:It's still "policy" to never use rollback except for dead obvious vandalism
...
ferret:There's a few policy warriors that'll immediately head to ANI if you slip on rollback

There it is. You're welcome.

[CMAwatch]

Need I comment?

Bbb23 has indisputably violated WP:Five_pillars.

“Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and do not engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages, follow dispute resolution procedures, and consider that there are 5,969,229 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss. ”

Does that sound like Bbb23 to you? Anyone? Hello? Nah… I guess not.

Everyone who does not see Bbb23's violations is brainwashed.

[JuiceBeetle]

The evidence page is now deleted with the reason "out-of-scope", but the deletion log claims "attack page". Yet another sloppy administrative action, resulting in a false characterization.
There were 2 votes to "Move to meta", from SN54129 and Guido - nice of them to drop by -, thus the proper action now is to restore the page on meta. Will that happen?

[CMAwatch]

The evidence page is now deleted with the reason "out-of-scope", but the deletion log claims "attack page". Yet another sloppy administrative action, resulting in a false characterization.
There were 2 votes to "Move to meta", from SN54129 and Guido - nice of them to drop by -, thus the proper action now is to restore the page on meta. Will that happen?

And more importantly:

Will Handroid7 be unblocked and his legitimate content reinstated?

According to Handroid7's meta talk page, the UTRS ArbCom has labelled his legitimate evidence page an attack page too. I guess Bbb23 has unpredictable lobbying power.

Bbb23's mass-destruction of Handroid7's legitimate content was a terrible move and especially goes against Wikipedia's own ethics and purposes.

Wikipedia needs more Handroid7's, more Aron Mannings and zero Bbb23's.