Bbb23 admin abuse

[JuiceBeetle]

I responded to the Quoran and got a great comment back.

Is it publicly visible?

[Abd]

https://www.quora.com/Are-Wikipedia-adm ... /119668228

Quora is a real-name site. This guy is for real.

[CMAwatch]

Critic instantly blocked today!

Critic gets blocked immediately for writing this on Bbb23's talk page:

Admin abuse

You have violated several policies of Wikipedia repeatedly.

You also acted against logic and rationality.

You are guilty and you know it damn well.

--2003:E5:BF00:6700:704D:71FD:EBC9:4EBD (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit summary:

Admin abuse: WP:ADMINACCT.

* Bbb23 talk page revision history archive.

Timeline (archive links):
* 17:30 Critic leaves the message.
* 17:31 Revert (<1 minute later.)
* 17:31 Critic receives warning, but not blocked yet
* 17:32 Critic blocked for doing nothing else.

Just ridicolous.

If this is no clear evidence of admin corruption, then I don't know what is.

[Abd]

If this is no clear evidence of admin corruption, then I don't know what is.

Then, obviously, you don't know what is. The reality here is different from what is presented. The sole edit of an IP:

17:30, 10 December 2019 diff hist +369‎ User talk:Bbb23 ‎ →‎Firdaus Kharas: Admin abuse: WP:ADMINACCT. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
This accused BBB23 of policy violations without specifying them and claimed he knew he was "guilty."
17:31, 10 December 2019 CLCStudent, obviously doing Recent Changes Patrol, reverted that comment, this was one in a long series of rapid vandalism reverts. Standard warning.

17:32, 10 December 2019 Acroterion talk contribs blocked 2003:e5:bf00:6700:704d:71fd:ebc9:4ebd talk with an expiration time of 48 hours (anon. only, account creation blocked) (sockpuppet/PAs up to no good)

Acroterion very likely had User talk:BBB23 on their watchlist. So the IP was short-blocked, standard, given the obvious trolling. None of this was personal, it was utterly routine. Now, how does this show "admin corruption"? Not in the least, and this is so clear that I suspect something. The post here from CMAwatch was at 18:50 GMT. That is a little more than an hour after the event. It is quite likely that the IP on Wikipedia was CMAwatch, trolling to be blocked so that he could then claim abuse. It's an old tactic. Rarely does it do anything more than harden opposition. If critics do or tolerate things like this, criticism is doomed. (And even if it was not CMAwatch, the sequence simply does not show what he pretends.)

[CMAwatch]

Acroterion very likely had User talk:BBB23 on their watchlist. So the IP was short-blocked, standard, given the obvious trolling. None of this was personal, it was utterly routine. Now, how does this show "admin corruption"? Not in the least, and this is so clear that I suspect something. The post here from CMAwatch was at 18:50 GMT. That is a little more than an hour after the event. It is quite likely that the IP on Wikipedia was CMAwatch, trolling to be blocked so that he could then claim abuse. It's an old tactic. Rarely does it do anything more than harden opposition. If critics do or tolerate things like this, criticism is doomed. (And even if it was not CMAwatch, the sequence simply does not show what he pretends.)

No, I look at Bbb23's talk page edits from time to time.

Also, that IP edit was correct. Bbb23 has indeed been violating the rules. Repeatedly. And he should indeed feel guilty for it.

[Abd]

Useless.

[CMAwatch]

Useless.

What are your suggestions?

Your suggestions for Aron Manning and all the other Bbb23-caused fatalities.

[JuiceBeetle]

What are your suggestions?
Your suggestions for Aron Manning and all the other Bbb23-caused fatalities.

Wikipedia is a political game. Play it like you're always in front of the cameras: with elegance and well-placed lies.

[CMAwatch]

What are your suggestions?
Your suggestions for Aron Manning and all the other Bbb23-caused fatalities.

Wikipedia is a political game. Play it like you're always in front of the cameras: with elegance and well-placed lies.

They are also apparently something else than they pretend.

Their openness seems just to be acted.

They have secret rules. They pretend to embrace criticism, but they actually obliterate it using metaphoric laser eyes.

[CMAwatch]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... rification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mctuker

“any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.”

It is downright irrational to erase good and legitimate contributions of ban evaders (and anyone else). It logically is vandalism.

But evidently, Bbb23's brain lacks any logical thinking and always excuses his lack of logical argument with “no time for this, talk page access revoked”. Ignorant moron.

Someone who lacks logical thinking should never be a Wikipedia administrator.



Bbb23 screams:

Finally, your understanding of Wikipedia policy is flat-out incorrect.

… Says who violated WP:5P4, WP:AGF, WP:DBN, WP:CIVIL for years, countless times.

Dear Bbb23, if you're not a wimp, communicate to us.