



Skip to contents. Bbb23 abuse report

This page and its source code are mirrored at the Wayback Machine.

It documents questionable behaviour and policy violations of the currently reputable English Wikipedia administrator “Bbb23”.

Bbb23 has revoked the access to my talk page on the English Wikipedia, therefore I am unable to communicate through it.

Had this document been published on the English Wikipedia, Bbb23 would likely erase it immediately, reinforcing the evidence against him. (Guess: Why would he delete it, if he could? Maybe to cover up something shady about him?)

Disclaimer [ edit ]

I know that I, unlike Bbb23, am not in a credible position, but I kindly ask you to read this from a neutral, non-authority biased, sympathetic perspective. Thank you.

If Bbb23 reads this document, he might perceive it as an attack against his high ego, but all contents of this document are purely factual, unless otherwise noted (e.g. the theory near the bottom).

Please read this discussion first , for context.





Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions.

–– w:Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability

This is not an attack page. [ edit ]

An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced.

–– w:Wikipedia:Attack page

This page is sourced well, and does not primarily exist to disparage or threaten its subject.

But it primarily exists to document the questionable behaviour of an administrator which inflicted harm onto Wikipedia.

Obviously, documenting questionable behaviour with a positive tone is hardly possible.

I am not actively trying to disparage someone specific directly, but to document his questionable behaviour against me and potentially more users, which is harmful for Wikipedia.

It is factual, logical and rational.

Shady practices [ edit ]

“I'm giving you some leeway to say something useful. So far, you haven't, and if you persist in what I consider to be trolling, I will revoke TPA.”

–– Bbb23

“something useful” is rough and unambiguous.

He systematically pressures and threatens users like that, because he already knows he is going to block that user's talk page anyway, no matter what the user answers.

In addition, I answered all their questions, and I asked perfectly legitimate questions. Bbb23 never said what he considers useful, or why he considers my legitimate replies as trolling. See it for yourself.

I asked what he needs from me, he never answered.

He asked questions and called my answers to his own questions “trolling”.

He uttered “that's cute” in a sarcastic and sinister way.

Bbb23 abused “trolling” as a buzzword to silence my legitimate, formal and sincere responses.

According to w:Trolling:

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages[…]

My replies are:

Not off-topic.

Not inflammatory, but sincere.

Not digressive.

Not distracting.

Not extraneous, but on-topic.

I have explained in a formal and sincere way, why the block is not purposeful, because I have already learnt that anti-circumcision editing is considered inappropriate. The purpose of the blocking of Chanc20190325 was preventing anti-circumcision editing. But I have done no such edits through this account. The >1000 edits through this account are legitimate and do not remotely touch anything related to circumcision. I have learnt that lesson a long time ago already, thus there is no reason for my blocks.

Yet he uses the “trolling” hammer buzz word.

I bet that there exists no reply he would have not labelled as ”trolling“.

Talk-page hammer [ edit ]

According to w:Wikipedia:Blocking_policy:

Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked, if checked, will prevent the blocked user from editing their own talk page (including the ability to create unblock requests) during the duration of their block. This option is not checked by default, and typically should not be checked; editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of their user talk page.

What exactly on that talk page written by me is abuse?

[…]what I consdier to be trolling[…]

–– Bbb23

How can one ask Bbb23 a sincere question without getting banhammered?

Sincere replies to their questions are certainly not abuse.

This might sound absurd initially, but apparently, Bbb23 does not mind vandalizing Wikipedia. And he even got away with it.

He deleted every single page I have created (roughly 50 with roughly 200 to 300 revisions), including good draft articles and redirects such as w:WP:YWAB (recreated by User:Guy_Macon already), despite each of them is legitimate.

If any non-administrator had blanked the exact same pages that Bbb23 has deleted during these few minutes, that user would have been blocked, because it would clearly be w:WP:Vandalism. But if Bbb23 does it, it's perfectly fine, isn't it?

His mass deletion of my legitimate content[1] has harmed Wikipedia within minutes significantly more than w:User:Chanc20190325's anti-genital-mutilation edits (the reason why it was blocked there), a topic not touched even once by my new account.

Additionally, the anti-circumcision edits by Chanc20190325 were quickly reverted, so close to zero damage.

Bbb23's much greater vandalism of mass-deleting legitimate pages has not been undone after days.

Shouldn't Bbb23 get blocked by that logic, hypothetically?

“To qualify, the edit must be a violation of the user's specific block or ban. For example, pages created by a topic-banned user may be deleted if they come under that particular topic, but not if they are legitimately about some other topic.”

–– Wikipedia speedy deletion rule G5

If granted access, administrators must exercise care in using these new functions, especially the ability to delete pages

–– Wikipedia:Administrators#Care_and_judgement

Bbb23 ran amok[1] on all of my created pages without checking for actual illegitimacy.

Thus, he violated that part of rule G5, because the pages he deleted, including all of my draft articles, were perfectly legitimate. Go see it for yourself[1].

No amount of Bbb23's lobbying power can dispute his violation of G5.

Who knows how many more out of the 38639 pages he deleted were legitimate pages? Roughly assuming it is 5% would mean 1931 pages. Probably actually lower, but considering how aggressively he deleted every page created by me.

Bad faith? [ edit ]

I have already stated that I have already recognized the mistake I did months earlier, and I have never repeated that mistake (anti-circumcision edits) even once ever since I have created this account.

I have done over 1000 clean, productive edits since I created that account.

Bbb23's response to my perfectly legitimate questions was silencing me by revoking talk page access. I wonder what he needed to hear in order to not block my talk page. He did not give me a chance.

This page in a nutshell: Administrators are users trusted with access to certain tools on the English Wikipedia. They are expected to observe a high standard of conduct, to use the tools fairly, and never to use them to gain advantage in a dispute.

–– Wikipedia:Administrators

I sincerely and formally asked him what exactly he needs from me, he revoked talk page access.

Had Bbb23 just done nothing in the first place, everything would have been just fine.

I said all I could say, yet Bbb23 assumes bad faith in me.



If I actually had bad faith, how come I made >1000 good edits through this account since July on the English Wikipedia? (Roughly 15% to 20% of which has just been erased by Bbb23.)

Administrator conduct [ edit ]

According to w:Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_conduct:

Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.

Need I say more?

Bbb23 has clearly violated the administrator's conduct.

Statistics [ edit ]

Also worth noting:

Bbb23 has blocked 34828 users while having unblocked only 209 users, a ratio of 166:1.

No check user has ever blocked more users than him. I am not implying all he does is wrong, but he does it in a way that suggests it gives his life purpose. Assuming each sockpuppet investigation took 10 minutes on average (rough estimation), he spent nearly 6000 hours (or 250 pure days, or ~3/4 of a pure year ) doing just that and nothing else. Again, it is good that he helps Wikipedia so generously , but it appears like a feedback loop in his mind that releases dopamine each time he blocks a user. Therefore, he is so reluctant to unblock users. Disclaimer: This is just a theory, not a personal attack of any sort. (What else would motivate an anonymous human being to spend roughly 6000 hours of his finite life sitting infront of a computer and aggressively blocking users without getting paid even €0.01 for it?) Confirmation bias might also play a role. Remember: He is a human with a human brain.

but he does it in a way that suggests it gives his life purpose. Assuming each sockpuppet investigation took 10 minutes on average (rough estimation), he spent nearly 6000 hours (or 250 pure days, or ~3/4 of a pure ) doing just that and nothing else. Again, , but it appears like a feedback loop in his mind that releases dopamine each time he blocks a user. Therefore, he is so reluctant to unblock users. Disclaimer: This is not a personal attack of any sort. (What else would motivate an anonymous human being to spend roughly sitting infront of a computer and aggressively blocking users without getting paid even €0.01 for it?) He has the userbox “This user does not understand mean people. Please be nice.” on his user page, yet he was extremely disrespectful to me, while I have shown sincerity and respect. Practice what you preach.

Is this defamation? [ edit ]

Defamation (sometimes known as calumny, vilification, or traducement) is the oral or written communication of a false statement about another that unjustly harms their reputation,

–– w:Defamation

Everything in this document can be manually verified.

In addition, Bbb23 is an anonymous personality on Wikipedia.

My ban evasion? [ edit ]

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

–– w:Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

Further discussions about this topic: on Meta: User_talk:Handroid7.