Page 2 of 3
Re: Are administrator conduct complaints attacks?
Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 9:17 pm
by CMAwatch
JuiceBeetle wrote:The abuse report:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Handroid7/Bbb23 (
http://archive.fo/JnVx6,
Web archive)
Proposed for deletion within 10 hours by the unknown "Count Count" with the reason "attack page":
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/User:Handroid7/Bbb23Is this an attack page?
"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." (
WP:ATTACK)
This is not "biographical material", does not "threaten its subject", and it does not "exist
primarily to disparage" its subject. Thus it is
not an attack page, according to this definition.
However, it does disparage its subject in some sentences, and that's enough to justify deleting all the proper complaints.
Removing those comments would make it easier to argue that this is not an attack page:
The page title should not name the accused -> "About administrator conduct"
"Had this document been published on the English Wikipedia, Bbb23 would likely erase it immediately, reinforcing the evidence against him."
-> "This page is a good faith attempt to report contested administrator conduct, that could not be made on English Wikipedia."
“Why would he delete it, if he could? Maybe to cover up something shady about him?” -- Speculations undermine the credibility of the reporter.
"Shady practices" -> "Administrator conduct questions"
"Bbb23 ran amok" -> "Bbb23 reverted all my edits, even reinstating vandalism. This was an unnecessary, excessive action, that caused trouble to other editors too."
"Need I say more?" -> "My inquiries about his decisions were unanswered."
General rule to question admin conduct: Only present the facts. Make them look damning, but don't speculate on the interpretation of those facts.
Handroid7 has been inactive for a few days.
Does anyone know how to contact him, so we can tell him that?
Re: Are administrator conduct complaints attacks?
Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 9:46 pm
by CMAwatch
JuiceBeetle wrote:"Bbb23 ran amok" -> "Bbb23 reverted all my edits, even reinstating vandalism. This was an unnecessary, excessive action, that caused trouble to other editors too."
The latter is more polite, but I guess the former is meant in a metaphorical way.
The phrase “reverted all of my edits” is pretty much deaf, and as stated in that report, the cognitive biasses of people in power positions, especially confirmation bias, makes Handroid7's factual report nealy powerless, while
Bbb23 can get away with repeated coarse violations and cyber bullying.
Re: Are administrator conduct complaints attacks?
Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 9:55 pm
by CMAwatch
JuiceBeetle wrote:General rule to question admin conduct: Only present the facts. Make them look damning, but don't speculate on the interpretation of those facts.
It is also possible that Handroid7 (and potentially dozens of other users) were incredibly frustrated about having been
cyber-raped by Bbb23.
Sorry for that choice of words, but Bbb23 first blocked, then silenced Handroid7 who tried his best to behave civil on his talk page, after which Bbb23 has shut his mouth and erased every single article
and template he created.
These are >50 pages. If Handroid7's report contains a few “slightly uncivil” phrases, that is perfectly understandable to me, considering how badly he was treated by a person in power position (Bbb23).
Peer pressure?
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2019 12:39 am
by CMAwatch
There could be
peer pressure between administrators too.
The one who argues against Bbb23 might face opposition by other administrators who are biased towards Bbb23
Re: Video parody: Bbb23 power abuse (+ abuse report)
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2019 12:41 am
by Kumioko
CMAwatch wrote:CrowsNest wrote:Fuck me, is this really another Kumioko sock?
Seriously?
Do you mean me or Handroid7?
He is from Japan (I guess), I am European.
Don't take it personally, he assumes everyone that comes here is a sock of mine until proven otherwise.
Re: Peer pressure?
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2019 12:56 am
by JuiceBeetle
CMAwatch wrote:The one who argues against Bbb23 might face opposition by other administrators who are biased towards Bbb23
Who would that be? Their checkuser cabal can destroy admins, if they want to. Whenever I mention his name to any admin, suddenly they fall silent. They are in fear.
Re: Peer pressure?
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2019 1:19 am
by Kumioko
JuiceBeetle wrote:CMAwatch wrote:The one who argues against Bbb23 might face opposition by other administrators who are biased towards Bbb23
Who would that be? Their checkuser cabal can destroy admins, if they want to. Whenever I mention his name to any admin, suddenly they fall silent. They are in fear.
The problem with Bbb23 is that he checkusers EVERYONE. So just be sheer volume, it's only a matter of time before Bbb23 bans some more active people, maybe even admins. Due to the constantly expanding nature of the CU evidence, the more someone edits and the more varied the editing locations, the more likely they will be associated to a known sock or related network eventually.
Let me use another example, It's known that Courcelles and Fluffernutter are married and are both admins/functionaries. However, if someone were to CU them, they would come up positive on the CU tool due to the shared IP's and similarities. Now these 2 will never get banned or blocked because they are known, but what about people who don't identify they are married or are dating another Wikipedia editor. What about new editors who merely edit from a library, say Chicago, where sockmasters have been known to edit. They are going to get swept up in the CU sweep.
I have frequently compared Bbb23 to Joseph McCarthy. Old Joe had the country seeing communists in their soup, had people living in fear and ruined lives. Bbb23 is the Wiki version of Joe. He has people seeing Socks in every shadow and under every rock. And like Joseph McCarthy, it's only a matter of time until it all comes crashing down.
Re: Peer pressure?
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2019 1:25 am
by CMAwatch
Kumioko wrote:JuiceBeetle wrote:CMAwatch wrote:The one who argues against Bbb23 might face opposition by other administrators who are biased towards Bbb23
Who would that be? Their checkuser cabal can destroy admins, if they want to. Whenever I mention his name to any admin, suddenly they fall silent. They are in fear.
The problem with Bbb23 is that he checkusers EVERYONE. So just be sheer volume, it's only a matter of time before Bbb23 bans some more active people, maybe even admins. Due to the constantly expanding nature of the CU evidence, the more someone edits and the more varied the editing locations, the more likely they will be associated to a known sock or related network eventually.
Let me use another example, It's known that Courcelles and Fluffernutter are married and are both admins/functionaries. However, if someone were to CU them, they would come up positive on the CU tool due to the shared IP's and similarities. Now these 2 will never get banned or blocked because they are known, but what about people who don't identify they are married or are dating another Wikipedia editor. What about new editors who merely edit from a library, say Chicago, where sockmasters have been known to edit. They are going to get swept up in the CU sweep.
I have frequently compared Bbb23 to Joseph McCarthy. Old Joe had the country seeing communists in their soup, had people living in fear and ruined lives. Bbb23 is the Wiki version of Joe. He has people seeing Socks in every shadow and under every rock. And like Joseph McCarthy, it's only a matter of time until it all comes crashing down.
Bbb23 has damaged Wikipedia more than he has helped Wikipedia.
Also, I wonder what incites him to do it, from a humane perspective.
Does banning some users out there on Wikipedia who are being productive really make Bbb23 happy? Give his pointless life purpose?
If banning users all day is all Bbb23 can, his real life must be pretty pointless.
Bad treatment.
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2019 1:41 am
by CMAwatch
JuiceBeetle wrote:CMAwatch wrote:The one who argues against Bbb23 might face opposition by other administrators who are biased towards Bbb23
Who would that be? Their checkuser cabal can destroy admins, if they want to. Whenever I mention his name to any admin, suddenly they fall silent. They are in fear.
Handroid7 has mentioned two other administrators mere
minutes before Bbb23 shut Handroid7's mouth.Those two administrators did…
nothing.Oshwah's user page boasts
“Hi. I'm Oshwah. I'm here to help you!”, and his personality also appears rather generous, helpful and friendly, yet he did
absolutely nothing when Handroid7 needed his help.
Also, after over 1000 productive edits, another administrator screaming at him
“You are not welcome here!” must have felt like rhetorical violence.
This is just the tip of the ice berg. Who knows how many other users are being mistreated like that?
I would like to contact Handroid7 outside of Wikimedia websites.
Does anyone know his email address, or other contact details, if he has some?
Re: Bad treatment.
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2019 3:06 pm
by Guido den Broeder
CMAwatch wrote:This is just the tip of the ice berg. Who knows how many other users are being mistreated like that?
Recently Almond Plate got blocked by TonyBallioni, who claimed that they're me, probably on Fram's suggestion. No check was performed. None of Almond's edits was undone, however. So it seems to depend on which administrator does the blocking.