Bbb23 admin abuse

[Kumioko]

Great news. Bbb23 is finally getting taken to ANI, after being drug to ANI and may finally get what's coming to him.

I've been saying since the start it was only a matter of time and damage ge does, but it looks like the time is finally here.

[Abd]

No link. Incompetent.

[Kumioko]

Lol, yeah I'll try to add some links later. It's hard to do on my phone.

[CMAwatch]

Lol, yeah I'll try to add some links later. It's hard to do on my phone.

I can not find it on WP:ANI.

Has it been removed?

[JuiceBeetle]

Lol, yeah I'll try to add some links later. It's hard to do on my phone.

I can not find it on WP:ANI.
Has it been removed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _incident?
Bbb23 again NOT answering an inquiry in violation of WP:ADMINACCT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... kuserblock
In the meantime unnecessarily threatening another admin (RHaworth) with desysop:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... :Velanatti
More:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _Concessao

TonyBallioni, a protector saint of the abusive Bbb23 already opened an Arbitration Case to give weight to Bbb23's threat:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... e#RHaworth
He's always there to help out Bbb...

[Abd]

Yeah, it's at ArbCom where something might actually happen. Permanent link to the current state of the AC request.

Lord of the Flies.

[JuiceBeetle]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =931536268

Bbb23, hmmm. I'm not sure about that. I would expect that Checkuser blocks should be used when a block cannot be reviewed without the CheckUser tool. If you can make the same block without the CU data, then I don't believe you should be declaring it a checkuser block with the protections afforded by it. WormTT(talk) 13:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

[Abd]

Yeah, it's at ArbCom where something might actually happen. Permanent link to the current state of the AC request.

Lord of the Flies.

It used to be that before an Arbitration could be opened, there needed to be evidence of attempts to resolve an issue, and that would, on a wiki, take time. This seems to have blown up, gone to AN/I, in about two days.

However, too much water under the bridge for me to care what ArbCom does. I gave up on Wikipedia in 2011, and that included ArbCom.

[Kumioko]

In this case arbcom knows they will need to resolve it because they know anyone who attempts to address bbb23's behavior will face retaliation. They know the CU tool isnt trustworthy so it's easy for Bbb23 to CU people and find associated socks to use to ban them. Of course they aren't socking, it's just that the tool can't tell, but it still gives Bbb23 thebability to justify blocking them in retaliation.

[Abd]

[...]
They know the CU tool isnt trustworthy so it's easy for Bbb23 to CU people and find associated socks to use to ban them. Of course they aren't socking, it's just that the tool can't tell, but it still gives Bbb23 thebability to justify blocking them in retaliation.

This is irrelevant to the instant ArbCom case. In this case, a noob created another account, which was openly acknowledged. Without necessity, Bbb23 checkusered and blocked, using the checkuserblock template. RAHayworth, who had inaccurately tagged the user's article, unblocked, having recognized the error he had made and the lack of necessity for the Bbb23 block.

Because RAHayworth had undone a checkuser block, he had violated what appears to be a policy, that ordinary admins do not unblock from a checkuser block. However, there is a reason for that policy, but it did not actually apply here. So RAHayworth was following the old IAR, dealing with substance rather than the exact prescriptions of rules.

There was a whole series of admin errors here. But errors are not cause for desysop; generally, rather a pattern of behavior that would lead to an expectation of enough necessary cleanup such that it's not worth keeping the admin.

Something else is obviously going on, old grudges being played out, or just general rule-bound wikilawyering.

The real problems are avoided in favor of finding blame and kicking scapegoats. And so the real problems will continue, and each time take enormous amounts of editor time in order to accomplish what a sane system would literally handle in minutes.

It is not only that nobody is responsible on Wikipedia, but also that no value is assigned to editor time, and no value to creating what would make the "free knowledge" actually reliable. That would take structure, and structure is Evil.

Now, that's a POV, and it dominated Wikipedia from the early days. Question it, and you were, ipso facto, not a "Wikipedian," you were an outsider, to be shunned and banned as quickly as possible.