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/Bbb23
Is 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?