I'm conserning about Bbb23's adminship.

Bbb23 blocked me as a sockpuppet wrongly about 3 months ago. I was unblocked soon. The reason of blocking was just the other user supported me on Yasuke's talk page and CU outcome was "possible".

I noticed the other 2 peolple who participate in Yasuke's talk page were blocked as sockpuppets by Bbb, and they are being unblocked now (not yet?). In this case, there was no evidence.

Please review Bbb23's recent conducts. He may have blocked us just because our postitions were against him. I think he shouldn't get involved in Yasuke's topic anymore, at least.NakajKak (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per the notification at the top of the page, you're supposed to notify people when you report them here. It doesn't appear you did that? I've done it for you now. As far as your accusations go, reading the discussions, it looks like some other editors disagreed with his conclusions made in his block, but I don't seen evidence that it was motivated by any disagreements he was having with you. Is there something more you can link to on that part of your argument? Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of discussion by various editors with various positions at Talk:Yasuke over the past 6 months, the claim of ulterior motive seems spurious in absence of more evidence. A CU result of "possible" combined with a behavioral overlap, as described at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KeiTakahashi999/Archive, is typically enough to justify a sockpuppetry block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Three admins, including a CU, thought otherwise. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That consensus seems to have come in the context of the unblock discussion, per NYB's comment I wouldn't typically consider "Possible" as technical evidence, especially in light of the explanation above. Overall, my view of this specific complaint coincides with Onel5969's assessment below. If editors wish to present evidence of the pattern of behavior that they're accusing Bbb23 of, they can provide diffs. I do agree with Tamzin that the accusation of incivility against voorts is concerning, but I don't see how Bbb23 is ultimately "dodging accountability" here when their last word on this topic was to withdraw objection in light of the CU's more detailed explanation of the technical evidence. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say that's true when the behavioral overlap is limited to agreeing in content disputes (in a CTOP where many people hold the same opinion) and using the source editor. I would probably endorse a check there, but I would not make a block based on that + "possible". I can think of very few admins other than Bbb who I'd expect to block on that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my anecdotal experience filing cases at SPI is that the bar for a CU check is higher, and the bar for blocking once that first bar is cleared is lower. I have not extensively analyzed the behavioral evidence beyond that it was assessed sufficient for a CU check._signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin who ultimately unblocked the two possible puppets mentioned by OP, I would say that I would not have been surprised if the check was run, but neither would I have been surprised if it were declined. If I had requested the check myself I would have concluded that anything shy of "confirmed" was as close to an exoneration as CU data can get, and I would not have blocked. I'm aware I'm a noob in this area, though, and if presented with evidence I hadn't noticed, I'd have been quite willing to revise that opinion. -- asilvering (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, "may have blocked us just because our postitions were against him" seems quite a serious allegation. I for one would like to see something tangible (say, diffs) to support it, rather than merely being told to go on a fishing expedition ("please review recent conducts"). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's basically a red herring; most online communities don't have standards of evidence for accusations of bad faith the way enwp does and I guess the filer doesn't know that. But I hope that the red herring can be ignored in the absence of evidence in favor of the real problem of Bbb23's block behavior, as laid out by Tamzin. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't spend a lot of time on these boards, but came across this. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong BBB23's behavior or actions. They blocked someone, that person objected and appealed, and the appeal was granted. I see no evidence that there was any malicious intent on BBB23's part. I do not always agree with their actions, but I never feel they are being malicious. Someone should close this discussion.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 didn't block you because he's biased against you. He blocked you because he, unlike every other SPI admin, is willing to block on only ~50% confidence, and despite this becoming an issue countless times, leading to many bad sockblocks being overturned, he's never done anything to correct that. Instead he does things like randomly accuse a reviewing admin of incivility for questioning the block. This is the same pattern of bad judgment and evasion of accountability that I described 2 years ago, to deaf ears. No doubt, the same will happen here, because someone involved in the Yasuke fray does not make for the most sympathetic victim. Oh well. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: To better outline the pattern of both bad blocks and evasion of accountability—and mind you, this is just cases I'm aware of because I was involved or someone told me about them, including those at issue here:

• July 2021: Blocked two users (1•2) for collaborating on an article. When another user said he could vouch for them being different people, replied Based on what they've been doing, I figured they were either sock puppets or meat puppets. Either way, it's a violation of policy. Never explained what policy was violated. Agreed to an unblock but with the caveat I suspect I have a broader view of what constitutes disruption or deception; never explained what that would mean.
• May 2022: Blocked all contributors to a draft about a PR stunt for meatpuppetry. When I pointed out that 5 were in good- or ambiguous-faith, including one whose only edit was to add a comma, and pointed out that we encourage editors to collaborate, replied I not only object but pretty much disagree with your analysis, including what constitutes meat puppetry, what we 'encourage', and the definition of 'good faith conduct', but I don't think arguing with you over these things would be productive. Never gave assent to unblocking any; I unblocked the 2 most obviously good-faith.
• December 2022: Blocks a user for drafting an encyclopedic table in their userspace. At unblock appeal, refers to unblock as a second chance despite not having shown any misconduct in the first place.
• April 2023: Again blocked users just for collaborating on a draft. When told by a third party that they were classmates, asked What is your role in this? and never followed up. User had to go to AN/I, where the blocks were overturned without any participation from Bbb.
• May 2023: Blocked a user for alleged personal attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person (2nd nomination). AN/I consensus led to the user's unblock and the WP:CHILDPROTECT blocks of almost all of their opponents. Responded to an inquiry about whether he'd created a chilling effect for reports of CHILDPROTECT violations with Given all the positive comments by others about MPS's conduct, I doubt that the block had any kind of 'chilling effect'; nor do I imagine any future new user will even know about it. This reponse may not be fully satisfactory to you, but it's all I have to say about the issue.
• [I was less active in projectspace from Sep '23 to Nov '24, so don't take the 2-year absence of evidence as evidence of absence.]
• February 2025: Reported two users to SPI with note I don't there's enough behavioral evidence to block without technical corroboration. After receiving verdict of "possible", blocked both (1•2) despite not having presented strong behavioral evidence, and despite presumably knowing, as someone who was a CU until he had the right removed by ArbCom for abuse, that "possible" is not a high degree of confidence. After being counseled by Newyorkbrad (a former CU in good standing) that "possible" was not enough, resisted unblocking, and after a third admin concurred with Brad in entirely mundane terms, replied Lovely to hear from you again. At least Newyorkbrad is civil. Only assented to unblock after the checking CU clarified that "possibly" meant 40km apart, which he should have already known it could mean.
• April 2025: Brought two users and an IP to SPI where the only decent evidence was that one user had edited logged-out. After a check was declined, nonetheless blocked both accounts (1•2). Did not respond to queries from unblock-reviewer; both were unblocked. Agreed to unblock after CU found socking unlikely.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is a rough history of overzealous blocking and a lack of clear and civil communication when questioned or opposed. Thank you for assembling these. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin, I dispute the Did not respond to queries from unblock-reviewer in the last, since Bbb23 did respond to me the second time, and quickly. I can't fault someone for not responding immediately to a ping that involves doing some extra work (I'd presume that Bbb23 wouldn't remember offhand what the compelling evidence was), nor could I fault them for then forgetting about it. I don't dispute that the evidence for blocking was thin, however. -- asilvering (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, think I got my talkpages jumbled. Fixed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While recognizing that this list is not intended to be exhaustive, reviewing block logs, Bbb23 appears to have blocked roughly 2500 accounts and IPs since November 2024 alone. Even if we arbitrarily assume that problems with their blocks are 25 times as common as what you've laid out here, that would be a problematic block rate of roughly 2%. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2% would be quite high. My own rate, as of this moment, is 0.08% (2/2,654). Judging from the fact that I can't recall having ever seen you on the receiving end of a dramaboard thread, Rosguill, I'd be surprised if your rate is much higher. But that's a bit of a misdirection. As ArbCom frequently reminds us, "occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship". However, what we do expect of admins, in all cases, is to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions ... [and to] justify their actions when requested. Some admins have been desysopped for failing to explain a single block, let alone doubling down on aspersions against those they wrongly blocked and casting new aspersions against admins who disagreed with them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 2% is with the arbitrary inflation--what you've logged here is actually, coincidentally, also .08% since November 2024 (calculating a ballpark estimate for the rest of the range, particularly given the activity gap you noted, seemed like it would be wasted effort). I agree with you that we do expect admins to be accountable, but other than the one snide comment to voorts, I don't think the most recent case demonstrates much in the way a lack of accountability--to me it looks like a good faith disagreement over the degree of evidence required to identify sockpuppetry, which I think we all know is an inherently fuzzy and frustrating field to work in. And thus I'm disinclined to bandwagon on a complaint filed by an editor who (justifiably) feels personally slighted but who has already had their name cleared by appealing through the normal process. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to say this, but it has long been my suspicion that I'm disinclined to bandwagon on a complaint filed by an editor who (justifiably) feels personally slighted is the reason why Bbb23's blocks have not received more attention. I think it's a very understandable reaction. But I also think it means an admin can get away with a lot of bad blocks, simply by frequently blocking a large number of unsympathetic targets. -- asilvering (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine a more even-keeled and relevantly-informed "venue" (to stretch the word) would be to ask admins who patrol requests for unblock fpr their opinions, and/or investigate a statistical sample that we can actually generalize conclusions from. Based on my own experience, I've at times been frustrated that Bbb23's block log summaries can sometimes be opaque and create more work for reviewing the unblock logs, but I struggle to think of examples of cases where I directly found their original block to be unreasonable, or where they obstructed attempts to unblock, which are what would raise concerns of unaccountability for me. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As one of those admins, I can say that, when it comes to simple blocks like basic vandalism, where all the facts are clearly visible and the editor is almost certain to be immediately caught and reblocked if they reoffend, I have simply stopped asking Bbb23 for input. At best, the request is not responded to; at worst, Bbb23 will show up and insult the blocked editor to their face. A particularly discouraging example of the latter was my last straw. I'm not the only one. Even when I do ask for input, the results are not collegial. See for example User talk:Asilvering/Archive 18#AnonymousScholar49, where I am grateful to have received a sanity check from @Deepfriedokra. -- asilvering (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

asilvering What type of insulting are we talking about? Bad blocks are evidence of poor judgement that can be corrected. Hostility toward blocked users is evidence of a more fundamental issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien, I've tried to find my Last Straw case, but haven't succeeded. In the meantime, I see GLL has found a list, but one that particularly sticks in my mind is User talk:ISAAC CARES, where Bbb23 said I don't think the user is sufficiently competent to edit here because that editor had been... overlinking. -- asilvering (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to bring the Wikipedia:Zeroth law of Wikipedia into the discussion. Even if swiftly unblocked, discouraging or scaring away the wrong good-faith editor can lose us thousands of constructive edits. Blocks should never be issued on a hunch unless there is a credible risk of immediate, serious harm to the project, and unilateral blocks without warning on the basis of conduct should only be done in egregious circumstances. If this isn't codified somewhere, it needs to be. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...25 times or 2% isn't significant? Well, I suppose we can agree to disagree on that. Let's look at some blocks, warnings, and various aspersions (not all of which will be sock related) from this same time period. Because yes, mistakes get made - but I'd image to those editors wrongfully blocked, or threatened with blocks, it matters a great deal.

• A new user added a birthday to an article (which, while unsourced, appears to be verifiable. [1]). Bbb23 immediately welcomed them with a uw-vand3 and a uw-vand4. While the revert was fine, the he didn't tell the user what they did wrong, so they (quite naturally) have not edited since.
• When new editor created and account to tag a page on a borderline (at best) notable company, obviously written by the company, Bbb23 refused to explain why he declined the speedy deletion, threatened to block them for vandalism, and said they appeared to have "no legitimate purpose here" and told them not to tag any page for speedy deletion because...? The decline was fair, the page wasn't completely unsalvageable, and yes, adding back a speedy deletion tag once another admin has already it is a bad move, but even experienced admins like Bbb23 forget that sometimes. The user hasn't edited since.
• A new user tried to update a football player's jersey number, but didn't add a source. Bbb23 threatened to block them for introducing deliberate factual errors.[2] Compare this with the personalized note left by another user [3], who used the correct templated warnings as well.
• a new user accidentally messed up formatting hen trying to add a citation, Bbb23 welcomed them with a uw-vand4 [4].
• When an editor accidentally re-created a talk page while attempting to contest a speedy deletion, Bbb23 threatened to block them for vandalism (uw-vand4im). When the editor tried to explain what had happened, Bbb23 doubled down, insisting that they "should" have realized. The user hasn't edited since.
• An editor attempted to add what appears to be local/alternative names for train stations, alternative names which are included in the lead sentences of those articles. Bbb23 threatened to block them for vandalism[5], and they've not edited since.
• A new sportsy editor added, to the lead, that a series of colleges part of an sports conference were...part of that sports conference? Undue, yeah, but Bbb23 didn't explain that, just threatened to block them for vandalism.[6]. They haven't edited since.
• When a new editor changed "is" to "was" on the article on somebody who had just died, Bbb23 threatened to block them for introducing deliberate factual errors [7].
• When an ESL editor added a phonetic spelling used locally for a town and tried to add some more facts, on a page they themselves had created many years ago, Bbb23 rvved them and blocked them immediately[8]. No warning, no explanation, just blocked.
• When a new user added a red-linked category, Bbb23 blocked them for vandalism. Thich block actually came up in a 2024 AN post started by @Beeblebrox about the behaviour of another admin, where they was solid consensus that this block was not good, and specifically not good to the point where another admin got looked at sternly for not unblocking the user.
• A new user tried to create a new article by copy-pasting a product description in. Classic noob move, but Bbb23 didn't explain what they'd done wrong, just threatened to block them for vandalism [9]. They haven't edited since.
• A (what appears to be the biography subject) tried to update "his" Wikipedia page, with facts that I've been able to confirm are true.[10]. Bbb23 didn't explain the issues with their edits at all, just left a bunch of messages threatened to block them for vandalism. [11]
• An editor tried to fix a piped misspelling(alternative spelling?), and Bbb23 welcomed them by threatening to block them for vandalism [12]. They haven't edited since.
• A new editor tried to fix a mispelled name, and Bbb23 warned them for introducing deliberate factual errors[13]. They haven't edited since.
• A new editor tried to expand an article with facts sourced to a newspaper, but did the classic newbie thing and put the citation in the edit summary (lmao). Bbb23 threatened to block them for vandalism [14], despite being able to see what they were trying to do. The user hasn't edited since.
• A teenager attempted to add an annotate bibliography to an article, probably as part of a class assignment. Bbb23 threatened to block them for vandalism, an it took another administrator to explain what the actual issues with their edits were.
• When an editor from the Bronx made the mistake of choosing a username referencing that, and Bbb23 discovered this two years on, he rolled back their edits and blocked them for impersonating @User:Newyorkbrad.
• When a new user attempted to add material sourced to various reputable Nigerian newspapers, Bb23 welcomed them by threatened to block them [15].

Additionally, Tamzin's already brought up some blocks that were overturned due to lack of evidence/justification. Let's look at some more.

• In 2021, Bbb23 blocked two accounts for socking; another admin consulted with a CU, only to discover the accounts weren't related, they'd just both interacted with the same editor.[16].
• In October 2022, a new user was blocked as NOTHERE; after witing a month for Bbb23 to explain why he'd made that call, another admin went ahead and unblocked.
• In June 2023, a new user created a draft about an historic LGBT rights bill from the 1980s. Isn't wasn't perfect, however, so Bbb23 no-warning blocked them as NOTHERE; another admin undid the block and let him know, Bbb23, not grateful somebody had caught an obvious mistake, was annoyed he hadn't been consulted, and told the other admin not to talk about the block further. [17]
• In December 2023, another admin thought that Bbb23 had made a mistake in a block, because he'd blocked somebody for sharing the same name as a long-dead historical figure. He undid the blog and politely let Bbb23 know, Bbb23 responded by sarcastically thanking them for "checking with [him] first." [18].
• In February 2024, another admin asked Bbb23 to explain a block he'd made, because the admin couldn't see any justification for it [19]. Bbb23 refused to respond, despite being active on other parts of the site, so the other admin went ahead an unilaterally unblocked.
• Last June, another admin undid one of Bbb23's blocks because they other admin thought it was "clearly a mistake. There was no abusive use of the two accounts, and I don't see how anyone who has seen your edits could possibly think that they made it "seem like you are multiple people"".[20]. Bbb23 went to the other admin's page and, while explicitly refusing to discuss the blocks themselves, he made it clear he was upset that the other admin had said he made a mistake in the unblock summary.[21]
• Again last summer, another SPI block overturned due to lack of evidence.
• Last November, another SPI blocked overturned by a CU due to complete lack of evidence.

I don't expect this list to be complete, and I do appreciate the point you bring up, Rosguill, about how people who do a lot of actions are likely to have produced a large number of errors or made a large number of errors, and you're also right that there's never going to be a perfect victim. That's not what anybody in this thread is worried about, however; the major issue is the pattern of refusing to adequately explain these mistakes or fix them, or take action to decrease the re-occurrence of mistakes. I mean, he's quite literally not allowed[22][23] to access private data anymore because he can't be trusted to listen to others, play by the rules, or communicate when concerns about his behavior are raised. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 21:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think people have made valid points and am not intending to argue against them, but you may want to review the actual math I described. “25 times” refers to my inflation of Tamzin’s datapoints to reflect the fact that I would expect Tamzin’s anecdotal count of problems to be an undercount, and that inflating the number 25x would estimate a plausible upper bound of problematic cases. At this point, since people are actually providing additional examples, I would encourage people to focus on that, rather than my now-moot napkin estimate of how big the problem might have been. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is stating you refuse to comply with Arbcom decisions not reason for a block or some other serious action, if I said that, I'd expect to be either temporary blocked or even indefed as it would be clear I have no desire to listen. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 01:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am refering to Bbb23 has subsequently communicated to the committee that he is unwilling to comply with these restrictions from the de-CU motion as linked by GreenLipstickLesbian above. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 10:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LakesideMiners, I can’t find what you’re referring to. Who said that, where? Thank you! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-LakesideMiners comment) I assume he is referring to Bbb23 has subsequently communicated to the committee that he is unwilling to comply with these restrictions from the de-CU motion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm referring to, il update the comment to quote that part. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 10:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think a recall election as a de facto Vote of Confidence might be in order here. Carrite (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Administrator recall is a remarkably underutilized venue.  Tewdar  21:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would support a recall. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been around ANI long enough that I tend to take a very jaundiced view of 'admin abuse' claims, but GLL's list above shows a very clear pattern of behavior, and it's not a good one at all. This one, especially - just to use one I clicked on to check - is absolutely beyond the pale. Neither of the edits involved were remotely even conceivable as 'vandalism'; while I'm not sure it's codified explicitly, it's consensus-through-editing at the very least that unfounded accusations of vandalism when applied to clearly good-faith edits, especially when repeated, are considered personal attacks. Given that's just one of the many events compiled there, I'd say that in this case, Bbb23 should consider voluntarily standing for recall, and if they choose not to this is a cromulent case for the community to call for one, because we who are admins need to be better than this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "If an editor treats situations which are not clearly vandalism as such, it may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Are we just waiting for one brave soul to start the recall process page before the rest pile onto the petition? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think several are waiting for Bbb23 to make a more substantive [24] reply and reactions to that. Those who don't want to wait don't have to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No matter what happens, the recall petition is going to happen; I don't think pretending it isn't is very fair to Bbb. Wider discussions about potential steps he can take, or the steps the community will take, to prevent disruption and BITEy behaviour can still happen here, but for now I've started off the petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Bbb23. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 06:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this long discussion is at the wrong venue as no discussion on AN can change any admin's standing. If you are serious about pursuing this, I think this needs to move from a noiceboard to a Recall petition. I'd also like to hear from Bbb23 in response to all of these comments but I can see where they would feel overwhelmed with this current discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  AN has been the primary venue for communal review of potential admin misconduct for 20ish years. I've been dragged here. I imagine you've been dragged here at some point. It's not a pleasant experience, but it's the system the community's settled on, and the existence of RECALL doesn't change that, for two main reasons: 1) There is relatively limited cross-talk at RECALL, and except in straightforward recall cases like the two most recent ones, some amount of discussion is required at another venue first. And 2) A RECALL petition asks a binary question. It doesn't give the community the option to warn an admin or TBAN them. (I'm personally opposed to TBANs of admins, but I imposed one per community consensus the other week, so clearly it's something the community's still open to.) Perhaps most importantly, it doesn't give the community a chance to acquit someone. At RECALL the petition either certifies or doesn't, but there's no option for a closer to say "Consensus is that the admin did nothing wrong".

  All of that is to say, while I'm not opposed to this going to a recall petition, I strongly disagree that AN is the wrong venue, at least at this juncture. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Recall should not be the first port of call for any action, it is somewhat of a last resort sort of thing. CMD (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah; we're usually on similar wavelengths but this time I have to disagree Liz - this is absolutely the correct venue. It's about admin conduct and the evidence presented of misconduct, and establishing if recall is necessary and ofering options to avoid going to recall. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I see your points and withdraw my suggestion. I think I was a little worried at how this discussion seemed to be taking over this noticeboard. But you are all right, this is an appropriate forum for this discussion. Here ends my participation! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to thank @NakajKak: for bringing this here. Is it not likely that, given we know there have been a significant number of unjustified blocks which were rescinded, there have also been unjustified blocks that were not reversed?Boynamedsue (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This block from GLL's list above is genuinely stunning. Not only is the name clearly not an attempt at impersonation, but it's extremely clear from looking at their contribs that this is a normal editor. He doesn't even tell them who they're supposedly impersonating in the block reason! How the hell is someone supposed to respond to such a poor block like that? Parabolist (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They were actively editing an article when they got indeffed too. They never requested an unblock either, unfortunately. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This block on ISSAC CARES was just plain bad. The editor started editing through a contest before successfully transitioned to editing Nigerian individuals. Indef block was applied for promotional username. I googled and the only thing that comes up was Isaac Care (no S), some sort of health app based in Ireland. There is not an edit that the account edited on healthcare. Bbb23 admitted that the block was somewhat wrong, but shifting goalpost to justify the block based on promotional draft pages and questioning the editor's competence. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Which is ultimately the bigger problem here. I don't consider the blocks themselves an issue (we all make mistakes, and even frequent mistakes can be taken as still being in good faith) so much as the amount, but also more importantly, how Bbb23 dealt with criticism of his blocks, which was to deflect blame and find any other reason to make the block not look overzealous. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 19:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Liz: as The Bushranger said, this is absolutely the correct venue. It's the first step the first, the first stop in the process. This is where we determine if further action is needed. ---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations. Before starting the recall petition, I'd like to recommend giving @Bbb23: another day or two to respond to the community's concerns. Perhaps he would do so adquately.

I'd would also recommend that Bbb23 consider stepping down voluntarily. He should then seek feedback concerning his tool use, reflect on the community's concerns, and then formulate a plan to address these concerns. After six months to a year, he could then seek to regain the tools via an election or RRFA.

As an alternative to resignig, he might agree to stop blocking users and work in other areas, at least until he can regain the community's trust. There is much work to do and not enough hands to do it all. Either way, could work on re-engaging postively with the community and look for other ways to improve the encyclopedia. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. The pattern of behavior here shows someone that, at best is routinely driving new editors off the project without a single valid reason. The revocation of CU access and the Ombuds removing his ability to access private data due to his repeated violations of policy and refusal to communicate should've been warning enough. He should be indefinitely blocked immediately until he communicates - parallel to any recall petition (which I would support). Adminship shouldn't be a super Mario effect. If any other user was treating new users the way Bbb23 does even 10% as often, especially after what should have been a warning, they would be blocked indefinitely pending a convincing unblock request. I am honestly shocked that a number of admins have seen this evidence and have not yet imposed an indefinite block on him. There is no need to wait for a recall petition to block for this behavior - and regardless whether he resigns the admin bit or not, the indefinite block should still be imposed for this repetitive abusive behavior towards new users. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion hasn't even been going on for 24 hours. I can tell you are upset here but why the rush to action? The evidence that has been presented has been from the past few years, why does action need to be taken TODAY? For one thing, no decision here on AN would remove admin permissions. And if you are thinking of a community ban, this discussion has to be going on for several days in order to take that action, those are the guidelines we work with. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Berchanhimez: (What Liz said.) Of course. Your emotions are engaged. I've had to step back and deliberate and disengage mine. Nothing is lost in giving Bbb23 time to respond. And a lack of adequate response would be yet another point on which to act. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no harm in an indefinite block to ensure his attention is gotten. He can always be unblocked. Again, any non-admin would’ve been blocked with barely 10% of this evidence provided, much less all of it. Super Mario effect in full force apparently. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to think we would give a non-admin a chance to respond, if this type of report were to be filed at ANI. There is not any ongoing disruption, so 24 hours is a reasonable time frame to wait for a response Isaidnoway (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He’s taken admin actions (namely closing edit warring reports) since being pinged multiple times during this discussion. He’s had time to respond. Again, any other non-admin editor would’ve been blocked for barely 10% of this BITEy behavior. So why isn’t he? The only answer is he has a Super Mario mushroom effect. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So why not gather a lynch mobUnscheduled Public Opinion Poll, if you're not happy with the responses from the other admins here?  Tewdar  08:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any recall petition is completely separate from a block for this behavior and for ignoring this discussion while continuing to edit and even take admin actions. To claim that a “lynch mob” is necessary before an editor can be blocked for behavior as egregious as this is a clear example of the Super Mario effect. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a claim, more of an observation... 😁  Tewdar  08:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To defend Bbb just a little on one specific point, the one admin action he's taken while this thread was open came 10 minutes before I broadened the scope from this trio of overturned blocks to a long-term pattern of behavior. Prior to that point, there was not anything that he would have been expected to reply to here under WP:ADMINACCT, as he'd previously responded in the unblock discussions.

I will be more concerned if he continues to edit—anywhere, but especially in admin areas—without responding here. (At the moment, I imagine he is asleep, if I correctly recall his timezone.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a blunt question, but I promise I’m not trying to be rude. If he edits anywhere other than BN to resign the tools, or starting a self recall, or here to engage - not just in the short term, but until the closure of this thread - will you block him for the behaviors identified to prevent him from continuing them while this discussion is ongoing? It doesn’t matter whether he blocks someone, undoes an edit, warns a new user - the only surefire way to prevent this behavior from recurring is to block him until this discussion resolves. Even still, not blocking immediately and making him form a convincing unblock request is still very much a Super Mario feeling. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm INVOLVED here given the extent of my history with Bbb, and in my experience trying to speculate how I'd feel about something if I weren't INVOLVED doesn't work. So whether I personally would block, no, on that basis. Whether I'd support someone else blocking, I think that would depend on the nature of the edit made. There are at least some circumstances where I could picture myself blocking an admin for sufficiently bad reverts/warnings/blocks while ignoring a noticeboard thread. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your openness and honesty. I understand why you would not necessarily personally do it. But not all admins are involved, and I would like to see any (other) admin who would not agree to this explain why they wouldn’t do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 09:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Bbb23 returns to editing or admin actions without commenting here, I'll probably p-block him from most namespaces. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. jp×g🗯️ 14:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers and JPxG: Thank you both for calming my fear that there wasn't an admin willing to take on this action if it becomes necessary. I have been thinking of how to word this to not sound sarcastic or rude to you both since I saw these replies this morning, but this is the best I came up with. I'll add that if a p-block is necessary I think User Talk (oversevere warnings) and Article (reversions) are important, as that's where most of the BITEy behavior has happened. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain a pblock from User talk would mean he would be unable to appeal his block or speak to involved users/admins on his talk page? So TPA revoked... which, as things currently stand, would not be the best course of action. Patient Zero^talk 01:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure, Tamzin, but at the same time, I don't think it's unreasonable to say he should have responded to this thread itself regardless of whether the extra context was added. It is, after all, a concern about his behavior, even by the original description provided by the user starting the thread. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 08:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to be advocating for a block here for block's sake. He has, to his credit, at least stopped blocking people since the discussion has begun, so I don't think it would really prevent anything to block him at the current time. I do think however, that recall is an option that should be considered, given there's not much AN can sufficiently impose, given the admin in question has been brought to noticeboards before, has repeatedly continued their misuse of the tools, and has had tools that are socially tied to adminship (checkuser, which can be held by a non-admin, but practically never will be) revoked for cause because they couldn't stop running unwarranted checks, which also resulted in their identified status being revoked by the Ombuds. It is not consistent with the conduct expected of administrators to allow Bbb23 to continue in this manner. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 08:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You point out exactly the reason a block is necessary. Enough is enough. Repeated warnings and rudeness towards other admins questioning actions that are blatantly inappropriate. Indefinite is not infinite. He should not be allowed to make any edit not directly related to commenting on this case until it is resolved. Any other editor would’ve been blocked with 10% of the evidence presented until they convinced the community (or uninvolved admins) they should be unblocked. Super Mario effect in full force. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would err on the side of patience, if only to avoid jumping to a conclusion that could be construed as adequate sanction in future discussions. ClifV (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tewdar: Your suggestion has merit, but the characterization is horrid and beneath you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which characterization? Lynch mob? That's just me arsing around. I'll probably be one of the pitchfork-wielders.  Tewdar  08:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, any other non-admin editor with barely 10% of this evidence against them would’ve been blocked indefinitely posthaste. There’s a clear Super Mario effect here. Bbb23 has driven dozens off this project. An indefinite block is not infinite. He is free to provide his response on his talkpage even while blocked, and if the community accepts it, then he can be unblocked to either resign or contribute to this discussion. At worst, it’ll get his attention and force him to engage - I’ll note he’s edited multiple times throughout the last 24 hours even with multiple pings here. And bluntly, the rush to action is exactly what he’s done to dozens of new editors. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: I should of course point out that Bbb23 has certainly seen the notification and has continued to edit in spite of it. It's a short editing bit, sure, but after they were made aware of this discussion, they also made time to do some housekeeping on their talk page, and decline an edit warring report. They have not, however, made even the slightest comment that they intend to respond, nor have they made an actual response. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 08:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{For the middle of the night, this thread is awful busy.) Struck the wait part. That ship's sailed and hit an iceberg. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a lot of ways this ends without recall anymore. Maybe a topic ban from blocks or counter-vandalism as a whole? That would probably work, but might be leaving enough out that Bbb's behavior continues. A site ban would be a clear overreaction. An Iban isn't really possible, given how far their BITEy behavior seems to stretch. And no sanctions at all seems like a ship that has far sailed already. I very much doubt this thread ends without at minimum a sanction of some form for Bbb23, and possibly including his desysop. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 08:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know if I'd received all this I'd run away too. It's not going to be an easy simple answer, is it? Secretlondon (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You remember Mike V too then, Secretlondon... —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but we're supposed to be accountable for our actions. Remaining silent is going to draw criticism for not admitting fault and apologizing. At the same time, though, I can see why one might (rightfully) be hesitant to respond in order to not say anything further incriminating. Damned if you do, damned if you don't... —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm always accountable but the evidence isn't recent and the hanging judges scare me. I do wonder why someone who is not trusted with checkuser etc is still an admin though. Secretlondon (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Secretlondon More recent evidence? That's not an unfair request. How about we look at some stuff from the past week or so? For example, on [[25]], he blocked a new editor somehow both as NOTHERE, and for "creating crappy drafts and articles"; to the best of my knowledge, the the editor had created three six articles about various species of mollusks, and one six poor quality (but fully understandable, verifiable, and notable articles) on mollusks in mainspace. Again, the editor clearly doesn't write very well, but their writing is understandable and it doesn't merit a no-warning indef.

Or how about on 2025-05-27, when he no warning blocked an editor for uploading high-quality photos they had taken, because a google search revealed that the editor was a professional photographer. The block had to be undone by another admin. For ease of reference, these are some of the images that Bbb23 rolled back from articles with an edit summary pointing to the fact that they were taken by the user.[26][27][28] GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone wanting to look at the first case, I think it's 2025-05-30. NebY (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that block of the photographer is bananas ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with standing mute is it is part of a pattern of inadequate responses and non responses. I have implored Bbb23 to respond here. Waiting. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"everyone makes mistakes, it's a one-off, they were having a bad day, nobody's perfect, I'm not seeing a pattern here, it wasn't acceptable but it wasn't actually misuse of the tools, you've got a chip on your shoulder, and so on and so forth". Until one day the pile of things that weren't dealt with at the time becomes an avalanche, and then it's "Oh, there's so much it's bludgeoning, they'll run away, you can't expect someone to deal with so much detail all at once...." DuncanHill (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"It is imperative"[29] is not quite imploring. NebY (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: I blame myself for not hauling him to AN myself. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: I wasn't pointing the finger at any individual, but at the culture. But that is very decent of you to say so. "What could - indeed should - I have done better?" is a question we must all ask ourselves, and not once but often. DuncanHill (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned is a good essay about this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And to be honest, this thread would have been perfectly adequate in pointing out the (clear) issues and asking for a reply from Bbb23, without several shouty tricoteuses demanding we burn the witch right now. You're not helping, you know. Black Kite (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen a fair number of early suspicious activities blossom into full-scale blockable destruction, I sympathize with Bbb23's actions (though I would agree that they should have engaged and warned more often). Ironically, there is an absence of talk of engaging and warning going on here. The sanction here should be a clear warning, and a requirement for engagement before blocking. BD2412 T 14:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb was warned in many of these instances, through criticism by peers and through admins and ANI consensuses overruling his blocks. Bbb is clearly aware that having a block overruled reflects poorly on an admin; that's why he's complained about it in cases like [30] and [31]. He's been on notice for years—starting with ArbCom and OmbComm/Legal stripping him of CU/NDA access in 2020—that his attitude toward adminning was fundamentally unacceptable. His response has always been some combination of insisting he was right, saying no harm was done, or blowing off people who complained. I do commiserate with Bbb's unenviable position, presented with a litany of past violations of admin policies to answer to. But let's not pretend he's in that situation because no one ever told him he was making mistakes. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest, then, a very specific warning that use of controversial blocks will lead to loss of the bit with which to make blocks. Nothing described here quite amounts to that yet. BD2412 T 20:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing described here quite amounts to that yet." I think it has though. From Tamzin's and GreenLipstickLesbian's evidence, Bbb23 has a history of accusing people of being socks with flimsy evidence, accused people of vandalism with edits that aren't vandalism, been stubborn about his blocks, and it could be argued that he has driven away people from the project. There's a lot of smoke here, and where there's smoke, there's fire. Like I said below, I don't know if I fully support a recall, but Bbb23 has exhibited way too many lapses in judgement to be let off with essentially a very hard smack on the wrist with a recall/desysop without addressing the fundamental behavioral issue here. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 20:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Where there's smoke, there's fire" is rather ironic when accusing Bbb23 of accusing people with flimsy evidence. NebY (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 isn't being accused of making a higher-than-normal amount of oopsie-daisy mistakes which he always apologizes for afterwards -- he's being accused of repeatedly issuing abusive blocks and then refusing to acknowledge them when confronted, time after time, over and over. If he can't be trusted to make good decisions or take accountability while using one tool, why would he be trusted with any of the others? —tony^{st (talk)} 21:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Bbb23, I hope you'll take the opportunity to respond here. To the other: Bbb is one of my oldest on-wiki friends so I'm as involved as can be. I value his contributions to our beautiful project and I'd hate to see it without him. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would he want to respond anyway? Frankly speaking, simply going offline and having a break from wikipedia is nothing new, lots of editors have done it. Bbb is just trying to do admin things, and every so often people get pissed off at admins. If anything admins are more under the microscope than anyone else. All this whipping of tails is doing no one any good and I can't believe how much of this topic I've read. This aggression towards Bbb23 is tantamount and the way I see it, it's somewhat bullying and we shouldn't have any form of bullying on wikipedia, yet I am seeing it right now. People need to cool down and leave each other alone. Govvy (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Govvy: Wikipedia:Communication is required. Worgisbor (congregate) 17:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:ADMINACCT ClifV (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Govvy: "People need to cool down and leave each other alone", that's the recipe for disaster. Admins are supposed to be accountable for their actions. Luis7M (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

we shouldn't have any form of bullying on wikipedia is probably something that the editors blocked without warning or cause would have liked to hear us saying years ago. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Came to say exactly this. Apparently because he’s an admin he can’t be bullied but should be free to bully new/non-admin editors who had potential to be constructive editors all he wants, many of whom (as far as we know) just ran away and never came back. If he had cooled down and left these users alone, they may still be here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• At 2012-09-21T22:05:19, Bbb23 blocked my account for edit warring. It was a good block. I have not been blocked for edit warring since. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I still feel like we need to try a last bit of intervention before going to a recall. Something along the lines of "Hey Bbb23, looking at the AN thread, there is pretty widespread agreement that you're blocking too harshly, and a strong undercurrent of 'enough is enough'. I think if you don't dial it down quite a bit, a recall petition is likely gonna be started, and I'm fairly sure it would pass the threshold. Don't want to lose you as an admin". And then see what happens. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, please this. His commitment to protecting Wikipedia against vandals, socks, and other bad actors is unmatched. Losing him as an admin would be devastating for the project. If his approach needs to change, let’s work with him. This would be an ideal time for him to stop by and let us know he’s willing to listen and work towards a resolution. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Floquenbeam, the time to say that is now, if you'd be kind enough to post on Bbb23's talk page directly. This is the first 24hr period he's gone without any edits since at least mid-May (which is when I stopped looking, so the continuous activity may go back much further). He almost certainly knows this discussion is happening. He may not know you're trying to give him an offramp. -- asilvering (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant it more as a proposed closing summary of this thread, not as a threat to force him to come here. But sure, I'll say something on his talk page in case it helps. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I certainly didn't mean you should word it as a threat. I mean to say that the editors who have been pointing out that this might feel like it's all too much to look at right now, they certainly have a point, and it might be encouraging for him to know that there are people trying to offer him an exit that doesn't involve handing in the mop or getting blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  He should absolutely be given a chance to respond and to self-correct if possible. But the thread should not be closed until he does so, here, and people have a chance to respond to it. Otherwise it's kicking the can down the road and could easily be seen as doing so in the hopes it will go away. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And ultimately he should be treated like any other editor. If any other editor had such a massive, repetitive problem with abusing new editors, even after being warned (the CU removal), they would be blocked until they communicated. If he does not return and explain himself here within a reasonable time frame (maybe a week at most), or if he continues to edit elsewhere before doing so, he should be indeffed until he does so. Otherwise, even if a RECALL is started and passes, he will just be able to return 3 months from now and continue abusing new editors with false and over-severe warnings. Just because he may not have the power to block them any longer does not mean he should be allowed to just shy away, lose the bit, and then come back later to repeat the behaviors involved. That's the meaning of the Super Mario effect and why I pointed it out above. Any other editor would've been blocked to prevent further abuse of new editors after this history of doing it to dozens of new editors. I can understand wanting to see what he does next, but if I had done even 10% of the things mentioned, I'd expect to be blocked for BITEy behavior until I explained myself. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Did the CU removal expressly warn against excessive or aggressive blocks? BD2412 T 03:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking over this thread, I think this is a great reminder to administrators to come up for air frequently. I think it's easy for admins to get really jaded if they constantly deal with socks and vandals so often. I'm not an admin here but I have been a moderator on forums in the past and sometimes you do get jaded from dealing with people, and so taking breaks is really beneficial. I think Bbb23 has dealt with so many socks/vandals that it's coloring his admining. Of course that doesn't excuse accusing people of being socks with flimsy evidence or accusing people of being vandals willy nilly or his stubbornness in regards to his blocks, but from a psychological point of view I get it. On the other hand however there's enough lapses in judgement here by Bbb23 that I think an explanation is due and a commitment to altering how he addresses people and his blocking habits. I don't know if I fully support a recall right now but I think Bbb23 is on the precipice of one if there's no commitment to altering his behavior. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 19:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I had enough abuse when I was an admin on a game and forums for Sierra Entertainment all those years ago, puts you off having to be an admin on social systems. So I can understand the strain around this situation, everyone makes mistakes and can be overhanded. I don't know how long I've been on wikipedia for, but I feel it's funny when people point me to wiki-templates and such these days. Maybe Bbb23 has gone for a long walk, but seeing people constantly post to his talk page, he would have been pinged enough, so to those editors that have. Maybe give it a break. Govvy (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am aware of this thread. I haven't commented here because it looked to me like a negative outcome was all but certain. I am commenting now because some users on my Talk page have asked me to do so, either explicitly or implicitly stating that the outcome was not necessarily certain. In particular, Newyorkbrad said "And if you are taking a little time offline to gather your thoughts before responding, that is reasonable, but you should say so." That is what I will now do before responding more substantively.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The actions of Bbb23 seem more like bullying to me. Brash blocks along with new editors who stopped editing following threats by Bbb23. By contrast, this thread is not bullying. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• With regret, I would support an admin recall petition. Before I begin, I do appreciate Bbb23 helping out with blocks when it comes to the matters of difficult/pervasive socking and LTA cases. However, Tamzin and GreenLipstickLesbian have presented some rather compelling evidence of Bbb23 using blocks in a punitive (rather than preventative) manner, and being especially harsh towards newcomers. This is not behaviour we should tolerate in an admin, and I agree with Berchanhimez' points that any other editor here would be blocked for doing the same thing or similar over a significant length of time. I found myself at the receiving end of a bit of a strange interaction with Bbb23 recently, for what it's worth; I recognise they were being polite to me (ie. they did say what I said was "really helpful", and they thanked me), but after I took the time to explain to someone why they were blocked and how they could stand a chance of being welcomed back into the community, I received a message from Bbb23, who was not the blocking admin, telling me that they would not ordinarily approve of a non-admin such as myself commenting on the User talk page of a blocked editor. Whilst the communication was otherwise very pleasant in tone, and I see that as an indication that Bbb23 and I are amicable with one another, I did feel it created an "us vs. them" effect, when my intent was purely to help out. In fact, I think it's the "us vs. them" effect that runs deep within this very admin accountability case - the idea that non-admins - especially newcomers, in this case - can be treated as less-than in some way, and thus be subject to harsher standards. Like I say, this is regrettable, and it saddens me to come here and say this. But this has been going on for far too long and something needs to be done, because otherwise it really does look like we are quietly tolerating newcomers being bitten, and driven away from the project, and quiet tolerance makes us part of the problem, whether we want to admit that or not. Patient Zero^talk 02:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you support an admin recall petition, why don't you start one and be the first signer? Are people here afraid to start an admin recall petition or something? Some1 (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyone could pose the same question to you, Some1. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Did I say I support an admin recall petition in this case? Some1 (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it is of importance that we also hear from Bbb23 on this matter and, given that they have already made clear that they need some time away to gather their thoughts in order to formulate a response, I am going to respect that. I do think it is probably best that we hear from them sooner rather than later, though. However, what I will say is that a lot of the evidence provided is somewhat historic (albeit relevant, as it highlights a chronic, intractable behaviour problem) and, whilst Bbb23 is away, we can be reassured that further blocks of this nature will not occur in that time period. I do think that this case needs dealing with promptly and should not be dragged out, but it is only fair to allow Bbb23 to be able to express their thoughts on this, without being overly hasty in responding, as that runs the risk of inadvertently coming across as brusque. Patient Zero^talk 03:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]