"A clusterf**k of heavy-handed admins abusing tools": The RHaworth Arbcom case

[DexterPointy]

Administrators' Noticeboard : How many things can go wrong in one WP:BITE incident?

[Black Kite]

You know that face you pull with one eye slightly closed and your mouth curled up to express "WTF?" That's me looking at RHaworth's decision to A7 that article in the first place, which caused the whole sequence of events.

[DexterPointy]

You know that face you pull with one eye slightly closed and your mouth curled up to express "WTF?" That's me looking at RHaworth's decision to A7 that article in the first place, which caused the whole sequence of events.

The ("dubious"-smiley) is reasonably close to such a facial expression :-)

[Midsize Jake]

Interesting problem. The A7 justification isn't totally off-base if the awards and honors this person (a female Indian architect) only rise to the level of stuff like this, since she probably wouldn't pass notability under WP:ARCHITECT. Still, at the risk of turning this into yet another of those threads, her being female might help if the people doing the gatekeeping work (such as RHaworth (T-C-L), in this case) were on-board with the WMF's stated goal of having more BLPs about women, but they haven't been in the past, so...

I'd have to say that Bbb23's actions are probably the more egregious here, except that by strict interpretation of the rules, he's correct about the fact that it doesn't really matter that the two accounts operated in completely different timeframes, they're still sock-puppets under the WP definition. Of course, this is exactly why Bbb23 (T-C-L) shouldn't be handling all the CheckUser cases, and it's also exactly why he is handling them.

From Fram's perspective, it's unfortunate that this incident couldn't have involved someone who'd be more likely to pass the notability criteria, because a lot of people will see this as a waste of time (since the article wouldn't survive an AfD). But if that were the case, then RHaworth probably wouldn't have put the tag on in the first place and (obviously) this wouldn't have happened.

[BrillLyle]

I like the idea that there is discussion from the point of providing that newbies get help and learn versus get aggressively punished like this.

It was / is one of my biggest pet peeves about editing with regards to new people.

They don't understand WIKI:Rulez, and most of the time, the pushback and AfD is not meant to help them improve the page, learn how to be a better editor, or even just understand the basics.

it's about punishment and how big is my p#nis gar-bage.

Most people are NOT idiots (no matter what my pessimistic black hearted soul thinks). If you set them up for success, support them, give them the tools and resources, explain the conventions -- they can thrive.

But that's assuming that some A-hole like BBB23 isn't on attack dog mode. He's the problem here. He creates the problem, him and his thugs. He should be banned for his repeated bad faith behavior.

I could probably generate this entry and make sure it was notable, but you know.... #WMFGlobalBanned

And to be clear, this is like catnip to me. At so many editathons where I WikiFacilitated, I'd go home and rescue pages, make sure the subjects had notability reinforced, and just do a general FU to jerky editors like BBB23.

- Erika

[Jans Hammer]

Off to Arbcom:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... e#RHaworth

[DexterPointy]

Off to Arbcom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... e#RHaworth

Wherein Fram gave Statement, causing WormThatTurned awareness regarding Bbb23's CU usage (abusage, as noted in the AN; the "How many things can go wrong in one WP:BITE incident?"-AN thread).

[Pudeo]

There is plenty of recent discontent towards Bbb23, in this April 2019 ANI thread Swarm even stated: "Bbb's authoritarian attitude at his personal fiefdom of SPI is nothing new, but refusing to be accountable as an administrator crosses a bright line."

But Bbb23 is the CU, so better not publicly cross him or you won't get help if you have to deal with socks.

[Black Kite]

Interesting problem. The A7 justification isn't totally off-base if the awards and honors this person (a female Indian architect) only rise to the level of stuff like this, since she probably wouldn't pass notability under WP:ARCHITECT.

When you're tagging something as A7 though, notability is not the question. It's whether the article "credibly suggests importance or significance". A7 even says "This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability."

As peacocky as that article was at that time, the sources include an entire interview with The Hindu (enough for it not to be an A7 on its own) which include the statement "renowned architect", an article from a construction industry magazine which isn't about her but which calls her an "eminent architect", and another which looks reliable which says "With over 71 International, National and State Awards for Architecture..."

It isn't an A7 in a million years. A7 is for "Dave Smith is the best carpenter in Manchester" stuff.

[The Garbage Scow]

Bbb23 is the new Betacommand. An emotionless robot who continually steps all over people and violates the spirit of the project but is allowed to do so because "he does useful work others don't want to do".

And a lot of CUblocks are done against accounts as Fram describes. Simply having multiple accounts isn't a blockable offense, particularly if you abandon one and start using a new one. There's a ton of assumption of bad faith going on over there on a daily basis. And they create embittered enemies by doing this to people.

[Poetlister]

It isn't an A7 in a million years. A7 is for "Dave Smith is the best carpenter in Manchester" stuff.

This is the problem with the speedy deletion system. An A7 is anything that a passing admin decides within 20 seconds is an A7. I realise that speedies are necessary; if everything had to go to AfD, the system would be overwhelmed. But it would be good if some method for double checking all speedies could be arranged. For a start, fewer new editors whose first articles are trashed would leave in a huff.

[Randy from Boise]

Bbb23 is the new Betacommand. An emotionless robot who continually steps all over people and violates the spirit of the project but is allowed to do so because "he does useful work others don't want to do".

Maybe he's the old Betacommand.........

RfB

[The Garbage Scow]

Bbb23 is the new Betacommand. An emotionless robot who continually steps all over people and violates the spirit of the project but is allowed to do so because "he does useful work others don't want to do".

Maybe he's the old Betacommand.........

RfB

Could be? If true Bbb23 would be a pretty old sock, having been created in 2008, right around the time BC was taken to AN/I and blocked for violating editing restrictions. BC started editing in 2005. He most recently tried to appeal his arbcom block in March of this year

[ShinkawaGirl]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#RHaworth (T-H-L)
Case against RHaworth (T-C-L)
RHaworth is being wrongly targeted a very good admin clearly see no reason to desysop



Moderator's Note: This post was merged into an existing private thread, which was then moved to a publicly-visible forum, pursuant to the two posts immediately below this one. We apologize for any confusion or sleepless nights this might have caused.

[Midsize Jake]

Now that this is an ArbCom case, would anyone object to moving this thread out into the public forums, and maybe retitling it? I don't think there's anything especially confidentiality-worthy here, is there?

[DexterPointy]

Now that this is an ArbCom case, would anyone object to moving this thread out into the public forums, and maybe retitling it? I don't think there's anything especially confidentiality-worthy here, is there?

The only reason for this having been started in the so called "private" part, was due to the "Wikimedian Folks ..."-section seeming to be the most suitable category name for it. I suppose that it could be moved to the "Governance"-section.

As to title change, then maybe: "Fram @ AN ➔ TonyBallioni @ Arb-Request ➔ Arb-Case, on: RHaworth, Bbb23"

[Osborne]

Wherein Fram gave Statement, causing WormThatTurned awareness regarding Bbb23's CU usage (abusage, as noted in the AN; the "How many things can go wrong in one WP:BITE incident?"-AN thread).

Kudos to Fram for knowing the checkuser policy better than Bbb23 himself.

Bbb23 is the new Betacommand. An emotionless robot who continually steps all over people and violates the spirit of the project but is allowed to do so because "he does useful work others don't want to do".
And a lot of CUblocks are done against accounts as Fram describes. Simply having multiple accounts isn't a blockable offense, particularly if you abandon one and start using a new one. There's a ton of assumption of bad faith going on over there on a daily basis. And they create embittered enemies by doing this to people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =374061528

My biggest disappointment with Wikipedia is the level of incivility and aggression on the part of some established editors and admins. -- 01:27, 18 July 2010

Administrator burnout is a serious issue. Less than 9 years turned this good faith editor into the most aggressive admin of recent years, without any respect for the community or his former values.

Informing RHaworth that "You can be desysopped for such an action." was unnecessary to resolve the disagreement. It served only one purpose: to threaten an admin. Not many editors can do that and walk away... Unfortunately for Bbb23 this seems to be the norm.
"Admins need to be held to higher standards." We'll see if that happens.

A note about Bbb: "You can be desysopped for not answering inquiries per WP:ADMINACCT." Both RH and Bbb violated adminacct, so the same threat to Bbb would be appropriate. Not that it would happen.
Accountability is a tad bit more important than the bureaucratic distinction between CU and regular blocks. The latter is only a technicality - who has access to the relevant evidence -, however, Bbb gives more importance to that distinction than accountability in general. His interpretation - that this incident is worthy of a desysop - is not written in policy. That interpretation gives unbalanced power to CUs over regular admins. One can imagine that is the true motivation behind creating all this drama.

It seems RHaworth was very sloppy and Bbb23 overzealous as usual. It's indeed time to review both their actions and give some training about civility, adminacct and making informed decisions. However, weaponizing this overblown incident to desysop an admin - to clarify: Bbb23 was the first to "overblow" it by threatening with desysop -, would just further Bbb's and his friends' power over enwiki. It's not surprising, that it was TonyBallioni, who quickly escalated the incident to arbitration: not the first time they work in concert. Unfortunately, that approach won't make the editing environment "safer" for regular users.

[Alex Shih]

Hmm, the usual suspects goes all out protecting Bbb23 again. English Wikipedia ArbCom is and should be the place to review English Wikipedia functionaries actions, if there is credible evidence on a pattern of misbehavior.

[ShinkawaGirl]

Please remember to view any specific admin action of mine in the light of the total number of my actions. Surely I am allowed to make a few "mistakes"?
— RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

RHaworth (T-C-L) has done over 500000 or half a Million deletions that is 505347 deletions to be spot on since ages ago 2005 only MZMcBride (T-C-L) has done more .User:JamesR/AdminStats (T-H-L)Now maybe 5000 or even 10000 are contested deletions. But 95% are spot on. See no reason to desysop.

[el84]

It seems that a separate case would need to be raised to discuss the actions of Bbb23 and Sr. Baloney as they've lawyered their way out of being discussed in this case, despite being heavily involved in it.

But as soon as someone tries to bring the case up, the "Friends Of..." committee will jump in to turn it against whoever submits the case, I bet.

ETA: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =374061528

I found that diff quite hilarious in context.

[BrillLyle]

Please remember to view any specific admin action of mine in the light of the total number of my actions. Surely I am allowed to make a few "mistakes"?
— RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

RHaworth (T-C-L) has done over 500000 or half a Million deletions that is 505347 deletions to be spot on since ages ago 2005 only MZMcBride (T-C-L) has done more .User:JamesR/AdminStats (T-H-L)Now maybe 5000 or even 10000 are contested deletions. But 95% are spot on. See no reason to desysop.

Why make so many deletions?!? This boggles the mind. It's to up edit counts and make it look like they are impactful contributors, right?

I REALLY don't like deletionists. As someone who worked really hard to make actual contributions and build up pages this always chapped my ass. This is A LOT of deletions.

It's also very easy to strip a page of content. It's much more difficult to shape and add to pages that need the TLC. Okay I'll get off my soapbox here..... (but still!)....



- Erika

[ShinkawaGirl]

Please remember to view any specific admin action of mine in the light of the total number of my actions. Surely I am allowed to make a few "mistakes"?
— RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

RHaworth (T-C-L) has done over 500000 or half a Million deletions that is 505347 deletions to be spot on since ages ago 2005 only MZMcBride (T-C-L) has done more .User:JamesR/AdminStats (T-H-L)Now maybe 5000 or even 10000 are contested deletions. But 95% are spot on. See no reason to desysop.

Why make so many deletions?!? This boggles the mind. It's to up edit counts and make it look like they are impactful contributors, right?

I REALLY don't like deletionists. As someone who worked really hard to make actual contributions and build up pages this always chapped my ass. This is A LOT of deletions.

It's also very easy to strip a page of content. It's much more difficult to shape and add to pages that need the TLC. Okay I'll get off my soapbox here..... (but still!)....



- Erika

99% OF THE DELETIONS WERE NOMINATED OR TAGGED BY OTHERS.

[DexterPointy]

Bbb23 on 18.Jul.2010 (as found by Osborne above) :

My biggest disappointment with Wikipedia is the level of incivility and aggression on the part of some established editors and admins. I get the sense that some relatively new editors leave as a result of these attitudes, and I've already come perilously close to doing so as well on a few occasions. I find it ironic that many of these same editors happily display tags and comments about civility on their user pages. I guess they don't practice what they preach.

Bbb23 forgot his roots, and its possibly a case of the classic "power corrupts" phenomenon.

There is plenty of recent discontent towards Bbb23, in this April 2019 ANI thread Swarm even stated: "Bbb's authoritarian attitude at his personal fiefdom of SPI is nothing new, but refusing to be accountable as an administrator crosses a bright line."

I read all of that April 2019 ANI thread, and then some.

Well, I know that Bbb23 has been seen to enact blocks & bans beyond what's supported by evidence, but there's a far far greater problem: Bbb23 fails communicating. - It should absolutely not be necessary to drag an Admin or CU to ANI, simply to find out what & why the fuck something was done, or was not done.

[Poetlister]

It should absolutely not be necessary to drag an Admin or CU to ANI, simply to find out what & why the fuck something was done, or was not done.

Certainly that flies in the face of Wikipedia's alleged transparency. I suppose that ideally, each admin should have a page where they explain why they did what they did. But how many admins, even the best, would want the bother of that?

[DexterPointy]

It should absolutely not be necessary to drag an Admin or CU to ANI, simply to find out what & why the fuck something was done, or was not done.

Certainly that flies in the face of Wikipedia's alleged transparency. I suppose that ideally, each admin should have a page where they explain why they did what they did. But how many admins, even the best, would want the bother of that?

The technically details of choosing channel(s) for communication, isn't the major concern, but: Talk pages work fine, either used for direct contact or for pointing to somewhere else (e.g. SPI-page, or Talk page thereof).

The major concern is to be contactable & approachable - willing & able to explain, elaborate, and enlighten whomever the relevant user(s) might be, for any given action, or process in progress.

A recurring theme in RfAs, is the attitude & ability regarding communication. E.g.: Keeping a cool head, and ability to deescalate things, resolving conflicts as satisfactory as possible for all involved parties, patiently working with everyone, in writing (not requiring people to read minds, or have pre-existing knowledge of WP's strange idiosyncrasies, bureaucracies, and rulezzz).

(Yeah, well, and Admins should undergo an RfA more than once in their lifetime.)

[Osborne]

Well, I know that Bbb23 has been seen to enact blocks & bans beyond what's supported by evidence, but there's a far far greater problem: Bbb23 fails communicating. - It should absolutely not be necessary to drag an Admin or CU to ANI, simply to find out what & why the fuck something was done, or was not done.

The major concern is to be contactable & approachable - willing & able to explain, elaborate, and enlighten whomever the relevant user(s) might be, for any given action, or process in progress.

That sounds like a utopian dream compared to the present reality. Although this wasn't the intention all the way. WP:ADMINACCT (T-H-L) still requires admins to communicate and justify their actions:

Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed.

More specifically in the case of blocks:

Blocking is a serious matter. The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgement and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested.

Bbb23 consistently and frequently fails to follow these policies. Many editors have asked him many times to explain his decisions. He just ignores the question until it's archived. Occasionally he intimidates the inquirer to avoid any further questions.
The rules are there, just simply ignored.

A recurring theme in RfAs, is the attitude & ability regarding communication. E.g.: Keeping a cool head, and ability to deescalate things, resolving conflicts as satisfactory as possible for all involved parties, patiently working with everyone, in writing (not requiring people to read minds, or have pre-existing knowledge of WP's strange idiosyncrasies, bureaucracies, and rulezzz).
(Yeah, well, and Admins should undergo an RfA more than once in their lifetime.)

Indeed. Every few years. Too many burns out, but keep going, despite the lost good faith. They don't realize the damage and toxicity they cause.

[Eric Corbett]

It should absolutely not be necessary to drag an Admin or CU to ANI, simply to find out what & why the fuck something was done, or was not done.

Certainly that flies in the face of Wikipedia's alleged transparency. I suppose that ideally, each admin should have a page where they explain why they did what they did. But how many admins, even the best, would want the bother of that?

None, and understandably so as they're unpaid. Not, that I'm advocating that admins should be paid; I'd be far more likely to advocate that they should all be put up against a wall and shot, metaphorically of course.

As for Bbb23, he's simply a disgrace, to himself and to Wikipedia.

[Osborne]

None, and understandably so as they're unpaid. Not, that I'm advocating that admins should be paid;
As for Bbb23, he's simply a disgrace, to himself and to Wikipedia.

If you think about it rationally: spending upwards of 7*8 hours a week on wikipedia does not allow for a job. So to provide for themselves (and their family, if there is one), always-online admins and editors have to find ways to monetize their activity. The community would be more healthy and the encyclopedia less biased, if the source of that income would be the wmf, not some wealthy people or corporations asking for favors: pov-pushing, whitewashing, etc.

The most active admins and editors actually should be employed by wmf to avoid this kind of corruption. It would be an interesting change in the culture.

[Eric Corbett]

If you think about it rationally: spending upwards of 7*8 hours a week on wikipedia does not allow for a job. So to provide for themselves (and their family, if there is one), always-online admins and editors have to find ways to monetize their activity. The community would be more healthy and the encyclopedia less biased, if the source of that income would be the wmf, not some wealthy people or corporations asking for favors: pov-pushing, whitewashing, etc.

What sort of contract of employment would you draw up for these administrators and editors? What would be your hiring and firing policies? What about holiday and sick pay?

The corruption in Wikipedia is endemic, and like every fish it rots from the head. Jimbo Wales isn't employed by the WMF, but he makes far more than any of them do by just talking about it.

[Osborne]

If you think about it rationally: spending upwards of 7*8 hours a week on wikipedia does not allow for a job. So to provide for themselves (and their family, if there is one), always-online admins and editors have to find ways to monetize their activity. The community would be more healthy and the encyclopedia less biased, if the source of that income would be the wmf, not some wealthy people or corporations asking for favors: pov-pushing, whitewashing, etc.

What sort of contract of employment would you draw up for these administrators and editors? What would be your hiring and firing policies? What about holiday and sick pay?

Those questions are worthy of another thread, if not more. This suggestion raises many difficult questions, that I'm not prepared to try to answer (feel free to start a thread for that), thus my intent with this is only to raise awareness of the failure in the system: a stable societal structure is not feasible without funding to those, who take responsibility for the hard tasks. As a result, nobody takes responsibility (volunteers aren't "required" to do anything - says the ideology) to resolve difficulties, such as incivility, harassment, abuse. The ignored issues pile up and form a toxic cesspool, as outsiders used to say. That's the systemic issue that all editors suffer - whether realizing it or being so used to it, that it looks normal.

The corruption in Wikipedia is endemic, and like every fish it rots from the head. Jimbo Wales isn't employed by the WMF, but he makes far more than any of them do by just talking about it.

Like that. I've tried to pursue the T&S to develop transparency in their activity and show a good example to the communities. I don't think they understood what I was talking about. Like these words - transparency, accountability - were not in their vocabulary.

[10920]

Bbb heavy-handed? Never.

[Eric Corbett]

I've tried to pursue the T&S to develop transparency in their activity and show a good example to the communities. I don't think they understood what I was talking about. Like these words - transparency, accountability - were not in their vocabulary.

I'm quite certain that they are, but like other WikiWords they're redefined by the thoughts of chairman Humpty Dumpty.

[10920]

Bbb23 is the new Betacommand. An emotionless robot who continually steps all over people and violates the spirit of the project but is allowed to do so because "he does useful work others don't want to do".

And a lot of CUblocks are done against accounts as Fram describes. Simply having multiple accounts isn't a blockable offense, particularly if you abandon one and start using a new one. There's a ton of assumption of bad faith going on over there on a daily basis. And they create embittered enemies by doing this to people.

Bbb was way off base blocking all the accounts based on sockpuppetry.

Plenty of current accounts editing have had multiple known previous accounts, but no one blocks, because they've stopped editing with the prior accounts.

Way past time for Bbb to join Betacommand.

[Eric Corbett]

Bbb was way off base blocking all the accounts based on sockpuppetry.

Plenty of current accounts editing have had multiple known previous accounts, but no one blocks, because they've stopped editing with the prior accounts.

Way past time for Bbb to join Betacommand.

I don't think that consistency or honesty has ever been at the forefront of whatever it is Bbb23 uses in lieu of a brain. Mindless vindictivness would be nearer the mark, and he's by no means the only one. Checkuser is a corrupt system employed by corrupted and unaccountable individuals, who protect themselves and each other by never revealing whatever it is that they use in place of evidence.

[The Garbage Scow]

Bbb was way off base blocking all the accounts based on sockpuppetry.

Plenty of current accounts editing have had multiple known previous accounts, but no one blocks, because they've stopped editing with the prior accounts.

Way past time for Bbb to join Betacommand.

I don't think that consistency or honesty has ever been at the forefront of whatever it is Bbb23 uses in lieu of a brain. Mindless vindictivness would be nearer the mark, and he's by no means the only one. Checkuser is a corrupt system employed by corrupted and unaccountable individuals, who protect themselves and each other by never revealing whatever it is that they use in place of evidence.

His operates much like a lizard's brain.

[Eric Corbett]

Bbb was way off base blocking all the accounts based on sockpuppetry.

Plenty of current accounts editing have had multiple known previous accounts, but no one blocks, because they've stopped editing with the prior accounts.

Way past time for Bbb to join Betacommand.

I don't think that consistency or honesty has ever been at the forefront of whatever it is Bbb23 uses in lieu of a brain. Mindless vindictivness would be nearer the mark, and he's by no means the only one. Checkuser is a corrupt system employed by corrupted and unaccountable individuals, who protect themselves and each other by never revealing whatever it is that they use in place of evidence.

His operates much like a lizard's brain.

I think of him and his kind as more like those mysterious blobs that can learn to run mazes without even having a brain. Wikipedia's emergent properties - by which I mean behaviours exhibited by the crowd rather than by any one individual, much like the sussuration of starlings - would make for an interesting study.

[BrillLyle]

99% OF THE DELETIONS WERE NOMINATED OR TAGGED BY OTHERS.

Not quite sure why you're yelling about it.... :-)

So it's one of those thug friend things, then, where they follow each other and decimate content as a group activity? That's even better. #Not

[Midsize Jake]

Personally, I think these lizard comparisons are going too far. I used to have a pet chameleon named Rocky when I was a kid, and not only was he extremely well-behaved, I can assure you all that Rocky would never have abused CheckUser privileges as badly as Bbb23.

Sure, I'll admit that he did eat live mealworms, but that's just how they like to operate.

[Midsize Jake]

So it's one of those thug friend things, then, where they follow each other and decimate content as a group activity? That's even better. #Not

Well, you kinda have to admit that "deletionist" is a term that's usually defined by people who don't like deletionists. Back in the old days, the vast majority of new Wikipedia articles were basically spam, "vanitycruft" and so-called patent nonsense, and I suspect it's still a pretty sizable chunk of them even now. If they didn't have people tagging them and then speedy-deleting them, over time the whole site would become useless.

So while I'm not necessarily defending Mr. RHaworth here, his response (i.e., that he's only made a handful of mistakes in the process of deleting half-a-million of these things) is hardly surprising, and from most people's perspectives I think it's at least valid to point it out. Which, in turn, is probably why they're focusing on the unblocking decision(s) he made later, instead of the original deletions.

[BrillLyle]

So it's one of those thug friend things, then, where they follow each other and decimate content as a group activity? That's even better. #Not

Well, you kinda have to admit that "deletionist" is a term that's usually defined by people who don't like deletionists. Back in the old days, the vast majority of new Wikipedia articles were basically spam, "vanitycruft" and so-called patent nonsense, and I suspect it's still a pretty sizable chunk of them even now. If they didn't have people tagging them and then speedy-deleting them, over time the whole site would become useless.

So while I'm not necessarily defending Mr. RHaworth here, his response (i.e., that he's only made a handful of mistakes in the process of deleting half-a-million of these things) is hardly surprising, and from most people's perspectives I think it's at least valid to point it out. Which, in turn, is probably why they're focusing on the unblocking decision(s) he made later, instead of the original deletions.

Ah. Okay. Thanks for the explanation.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

None, and understandably so as they're unpaid. Not, that I'm advocating that admins should be paid;
As for Bbb23, he's simply a disgrace, to himself and to Wikipedia.

If you think about it rationally: spending upwards of 7*8 hours a week on wikipedia does not allow for a job. So to provide for themselves (and their family, if there is one), always-online admins and editors have to find ways to monetize their activity. The community would be more healthy and the encyclopedia less biased, if the source of that income would be the wmf, not some wealthy people or corporations asking for favors: pov-pushing, whitewashing, etc.

The most active admins and editors actually should be employed by wmf to avoid this kind of corruption. It would be an interesting change in the culture.

Would that not be just replacing one kind of corruption (assuming it exists) with another (that of being in the WMF's pocket)?

Of course, it would also destroy one of the safety barriers the WMF hides behind, that it is not legally responsible for the content of Wikipedia.

[Poetlister]

The most active admins and editors actually should be employed by wmf to avoid this kind of corruption. It would be an interesting change in the culture.

There have been a few cases of prominent Wikipedians being empoyed by the WMF. James Forrester was a notable example. I don't think that any of them proved popular with the membership here.

[ShinkawaGirl]

Statement by WBGodric
I echo Jehochman and Leprivacark, in that the behavior of all parties needs to be scrutinized, including Bbb23. He's one of the most unpleasant admins to deal with, having substituted a heavy handed use of CU tools for common sense, since long back. I look forward to provide evidence if the case is broadened to examine BBB23, as well. ∯WBGconverse 12:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

[Osborne]

Statement by WBGodric
I echo Jehochman and Leprivacark, in that the behavior of all parties needs to be scrutinized, including Bbb23. He's one of the most unpleasant admins to deal with, having substituted a heavy handed use of CU tools for common sense, since long back. I look forward to provide evidence if the case is broadened to examine BBB23, as well. ∯WBGconverse 12:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Add cross-wiki abuse by TonyBallioni to the list of deeds and this grotesque picture will be complete.