Bbb23 chastised by Arbcom, quits Wikipedia (on April Fool's Day)

[ArsenalFan]

I heard that a CU has to be at least 18 years old. If Bbb23 has been a CU for several years, it looks like he's dealing with this shit like a 3-year-old, not someone over 25 or his age.


Moderator's note: Several off-topic posts dealing with less-than-ideal word-choices made in this thread were removed.

[Poetlister]

-Bbb23's "retirement " back in April did not cause any significant issues during his absence, suggesting we actually have plenty of CUs to handle SPI. The issue with Bbb23 was his discretionary checks outside of SPI.

Of course, we may never know whether SPIs are being handled as competently. Maybe they're being handled more competently with fewer false positives.

[Osborne]

The issue with Bbb23 was his discretionary checks outside of SPI.

And some more that was not uncovered:
* finding socks usually on just one side of RfAs
* refusing to check certain accounts in SPI and additionally threatening the filer
* claiming socking where none happened
and the list goes on.

Besides hunting for legit socks in the woods, he often shot innocent passersby, knowingly.
The former made him a celebrated hunter, the latter...

[The Garbage Scow]

The issue with Bbb23 was his discretionary checks outside of SPI.

And some more that was not uncovered:
* finding socks usually on just one side of RfAs
* refusing to check certain accounts in SPI and additionally threatening the filer
* claiming socking where none happened
and the list goes on.

Add one: Declining to investigate a SP report, refusing to explain why and simply closing it. And since he was so active in that area, tons of perfectly reasonable yet politically inconvenient requests were simply closed with nothing done.

[Instant Noodle]

It's good ArbComm gave him the high jump - though they should desysop him too (interesting to know that Jayjg is another abusive editor who had his CU bit stripped but was allowed to remain an admin). Disgusting to see the usual sycophants tearing out their hair and ripping their clothes in mourning for Bbb's demise. The culture of entitlement and abuse is deeply entrenched among Wikipedia's admins and it will take more than one beheading before it's cured. The problem is sockhunting has become a sport and too many admins see it as their prime purpose. So much so that it doesn't matter what the sock's original sin was, or if they are actually disruptive or not. Many, if not most, socks are editing constructively but are nevertheless banned because of "block evasion", even if the original block was years ago and was either over a minor dustup or unwarranted - or even if a warranted block has been followed by years of constructive editing via sockpuppets by editors who either the mob refuses to allow to be rehabilitated or will only allow back if they first undergo ritual public humiliation and confession -and even if they are allowed back a cloud will always hang over them. Why would anyone subject themselves to that?

If Wikipedia were sensible they would have a general amnesty for anyone whose original block/ban was more than a year ago unless their behaviour then or since was truly abusive or harassing. Just blocking people because of block evasion doesn't actually protect the project, it just drives down the number of committed contributors.

It used to be that even if you had been banned at some point or had been an offender years past, an admin would look the other way as long as you were editing constructively and were not repeating the behaviour that originally got you blocked. That hasn't been the case for some time. Now CUs and admins see themselves as super sleuths trying to unearth deeply hidden "criminals" regardless of their current behaviour. The admin core is little more than an army of Javerts.

[Poetlister]

Another abusive CU (and ex-Arb) who was demoted but is still an admin is noted animal lover FT2 (T-C-L).

It is still the case that some admins can be trusted not to rat on a constructive editor, but of course you must ensure that you're using a different IP to avoid detection by a CU not in on the secret. If you can speak a foreign language well enough to edit on another wiki, so much the better. EN CUs can't check you there, and French and German CUs are good at stonewalling.

[rhinoroars]

In a discussion around the action, Arbitration Committee member Bradv stated

[A] new account asking a question at the TEAHOUSE, voting on an RFA, editing a contentious topic, or asking for help from an administrator should not be checked simply because they might be a returning user – there must be evidence of some sort of disruption. These are the types of checks that we asked Bbb23 to avoid, which he declined to do.

This is why he got into the problem was checking Bbb23 every returning user for socking not just those who caused disruption
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ssment_RfC

[Poetlister]

I've been told that there are more CU checks on ENWP than on all other WMF sites put together. I don't know if that can be verified, or if that was largely due to Bbb23 and is no longer true.

[Osborne]

In a discussion around the action, Arbitration Committee member Bradv stated

[A] new account asking a question at the TEAHOUSE, voting on an RFA, editing a contentious topic, or asking for help from an administrator should not be checked simply because they might be a returning user – there must be evidence of some sort of disruption. These are the types of checks that we asked Bbb23 to avoid, which he declined to do.

This is why he got into the problem was checking Bbb23 every returning user for socking not just those who caused disruption
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ssment_RfC

"there must be evidence of some sort of disruption."

He checked me as well when I complained about his hostility and bias. Found a correct signature on a talk page - a missing signature added later -, that by mistake I've made while logged in on my private alt account that I haven't been using after I made my main acc and ever since. We were involved in a debate regarding his conduct, so he passed the info to his trainee, who swiftly tagged my account as sock and sockmaster, without any evidence of acting as different persons.

Other CUs, ArbCom, OC ignored the reports of the blatant CU violation, T&S has written a politically correct "we don't care about you" answer, then months later under pressure a second, heart-touching "we don't care about you".
And that's how some CUs are enabled and protected from accountability while abusing the most dangerous tool.
"Trust and Safety". No wonder every few years they have to change their name: it becomes meaningless.

[Beeblebrox]

I've been told that there are more CU checks on ENWP than on all other WMF sites put together. I don't know if that can be verified, or if that was largely due to Bbb23 and is no longer true.

One more time for the people in the back:
Checkuser and oversight statistics are published monthly on en.wp. link

[Midsize Jake]

One more time for the people in the back:
Checkuser and oversight statistics are published monthly on en.wp. link

Those statistics seem to suggest that the slack created by Mr. Bbb23's semi-retirement has been taken up by the likes of Callanecc (T-C-L), DeltaQuad (T-C-L), and especially ST47 (T-C-L), so they're still doing about 5,600 checks per month, as a ballpark figure.

PL was probably referring mostly to other English-language projects like Wikiquote and Wikibooks, but as for Wikipedias in other languages, there are only three similar statistics pages listed on the one you linked to — those being for the Spanish, Portuguese, and Chinese Wikipedias. (The Spaniards did a total of 294 during the month of October 2019, for example.) Three countries is obviously too small a sample to extrapolate from, and you'd want to see the numbers from the German, French, and of course Tagalog WPs before making a claim like this with any level of confidence... but it's not inconceivable that the English WP sometimes does more CheckUser actions in a given month than all the others combined.

[Poetlister]

No, I meant all WMF sites. I'm well aware that the other English language sites are vastly smaller than Wikipedia so aren't going to have loads of CU checks. Also, many checks on other sites are to look for cross-wiki vandals rather than because of concerns on those sites.

[el84]

One more time for the people in the back:
Checkuser and oversight statistics are published monthly on en.wp. link

Those statistics seem to suggest that the slack created by Mr. Bbb23's semi-retirement has been taken up by the likes of Callanecc (T-C-L), DeltaQuad (T-C-L), and especially ST47 (T-C-L), so they're still doing about 5,600 checks per month, as a ballpark figure.

PL was probably referring mostly to other English-language projects like Wikiquote and Wikibooks, but as for Wikipedias in other languages, there are only three similar statistics pages listed on the one you linked to — those being for the Spanish, Portuguese, and Chinese Wikipedias. (The Spaniards did a total of 294 during the month of October 2019, for example.) Three countries is obviously too small a sample to extrapolate from, and you'd want to see the numbers from the German, French, and of course Tagalog WPs before making a claim like this with any level of confidence... but it's not inconceivable that the English WP sometimes does more CheckUser actions in a given month than all the others combined.

DeltaQuad is now AmandaNP.

[Beeblebrox]

I'm like 98% sure the foundation has explicitly said at some point that we do way, way more checks on en.wp than any other project. Given that we have by far the highest traffic and the most users of any WMF site, and the largest CU team, it would be weird if that was not the case.

[MrErnie]

In an "I miss you" post on Bbb23's talk page, admin Oshwah wonders how painful it is to lose a user right on Wikipedia. I wonder if he ever thinks about how the many people he blocks feel like?

Although I've never had this happen to me, I can say that I can only imagine how hurtful, angering, embarrassing, and devastating losing an advanced user right would feel.

Swarm nails it on the head responding to another "Hey arbcom you guys are bad" thread where he says:

To those who did interact with Bbb and follow his career, indirectly as admins and/or directly as editors who had run-ins with him, no, the story is not so complex. Bbb has always been an overly-aggressive, authoritarian, rule-breaking, unaccountable, cruel CU, not just to socks, but to anyone who dared question his authority or decision making. He probably had to be in the top 1% of editors in terms of complaints about his behavior, but how can the community sanction an editor who can hide behind "confidentiality", even to the level of never responding to complaints? Nah. I liked and still like Bbb. I both defended him and criticized him at different times. But Arbcom auditing him and finding that he was a freewheeling, unaccountable, rule-breaking, abusive CU should not have come as a surprise to anybody, because it was common knowledge the whole time. In fact, Arbcom's warning in the first place was shockingly-lenient special treatment. Any criticism of Arbcom should not be about the de-CU, but about the special treatment that allowed Bbb to continue abusing the community with his extraordinary, Arbcom-granted, invasion-of-privacy tools. To think that this is the most minor gesture of Arbcom regaining the community's trust after Bbb's longterm abuse, and that, just because we can't review private data, we're going to side with the abuser, because he's popular, rather than the system that holds abusers acountable? What. A. Joke.

The literal only thing Bbb lost was the ability to check editor's private user data. Why does that upset so many people, especially after all the warnings he was given?

[Osborne]

Although I've never had this happen to me, I can say that I can only imagine how hurtful, angering, embarrassing, and devastating losing an advanced user right would feel.

That sentence is so full with arse-lubricating fluid, I thought it's well-disguised cynicism, until I read the next...

Swarm nails it on the head responding to another "Hey arbcom you guys are bad" thread where he says:

For posterity: http://archive.vn/75RAb
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =968242295

That's an exact summary.

[Emptyeye]

Kind of weird that this is coming back up now, since the actual action took place over a month ago. And even BBB said roughly "I still think Arbcom's interpretation of policy was wrong, but given that they disagree, they had no choice but to remove the right."

So why is this coming back up again now? I know there was a post on it on the Arb board, but why?

[el84]

Kind of weird that this is coming back up now, since the actual action took place over a month ago. And even BBB said roughly "I still think Arbcom's interpretation of policy was wrong, but given that they disagree, they had no choice but to remove the right."

So why is this coming back up again now? I know there was a post on it on the Arb board, but why?

Pretty much Softlavender being Softlavender. Incapable of letting things go.

[Beeblebrox]

I thought it was odd too, from what I can tell they weren't very active on-wiki at the time of the removal, so they spent... maybe five seconds looking into it then rushed to a bunch of ridiculous conclusions, got all angry, and made an ill-informed rant. Somehow they failed to notice that the wagons did not circle around Bbb23 and the CU team did not go full Framgate-level revolt against this action.

[Anroth]

Thats mainly because Softlavender has missed entirely that they are no longer relevant or of any influence.

[Ritchie333]

I note that since "retiring" Bbb23 is still removing posts from his talk page that he doesn't like, and thus preventing him for ever getting desysopped for inactivity. Plus ca change.

[Poetlister]

Surely he's entitled to edit his own talk page, even in a grumpy way.

Even though you are less active on Wikipedia than you used to be, I still think you have done a really great job in your whole Wikipedia career. I have given you a kitten as a reward. Hope you get to edit more in the future!

"Undid revision 973878791 by Cupper52 (talk) no trolling here"

[Osborne]

"Undid revision 973878791 by Cupper52 (talk) no trolling here"

Even he knows "you have done a really great job" must be a lie.

[Osborne]

Aaaaand it's back, interfering with SPI and censoring.

BMK is still his friend. Like Rudy to Trump.

[tarantino]

Aaaaand it's back, interfering with SPI and censoring.

BMK is still his friend. Like Rudy to Trump.

Did you actually read the racist crap that IP was posting?

[C&B]

Yeah, if an Admin was seen to be Ignoring that Shit we'd Hammer him here. Seems a bit unfair to Blame him for Removing it... Even if it is Bbb23

[AndyTheGrump]

Yeah, if an Admin was seen to be Ignoring that Shit we'd Hammer him here. Seems a bit unfair to Blame him for Removing it... Even if it is Bbb23

Yeah, anyone would have been justified in removing it. Though I'd have to suggest that maybe Bbb23 shouldn't be looking at what goes on at SPI pages in the first place.

[Osborne]

Seems a bit unfair to Blame him for Removing it...

He removed not just the racist slurs, but the suspected socks too. Those were added in a separate edit.

Did that within an hour, before any other admin... #retired.

[Beeblebrox]

That IP is apparently CentralTime301, who I originally blocked for a year in 2019 for just being terrible at everything, and now they've managed to get globally locked, and the suspected socks were more of their bullshit, and also this was all a month and a half ago. This is a lot of nothing.

[Instant Noodle]

So, Bbb23 is back - and he still has his admin bit despite his conduct.

[jf1970]

So, Bbb23 is back - and he still has his admin bit despite his conduct.

Anyone know the reason for this: link link?

[Osborne]

Anyone know the reason for this: link link?

In the second link "evidence of a violation of the [NDA] agreement" sums it up. Bbb23's CU rights were removed for persistent fishing (checking editors' IP for no legitimate reason) for years, thus violating their privacy.
Officially. Before this happened it seemed he stepped on the foot of some higher ups to come under scrutiny in the first place.

[Beeblebrox]

Anyone know the reason for this: link link?

I've been wondering if anyone would ever notice that. I think it's a safe assumption that the same people who asked arbcom to do something about it also asked the ombuds to do so. Given how long they take to actually do anything, I would guess the complaint actually went to them six months or longer before arbcom really got involved.

[Instant Noodle]

Why is he still an admin? Is there any evidence that he's abusing his blocking powers, even without sketchy CU runs to use as a justification?

[Vigilant]

Why is he still an admin? Is there any evidence that he's abusing his blocking powers, even without sketchy CU runs to use as a justifcation?

WP:ADMINCOND and Fram would like a word...

[Beeblebrox]

Why is he still an admin? Is there any evidence that he's abusing his blocking powers, even without sketchy CU runs to use as a justifcation?

As a general question, I would say the answer is "possibly." As an arbitrator, I would say ArbCom generally does not monitor specific users or conduct investigations absent a request from the community. Nobody likes that answer but that's how it works. We didn't initiate the investigation that led to the revocation of CU rights, the matter was brought to the committee with some evidence already in hand. In a desysop case, a formal on-wiki request with evidence is the only route available , and all evidence would be expected to be provided by case participants.

[Poetlister]

As an arbitrator, I would say ArbCom generally does not monitor specific users or conduct investigations absent a request from the community. Nobody likes that answer but that's how it works.

I can see that ArbCom has enough to do without taking on that monitoring role. Should there be a body that has that role? It might be a good idea, but who would appoint the members? They would have to be generally respected figures, maybe ex-Arbs (not that all ex-Arbs are widely admired, present company excepted).

[jf1970]

Anyone know the reason for this: link link?

I've been wondering if anyone would ever notice that. I think it's a safe assumption that the same people who asked arbcom to do something about it also asked the ombuds to do so. Given how long they take to actually do anything, I would guess the complaint actually went to them six months or longer before arbcom really got involved.

So how is it that he is still allowed near SPI? I mean, de-CU'd and a lifetime ban for violating NDA but he's still volunteering at SPI and issuing socking blocks? Shouldn't arbcom's de-CU also come with an SPI TBAN? You'd think it wouldn't be necessary but...

[Poetlister]

So how is it that he is still allowed near SPI? I mean, de-CU'd and a lifetime ban for violating NDA but he's still volunteering at SPI and issuing socking blocks? Shouldn't arbcom's de-CU also come with an SPI TBAN? You'd think it wouldn't be necessary but...

"There is no cabal", but if there were he would of course be a member. The establishment on ENWP looks after its own.

[Beeblebrox]

So how is it that he is still allowed near SPI? I mean, de-CU'd and a lifetime ban for violating NDA but he's still volunteering at SPI and issuing socking blocks? Shouldn't arbcom's de-CU also come with an SPI TBAN? You'd think it wouldn't be necessary but...

"There is no cabal", but if there were he would of course be a member. The establishment on ENWP looks after its own.

Again, this isn't rocket surgery, we did the stuff that had to be done off-wiki. Anything beyond that would require an on-wiki case request, and there has not been one.
Topic bans don't have to involve ArbCom at all, they can be done at ANI, if anyone thinks they've got the evidence to justify one they can ask for it at any time.

[jf1970]

So how is it that he is still allowed near SPI? I mean, de-CU'd and a lifetime ban for violating NDA but he's still volunteering at SPI and issuing socking blocks? Shouldn't arbcom's de-CU also come with an SPI TBAN? You'd think it wouldn't be necessary but...

"There is no cabal", but if there were he would of course be a member. The establishment on ENWP looks after its own.

Again, this isn't rocket surgery, we did the stuff that had to be done off-wiki. Anything beyond that would require an on-wiki case request, and there has not been one.
Topic bans don't have to involve ArbCom at all, they can be done at ANI, if anyone thinks they've got the evidence to justify one they can ask for it at any time.

Why didn't the prior (off wiki) evidence justify a tban, was my question. The same evidence that justifies removal of CU should also justify a tban, no? Like a lesser included offense? It would be impossible for the community to institute a tban since the evidence is private. So seems like only arbcom can determine if the private evidence justifies a tban.

[Beeblebrox]

So how is it that he is still allowed near SPI? I mean, de-CU'd and a lifetime ban for violating NDA but he's still volunteering at SPI and issuing socking blocks? Shouldn't arbcom's de-CU also come with an SPI TBAN? You'd think it wouldn't be necessary but...

"There is no cabal", but if there were he would of course be a member. The establishment on ENWP looks after its own.

Again, this isn't rocket surgery, we did the stuff that had to be done off-wiki. Anything beyond that would require an on-wiki case request, and there has not been one.
Topic bans don't have to involve ArbCom at all, they can be done at ANI, if anyone thinks they've got the evidence to justify one they can ask for it at any time.

Why didn't the prior (off wiki) evidence justify a tban, was my question. The same evidence that justifies removal of CU should also justify a tban, no? Like a lesser included offense? It would be impossible for the community to institute a tban since the evidence is private. So seems like only arbcom can determine if the private evidence justifies a tban.

I don't know how many different ways to say the same thing, but again, the only concern that was brought to us was use of the CU tool, so that's what we investigated and remedied. What the community knows perfectly well is that the issue was unjustified checking of accounts. If the community feels that is sufficient cause for a topic ban as well, the community can pursue that. ArbCom is, by design, not a proactive body.

Look at the Tenebrae situation, we did the thing we had to do, because nobody else could. In that case the community ran with it and Tenebrae was banned.

[No Ledge]

If you're blocking someone for their failure to pass your version of Wikipedia:The duck test (T-H-L), you're not violating their privacy by looking at their private IP address and browser information without reasonable justification.

It's up to the community to decide what the standards are for duck-testing.

[Instant Noodle]

It amazes me that someone who was found to be untrustworthy, lacking in judgment and it would appear abusive when given a significant amount of power and authority would still somehow be trustworthy enough and to have sound enough judgment to be an admin with the power to ban people. This isn't a good way of building confidence in the project.

If Bbb23 has been found to have poor judgment when interpretenting Checkuser results and using them to make unwarranted blocks how could he possibly have good judgment to decide whether or not to ban people based on the "duck test"?

And his attitude in response to the ArbCom's criticism belies someone who is ungovernable and is unwilling to accept guidance or questioning of his decisions. Given his demonstrated attitude how can he be trusted with admin powers? It's absolutely absurd and is a recipe for even more abuse.

[orangepi]

Bbb23 is still the vanguard of over-zealous sock blocks, even without the ability to do CU checks. That said, somebody has to do that.

My guess is it's only a matter of time before he makes a mistake that gets him de-sysopped.

[Poetlister]

Bbb23 is still the vanguard of over-zealous sock blocks, even without the ability to do CU checks. That said, somebody has to do that.

My guess is it's only a matter of time before he makes a mistake that gets him de-sysopped.

Removing his CU power might have made him even worse. Firstly, it's possible (though far from certain!) that if he checked someone and the result was clearly negative he'd reject the duck test conclusion; he can no longer do this. Secondly, in his resentment he might be seeking to demonstrate how useful he is by blocking more people.

[jf1970]

I don't know how many different ways to say the same thing, but again, the only concern that was brought to us was use of the CU tool, so that's what we investigated and remedied.

I don't want you to say the same thing different ways, I'd rather you said new things.

So arbcom decided that Bbb abused the CU tool in overzealous pursuit of socks, but he did not abuse the admin tool by overzealously blocking them? I find that hard to believe, that he misused only one tool and not the other. Equally hard to believe is the idea that arbcom investigated his use of the CU tool but didn't investigate his use of the admin tools following his use of the CU tool.

Obviously, he not only checkusered people he shouldn't have, but also blocked some of them, and probably removed TPA too. And arbcom knows who those people are, but the community never will, because it's private evidence.

[Poetlister]

So arbcom decided that Bbb abused the CU tool in overzealous pursuit of socks, but he did not abuse the admin tool by overzealously blocking them? I find that hard to believe, that he misused only one tool and not the other. Equally hard to believe is the idea that arbcom investigated his use of the CU tool but didn't investigate his use of the admin tools following his use of the CU tool.

The logic no doubt is that as an admin he was quite right to block someone whom a CU said should be blocked. He had a Chinese wall between his actions as a CU and those as an admin. In the crazy world of Wikipedia, that would make sense.

[iii]

Look at the Tenebrae situation, we did the thing we had to do, because nobody else could. In that case the community ran with it and Tenebrae was banned.

The community isn't allowed to desysop, however. I never really understood why that was the case.

[jf1970]

Look at the Tenebrae situation, we did the thing we had to do, because nobody else could. In that case the community ran with it and Tenebrae was banned.

The community isn't allowed to desysop, however. I never really understood why that was the case.

Because most sysops vote against it every time it is raised. The last one was just snow closed after a few hours of admin pile on.