Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Bbb23

< Wikipedia:Administrator recall
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a recall petition. Please do not modify it.

Bbb23

edit

Petition certified. 25 signatures of extended confirmed editors were gathered within the specified period.—Alalch E. 15:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 (talk · contribs)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Numerated (#) signatures in the "Signatures" section may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. All other comments are welcome in the "Discussion" section.

Signatures

edit
  1. As per the evidence presented at the ongoing ANI thread, especially in posts [1], [2] [3], and [4]. Bbb23 has said he now intends to respond to the wider concerns shortly, but given the outstanding community concerns a RRFA should happen no matter what. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 06:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Due to repeated and continual BITEy behavior towards new users, many of which involved the admin toolkit (namely blocks), even after Bbb23 should know they were on thin ice after having their CU/non-public info access revoked not only by ArbCom but by the WMF themselves due to misuse. I agree with GLL above that regardless it's clear there are many editors who have at least some problem with the behavior and use of the tools, a RRFA is necessary. This should not preclude the AN discussion continuing to discuss other potential sanctions that may be merited - an admin doesn't just get a "free life" for bad behavior by removing/resigning their tools. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I would oppose an RfA by Bbb23 if it were held today. I wasn't sure if I'd be signing when the discussion began, but after seeing some of these blocks I can't help but wonder how admin tools weren't removed years ago. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 07:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This block alone, on a new user, for producing an article that looked like this at the time of the block in userspace, then moaning when their appalling block was overturned, is grounds for recall (the only Wikipedia process that works properly) all by itself.  Tewdar  07:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I spot-checked a day of their activity and agree that there is a case to answer. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. with reservations. I really, really thought that this should have waited until Bbb23 was given a chance to compose their thoughts and reply in the AN thread - I understand and respect GLL's reasoning given below, but still am not entirely comfortable with this having gone ahead before then, since it's entirely possible they may have stood for recall voluntarily, or even resigned the bit - unlikely, yes, but now, we'll never know. That said, here we are, and given the evidence presented in the AN thread, I can't in good conscience not support this. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Having just looked at the evidence at AN as an onlooker, I respect GLL's reasonings behind what has happened with Bbb23, especially with regards to biting newcomers to the project. I also find the block log concerning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ArbCom stripped Bbb of the CU tool in 2020, not just for failure to follow the CU rules after a warning, but for pushing back against the Committee when it pulled him up on this. I was slightly surprised at the time that Bbb retained the bit then, since the removal of CU was not just a loss of trust but also a refusal to acknowledge the mistakes or a pledge to follow Wikipedia policy going forward, which seems at odds with adminship. It seems that in the years since then, Bbb has continued to carry out admin actions on a regular basis which are at odds with the community's expectations and policies. I can see the case for waiting for Bbb's promised response to the AN thread but short of Bbb resigning directly, I don't think it makes any difference... given the evidence presented, and Tamzin's comment at the AN thread that "been on notice for years ... that his attitude toward adminning was fundamentally unacceptable", there isn't really space for second chances or repentance at this point. The community needs to have its say on whether it still supports Bbb having the bit. This is with sadness and a recognition Bbb has put in many months and years of good work for the project, but given the situation and the potential harm to the project in scaring away new editors, I'm supporting this petition now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I don't usually participate in admin recalls, but I (along with many other editors) find a large portion of Bbb23's blocks and warnings hard (if not impossible) to justify. A lot of these blocks and warnings not only seem very BITEy, leading many prospective contributors to quit the project altogether, but also fly in the face of the expectations that the community has for our most trusted editors that we bestow with adminship. With the lack of accountability that Bbb has thus far shown, combined with the loss of trust in his ability to maintain the bit, I have to support this petition. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 09:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I have previously thought that Bbb23 has had communications skills that might not necessarily comply with WP:ADMINACCT, and the reason this hasn't come up before is because no single block has ever been such an egregious violation of conduct to warrant serious attention, and most of them (particularly against vandals and serial troll / sock farms) are probably right. But being right is not enough. I've seen them do site-wide blocks for edit warring where I thought page or namespace partial blocks would be better, but that may be just a difference in admin discretion. I wouldn't have started a recall petition myself, and I'm sympathetic to those below who think this is a bit premature. Still, we are where we are, and I think a review of everything would be helpful to see if their current conduct is within community norms. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was hoping for introspection, but Bbb23's response, which I read as "I will not comply with WP:ADMINACCT, go away" has changed my view from being open-minded about this, and I think they should no longer be an administrator. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The moment he abused the CheckUser tool was when he should've been de-sysopped. This recall petition is a request to have him go through a RfA again to see if the community still trusts him with any admin tools. Some1 (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. With the thread having been open for two whole days, even though Bbb23 said a response is coming 10 hours ago, it's pretty clear at this point that one isn't. The list of terrible blocks and long-term WP:BITEy behavior have shown that they just aren't fit for admin tools anymore. I would also not support any RRfA in the near future. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Sadly, yeah, it's time. →StaniStani 10:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14. There's no explaining away Bbb's pattern of bad blocks and biting. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I hove long considered Bbb23's use of blocks (particularly for newcomers) to be excessive, and far too often the justifications given have been inadequate, if they amounted to much more than 'because I say so', which is what more than a few have resembled. And this is clearly not just my opinion. as can be seen in multiple comments above. One might have hope that the removal of CU access might have led to a little circumspection, but that seems not to have been the case. Under these circumstances, recall seems entirely appropriate. The community appoints admins to act on their behalf, to carry out considered and appropriate actions with the tools that admins are given, and when this is under question, the community should have their say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Reluctantly, but approximately 5% of my interactions with Bbb23 have been pleasurable, for various reasons, and they are far too keen to block. For example, see this bewildering discussion where they blocked an occasionally problematic, but good-faith, user indefinitely apparently for misusing speedy deletion criteria. When I asked for more information about the block per WP:EXPLAINBLOCK they mused whether I was a sockpuppet and then told me to get off their talk page. (They were later identified and blocked as a sockpuppet, but that was not a rationale Bbb23 ever used). Not very accountable. Cremastra (u — c) 12:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you think this is a rather poor example of a bad block? @Yamla upheld the block and agreed the users editing was disruptive. OXYLYPSE (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I previously prepared a statement while preparing to be the first signatory to this, because I was ready to start the petition myself. While I am sympathetic to those who wish to give Bbb23 more time, they have had ample opportunity to make even a brief statement, and instead chose to ignore the community's concerns because it looked to me like a negative outcome was all but certain, in Bbb23's own words. His response so far has consisted of pledging to make a response, while also flagrantly having ignored the community until he had to be reminded that his input is expected, even if he believes the thread is trending negatively for him. His behavior does not align with the expectations of adminship, and I maintain my original view that he has lost the trust of the community. I do regret this, but I do not believe Bbb23 has left the community with much of a meaningful choice. If they choose to RRFA, perhaps their answers to concerns will be persuasive. My original statement is appended below with my signature.
    Based on prior discussions at AN and other venues, I believe Bbb23 has engaged in a continual pattern of gross misuse of the administrator toolset, and has violated, on multiple occasions, the standards of conduct and accountability for administrators, and I do not believe he has kept the trust of the community. See, for example, the ongoing discussion at a recent thread at AN, where his bad blocks and BITEy behavior towards new users has been pointed out by multiple users, including analysis by Tamzin and GreenLipstickLesbian, who have extensively chronicled the poor behavior of Bbb23. In a May 2023 ANI thread, Bbb23's block of a user was criticized as it was based on the user having pointed out violations of CHILDPROTECT, and the block was overturned by community consensus, of which the discussion includes a number of other bad blocks by Bbb23. Let us not also forget that in June of 2020, Bbb23's access to checkuser was revoked for fishing and even violating ADMINCOND by failing to respond to queries regarding his use of such a tool, with the Arbitration Committee unable to get an answer from him, stating Bbb23 has subsequently communicated to the committee that he is unwilling to comply with these restrictions, continued to run similar questionable checks, and refused to explain these checks on request. This was followed in August of 2020 by the WMF, on the recommendation of the Ombuds, revoking his identified status on Meta, indicating issues so severe that he could not be trusted with private data. Yet, however, private data (perhaps of a lower risk, yet still) is part of the administrator toolset. See for example, revision deleted entries, deleted pages themselves, and numerous other ways in which an administrator can view data that is not available to regular editors. At the AN discussion itself, Bbb23 was notified on his talk page about the AN discussion, and then, after having been notified and clearly having had time to notice a discussion regarding his conduct (given the yellow banner notifying one of a new talk page message, plus multiple pings at the AN discussion), Bbb23 found time to make an edit to switch a section around on his talk page, as well as a revert of a user posting on his talk page. In addition, Bbb23 also found time to decline an edit warring report, an admin action. This leaves the community with an administrator who, instead of responding promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions (see WP:ADMINACCT), instead finds it more valuable to the community to decline an edit warring report and move around sections on their talk page. EggRoll97 (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Neo Purgatorio (pester!) 13:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Regretfully, as Bbb has now clearly indicated they won't abide by the expectations of WP:ADMINACCT ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 14:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I realize I may come off as a Javert type in this. I've certainly made no secret of my disagreement with Bbb's style of adminning. But I have hoped in all this that there'd be some path toward reconciliation. One of the first times I interacted with Bbb was when he intervened on my behalf when I was incorrectly sockblocked by an admin much more senior than he. His voice and others', pushing back against a paranoid vibes-based sockblock, led to my unblock, and I'll always be grateful for that. I guess I'd hoped we'd see some return of that mentality. Below, Bbb makes clear he does not intend to substantively contest any of the allegations against him, so I won't belabor the point by reiterating my concerns. All I'll say is that this was an evitable outcome, and a reminder of what Coren said as he heeded Bbb's input and unblocked me: don't delve too deeply and quickly in the back-office aspects of the project – it's rather seedy back there and you'll end up with a jaundiced view. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I don't usually participate in admin related stuff, but I have to sign this reluctantly due to persistent bad/excessive blocks as raised in the AN thread, and overly harsh behavior to newcomers, not consistent with ADMINACCT. Response below doesn't seem promising either. User3749 (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I was waiting for his response, and now that he has given it, which lacks any self-reflection or acknowledgement of the issues raised, I support this recall measure. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  23. This petition was needlessly rushed; Bbb23 told us a response was forthcoming, and he should have been given more time. However, in light of his comment below, the outcome is now inevitable. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  24. I read over the thread, and the repeated attacks against new users are extremely worrying to me. I understand the worry that this petition was rushed, but supporting it feels necessary following the evidence presented in the ANI thread. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  25. The final nail in the coffin, per all the above. Luis7M (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Actions and related delayed responses seem like a violation of WP:ADMINACCT, specifically failure to communicate, not to mention stated intent to continue in the same vein. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response

edit

I just logged in a few minutes ago and was disappointed, albeit not surprised, to see that a recall petition was started without waiting for my response. After reading many of the comments here, though, it's pretty clear that my first instinct was correct, i.e., there's no point to my responding, so this is a statement clarifying my future intentions. I am not resigning. If the required 25 signatures is reached, I do not intend to stand for re-election. If I understand the process, my bit will be removed sometime after that. I will then retire from editing Wikipedia. Between now and then, I will edit only user talk space and project space (e.g., this one); I suspect, though, I won't even be doing that. Nor will I use my tools. I hope that's clear, but it's unlikely I'll respond to questions if anyone has them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

edit
  • Not sure what the point of taking admins to ANI is if we're just going to prepare the gallows before they even have a chance to respond. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, this feels incredibly premature. He has said he's going to respond, why would you not wait for him to do so before starting this? This is way too early. CoconutOctopus talk 06:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion there can and should continue, because removing the admin tools isn't necessarily enough. The behavior is the problem - and Bbb23 would be able to continue biting new users with inappropriate warnings/comments even if the admin toolkit is taken away. Bbb23 is free to respond here to justify why their admin toolkit should not be taken away. And it's not even a guarantee - a successful recall allows them to stand for a re-RFA to keep the tools if they so choose. TLDR: the AN discussion is about the behavior as a whole - both that which involves the admin toolkit and that which doesn't. This is to remove the admin tools specifically. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, after reading your comment, ANI is for the behaviour and the recall’s for the tools 81.214.253.3 (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be upfront and say I am inclined towards signing this, but I do not think it should have been started now. Even if Bbb has a lot to explain here, he is not actively harming the encyclopedia at this time, and I do not think we should go straight to the recall button without hearing Bbb out. charlotte 👸♥ 07:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This recall petition does not prevent Bbb23 from opining. In fact, this may make it more structured, since the only way to keep the bit if this petition succeeds will be to stand in a RRFA or admin election. If the explanation given and the answers to RRFA questions are sufficient, then Bbb23 will be able to keep the bit. If they aren't, then they will be lost. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are lots of people who aren't actively harming the encyclopedia at this time and yet don't have admin tools. Bbb23 can be one of them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 07:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a very good chance that we would have ended up here at some point, but I agree with the editors above that starting it now is premature. Black Kite (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Queen of Hearts That's an argument I can't entirely disagree with, but I don't see a material difference in half a dozen people announcing they're going to start a recall discussion unless he magically responds perfect (and even then they're probably going to sign), and actually starting a recall discussion. It's like pulling the wings off a fly; it feels cruel to give him false hope that a petition won't be started, and I'm not going to partake in that. He still has the right of reply. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 08:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, WP:ADMINRECALL reads:

    In most cases, disputes with administrators should be resolved with the normal dispute resolution process outlined at WP:Administrators § Grievances by users ("administrator abuse"). Other methods of dispute resolution should be attempted before a recall petition is initiated.

    —Bagumba (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The AR page does indeed say that, but it also says further down, "Any extended confirmed editor may start a petition for an administrator to make a re-request for adminship if they believe that the administrator has lost the trust of the community", without any sort of caveat that other methods of resolution should be attempted first. There is also no procedure noted for what to do if the preliminary steps aren't carried out; in particular, I don't see any no provision for other editors or admins to close a petition early if they feel other resolutions haven't been attempted. This seems to makes the point you mention largely advisory rather than a substantive policy point, and given that this petition has already been opened, it seems like the ship has sailed on this one.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    without any sort of caveat that other methods of resolution should be attempted first – You're wrong. There is indeed such a caveat. As you point out, it's higher on the page. You have to read the page as a whole, not individual sentences in isolation. EEng 11:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What I mean is, while that "caveat" is in place further up on the page, the instructions for starting a recall simply say to start one if you're not happy with the admin's conduct. For the "exhaust other methods" stipulation to have any meaning there would have to be much more precise definitions as to what that meant and procedures defined for what to do if someone started a recall anyway. Absent that, complaining that the instruction hasn't been followed cannot result in any action.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because the page is written in WP:PYRAMID style due to its brevity. The "...should be attempted first" sentence is a part of the instructions. Before Mz7 reformatted the content to be a list of bullet points, it was a more fluid read (Special:Permalink/1284975063). You were supposed to read it in one breath. The page's top content ("lead section") does not have a summarizing role on this page. —Alalch E. 13:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rushing to recall sends a terrible message to this admin and to any other admins who come under criticism: there's no point in saying anything, we're going to pull the trigger anyway. NebY (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a really extraordinary conclusion to draw when one of the primary issues listed in the ANI thread is that Bbb23 has a pattern of not responding adequately to criticism, warnings, complaints, or indeed even an ultimatum from arbcom. -- asilvering (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Another issue is that Bbb23 rushed to judgment without listening or even giving editors time to respond. We should be better than that, and on AN/ANI we do have a rough working concept of due process, leaving discussions open for response, allowing time for other editors to support and oppose, snow-closing only as an exception. We don't need to be peculiarly empathetic to imagine that Bbb23's initial reaction might have been almost physical (rush of blood, adrenalin, whatever), that being told "It is imperative ... Hurry"[5] might even have been counterproductive, and that this response on AN might have been quite honest and - whatever we think of the very serious evidence presented - appropriate. NebY (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's something about admin accountability here, between the initial notification that the discussion exists, Bbb23 has edited, and hence some can interpret that Bbb does not want to respond at that time.
    If my administrative actions/conduct are put into question, I'd make sure to shift my focus towards the criticism and either respond or to let people know when to expect a response.
    I'd think that starting a recall now, even if poorly timed in the eyes of some editors, is justified, because I think the concerns are serious enough, the patterns articulated clear enough that it would be hard to have any response satisfactory, especially given that a response will have to make everyone happy to stop the momentum (which would be very very difficult) dbeef [talk] 11:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll stick to what I said about awaiting a response from Bbb (or it becoming apparent that no response is forthcoming), but I don't think there was anything procedurally wrong about starting this recall now. Recall petitions last 30 days. Anyone who like me is on the fence as to whether to support absent a response from Bbb can simply wait. Even if I personally would have waited longer, I don't think one can fault GLL for using this process for what it says it's for. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 09:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other methods of dispute resolution should be attempted before a recall petition is initiated. That other method that is in the process of being attempted is the ANI thread. The attempt hasn't been made yet, it's about half-done. Half-attempt.—Alalch E. 09:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above recall petition discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this petition or the nominated admin). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_recall/Bbb23&oldid=1299105738"