Create a new version of paste:

__INDEX__

<div class=wikitable style="background:linear-gradient(to right, white,teal);font-size:20px;padding-left:10px;font-weight:bold">
[[#content1|Skip to contents.]]
</div>
<p style=position:fixed;opacity:.1;top:80px;>[[File:Bourdeilles view.jpg|1000px]]</p>

Original title:<br/>
:'''''Talk page access aggressively revoked by Bbb23 due to legitimate questions (enwiki) + questionable behaviour.'''''

This page is mirrored [http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Handroid7/Bbb23 at the Wayback Machine].

Taken from [[Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat]].

This post was deleted there, because I am supposed to resolve this issue with the English Wikipedia administrators, which I don't know how I am supposed to do while my talk page there is suspended.

I posted it here, because I have lost my access to my talk page on the English Wikipedia, therefore unable to communicate to anyone.

If Bbb23 reads this document, he might perceive it as an attack against his high ego, but all contents of this document are purely factual, unless otherwise noted (e.g. the theory near the bottom).

{{anchor|content1}}<span id=content1 />
== Disclaimer ==

I know that I, unlike Bbb23, am not in a credible position, but I kindly ask you to read this from a '''neutral, non-{{w|authority bias}}ed, sympathetic''' perspective. Thank you.

[[w:User_talk:Handroid7#Unblock_request:_Zero_abuse.|Please read this first]], for context.


{{quote|Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions.|[[:w:Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability]]}}

== Shady practices ==

{{quote|''“I'm giving you some leeway to say something useful.  So far, you haven't, and if you persist in what I consider to be trolling, I will revoke TPA.”''|Bbb23}}

''“something useful”'' is rough and unambiguous.

* He systematically pressures and threatens users like that, because he already knows he is going to block that user's talk page anyway, no matter what the user answers.
* In addition, I answered all their questions, and I asked perfectly legitimate questions. Bbb23 never said what he considers useful, or why he considers my legitimate replies as trolling. See it for yourself.
* I asked what he needs from me, he never answered.
* He asked questions and called my answers to his own questions “trolling”.
* He uttered ''“that's cute”'' in a sarcastic and sinister way.

== “Trolling”? ==
Bbb23 abused ''“trolling”'' as a {{w|buzzword}} to silence my legitimate, formal and sincere responses.

According to [[w:Trolling]]:
{{quote|In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages[…]}}

My replies are:
* Not off-topic.
* Not inflammatory, but sincere.
* Not digressive.
* Not distracting.
* Not extraneous, but on-topic.

Yet he uses the “trolling” hammer buzz word.

I bet that there exists no reply he would have not labelled as ”trolling“.

== Talk-page hammer ==
According to [[w:Wikipedia:Blocking_policy]]:
{{quote|Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked, if checked, will prevent the blocked user from editing their own talk page (including the ability to create unblock requests) during the duration of their block. '''This option is not checked by default, and typically should not be checked; editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of their user talk page.'''}}

'''What exactly'''  on that talk page written by me is abuse?

{{quote|[…]'''''what I consdier''' to be trolling''[…]|Bbb23}}

How can one ask Bbb23 a sincere question without getting banhammered?

Sincere replies to their questions are certainly not abuse.


== Mass-deletion ==
This might sound absurd initially, but apparently, Bbb23 does not mind vandalizing Wikipedia.
And he even got away with it.

He deleted '''every single page''' I have created (roughly 50 with roughly 200 to 300 revisions), including good draft articles and 
redirects such as [[:w:WP:YWAB]] (recreated by [[User:Guy_Macon]] already), despite each of them is legitimate. 

If any non-administrator had blanked '''the exact same pages''' that Bbb23 has deleted during these few minutes, '''that user would have been blocked,''' because it would clearly be [[w:WP:Vandalism]].
But if Bbb23 does it, it's perfectly fine, isn't it?

His mass deletion of my legitimate content<ref name=amok /> has harmed Wikipedia '''within minutes''' significantly more than [[w:User:Chanc20190325]]'s anti-genital-mutilation edits (the reason why it was blocked there), a topic not touched '''even once''' by my new account.

Shouldn't Bbb23 get blocked by that logic, hypothetically?

{{quote| ''“To qualify, the edit must be a violation of the user's specific block or ban. For example, pages created by a topic-banned user may be deleted if they come under that particular topic, but not if 
they are legitimately about some other topic.”''|[[:w:wp:G5|Wikipedia ''speedy deletion'' rule '''G5''']]}}
{{quote|If granted access, administrators must exercise care in using these new functions, especially the ability to delete pages|[[Wikipedia:Administrators#Care_and_judgement]]}}

Bbb23 ran amok<ref name=amok>[https://archive.fo/enSTv Administrator Bbb23's amok spree (rule G5 violation)] ([http://web.archive.org/web/20191019193550/https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/Bbb23&offset=201910182410&limit=500&type=&user=Bbb23 Wayback mirror])</ref>  on '''all''' of my created pages without checking for actual illegitimacy.

Thus, he violated that part of rule G5, because the pages he deleted, including all of my draft articles, were perfectly legitimate. Go see it for yourself<ref name=amok />.

No amount of Bbb23's lobbying power can dispute his violation of G5.

Who knows how many more out of his 38639 pages were legitimate pages?

== Bad faith? ==

I have already stated that I have already recognized the mistake I did months earlier, and I have never repeated that mistake (anti-circumcision edits) '''even once''' ever since I have created this account.

I have done over 1000 clean, productive edits since I created that account.

Bbb23's response to my perfectly legitimate questions was silencing me by revoking talk page access.
I wonder what he needed to hear in order to not block my talk page. He did not give me a chance.

{{quote|This page in a nutshell: Administrators are users trusted with access to certain tools on the English Wikipedia. They are expected to observe a high standard of conduct, to use the tools fairly, and never to use them to gain advantage in a dispute.|[[Wikipedia:Administrators]]}}

I sincerely and formally asked him what exactly he needs from me, he revoked talk page access.

Had Bbb23 just done nothing in the first place, everything would have been fine. 

I said all I could say, yet Bbb23 assumes bad faith in me.

Had Bbb23 '''just done nothing''', everything would have been fine.

If I actually had bad faith, how come I made >1000 good edits through this account since July on the English Wikipedia? (Roughly 15% to 20% of which has just been erased by Bbb23.)


== Administrator conduct ==
According to [[w:Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_conduct]]:
{{quote|Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.}}

Need I say more?

Bbb23 has clearly violated the administrator's conduct.

== Statistics ==
Also worth noting:
* Bbb23 has blocked 34828 users while having unblocked only 209 users, a ratio of 166:1.
* No check user has ever blocked more users than him. '''I am not implying all he does is wrong,''' but he does it in a way that suggests it gives his life purpose. Assuming each sockpuppet investigation took 10 minutes on average (rough estimation), he spent nearly 6000 hours (or 250 pure days, or ~3/4 of a pure '''year''') doing just that and nothing else. Again, '''it is good that he helps Wikipedia so generously''', but it appears like a feedback loop in his mind that releases dopamine each time he blocks a user. Therefore, he is so reluctant to unblock users. Disclaimer: This is '''just a theory,''' not a personal attack of any sort. (What else would motivate an anonymous human being to spend roughly '''6000 hours of his finite life''' sitting infront of a computer and aggressively blocking users without getting paid even €0.01 for it?)
** {{w|Confirmation bias}} might also play a role. Remember: He is a human with a {{w|cognitive biasses|human brain}}.
* He has the userbox [[:w:Template:User please be nice|''“This user does not understand mean people. Please be nice.”'']] on his [[:w:user:Bbb23|user page]], yet he was extremely disrespectful to me, while I have shown sincerity and respect. [[:wikt:practice what you preach|''Practice what you preach.'']]

I ask you for a neutral review. Thanks. --~~~~

== References ==
<references />