The extent of Bbb23's misconduct and colleteral damage inflicted onto Wikipedia is very massive, and this post just covers a tiny fraction of it.
There will be possibily more posts about him in the future.
Bbb23 is a Wikipedia administrator who is known for violating the rules WP:5P4, WP:CIVIL, WP:ADMINACCT, WP:G5, WP:AGF countless times, inflicting coarse long-term damage onto Wikipedia.
He is especially infamous for revoking user's talk page accesses despite the user has made legitimate, non-abusive use of their talk page.
Any user who criticizes the misconduct of Bbb23 gets accused of personally attacking him.
I was pointlessly banned by Bbb23 in October for a minor mistake I did three months earlier, which I have not repeated once ever since. A few anti-circumcision edits that were quickly reverted anyway.
The >1000 edits I have done in the meantime don't remotely touch anything related to it, and also don't violate any other editing policies.
The page massacre
After I made an unblock request on my talk page, not after being suspended itself , Bbb23 started deleting literally every page I have started. Around sixty pages.
This included legitimate redirects such as Mate 30 to Huawei Mate 30 and WP:YWAB to WP:Yes, we are biased , and also Note 9 to Samsung Galaxy Note 9 .
A few of those redirecrs have already been reinstated by other users.
But probably without the redirect category, I have not checked it yet.
His deletions also include draft articles I put alot of work into, including Draft:List of features removed from Android , Draft:List of features removed from YouTube and Draft:Comparison of mobile phone cameras .
These pages were estimatedly >50000 characters of information, all wiped out by B. b. b. 23.
His actions have inflicted 100× more damage onto Wikipedia than the few wrong edits I made months earlier.
There is more to tell, but for now, this is sufficient.
My point is:
If Bbb23 actually cared about Wikipedia's mission, he would treat users with more dignity and especially not erase legitimate redirects and good draft pages.
Also, the other administrators should embrace all constructive criticism, because constructive criticism helps making Wikipedia better.
(post is archived)