Tony Ballioni: L’etat c’est moi

duck queck 49622 f. 190vIt’s official. The admins believe they can speak for the community.   Lead by TonyBallioni, a group of rogue admins has voted on an obscure talk page that a blocked user who is caught socking is now “community banned”.  “L’etat c’est moi”, says Tony, echoing Louis XIV in establishing the French absolute monarchy.  Anyone caught by checkuser — and we all know how accurate that is — will be “considered de facto banned by the Wikipedia community.”

The reasons for this, says Tony “de facto” Bannioni, is because NewYorkBrad and because too many ban requests at AN.  No links of course.  A quick scan of AN shows not even one such request in the contents, so no way to evaluate this.  New York Brad did not show up for the vote.  Maybe he didn’t get the memo–the discussion was on Village Pump (policy), not the talk page of the policy itself, and the only notification I can find was on the talk page of Wikipedia:Banning policy.  It would not be unlike Ira to lead from behind though, these days, so it’s entirely possible. But again, how can we evaluate this without a link? It’s a power play from beginning to end.

Here are the admins who did show up:

TonyBallioniJayron32  (this is not the Andreas Jayron),  Ajraddatz (the creepy meta admin), Dennis Brown, Amory (utc) (User:Amorymeltzer), Hut 8.5, GAB (User:GeneralizationsAreBad), ♠PMC♠ (User:Premeditated Chaos, currently an arbitrator), Kudpung กุดผึ้ง , Dennis BrownYamlaDirk BeetstraMalcolmxl5Mz7NyttendAgathocleaDoc James , ThryduulfNeilNBishonenBen MacDuiNick-D

Admins voting against:

Mystery admin zzuuzz:,  also BU Rob13, a current arbitrator and an actual checkuser, had some interesting and fact-based observation, and stood his ground when he was jumped on by Kudpung, Tony Bannioni, and Dirk Beetstra

There was a bit of drama when a non-admin had the gall to disagree with an admin.

Oppose Users like Slowking4 who have only evaded their block on good faith should not be considered “banned”, and a block is a preventative measure, if an evading editor doesn’t repeat the behaviour that lead to the block this is a punitive measure that doesn’t help improve the encyclopedia. This entire proposal is punitive and only serves as instruction creep. –Donald Trung (No fake news (Articles Respect mobile users. 00:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

A “naming violation” was immediately discovered, the poor user indefinitely blocked, but not before Tony Bannioni got in this charming and sophisticated  f-bomb.

It is impossible to block evade in good faith, as this is explicitly against one of the strongest community consensuses, and ignoring it is essentially saying “Fuck you” to the community. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

No, Tony, it is not saying “fuck you” to “the community”, as interpreted by power-hungry admins, it is saying “fuck you” to that idiot control freak Dirk Beetstra who “de facto-ed” him in order to enforce his own personal interpretation of “fair use” without so much as a talk page discussion.

You only have to go down the page a little further to see this Beetstra once again ignoring the fair use section of the policy he cites, and the obvious frustration of the user who has to deal with him.

But if you think Beetstra goes all anal in the above discussion, check out the way he has been obsessing over these SPI investigations since at least 2011. Heaven forbid some guy is still writing articles and even about to win an editing contest, must block, block, block and use syssop tools to win this petty fair-use argument.

  • “Edits (also of possible missed accounts) need to be rigorously flushed down the drain”
  • “previous socks were editing to participate in competitions”
  • “Starts to quack loud. I am considering to pull the trigger.”
  • “nuke everything they have done on en.wikipedia – their edits are their trophies.”
  • “Maybe I am getting paranoid. Two new editors by Special:AbuseFilter/643,”
  • @Bbb23: Thanks, I’ve nuked/reverted as much as possible per WP:DENY. Guess it is waiting now for new socks.”
  • Obvious sock. Blocked, tagged and contributions wiped where possible per WP:DENY.
  • “They have access to a couple of ranges. The underlying IPs have an own filter (639) set to block I am quite aware of where the master is. It has a few false positives, but some characteristics are too telling). On new accounts it is more difficult (filter 643).”
  • “Behaviour starts to quack. Unfortunately ACTRIAL is conflicting, but I think ACTRIAL is more important.”
  • “It is clear from the tupe of edits and his style of writing on talkpages. See also edit filters 639 and 643. “

Ha ha, two abuse filters?  Kumioko only rated one.

These guys also seem to come from the patroller community and really invested in transferring the patroller workload onto Articles for Creation–work they do not intend to do themselves, but to get someone else to do.  What a novel idea — take editors who are good at writing articles and instead of having them, you know, write more articles, get them to waste their time reviewing articles submitted by users who are not good at writing articles.

“Bagged and tagged.” Ugh.

So here’s the final policy change:

“Editors who are found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for any reason, are effectively banned by the Wikipedia community.”

Right.

And they’re going back to the grave-dancing block templates–the ones that are propagated by search engines.

I’m going to go ahead and say they will be ineffectively banned. They can’t really believe that will keep people from socking.

Although you never know.  It looks like user agent’s data is already available to checkusers.

But then who would they get to win their contests?
Après moi, le déluge.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Tony Ballioni: L’etat c’est moi

  1. You win the illustration of the week award. 🙂

    not before Tony Bannioni got in this charming and sophisticated f-bomb.

    I see that the story of having to use rough and tumble language to combat Nazis is continuing to get channeled into the Zeitgeist: The listening post (The Island English), Headlines and Hyperbole. (14:05-23:40)

    [Banned Twitter-user Waël Abbas] had been using profanity and insults against some of the people he politically disagreed with. We see this all the time…

    Jillian York (EFF), 22:45

  2. This one is even better:

    “We see this all the time, the users who are going up against Nazis, people who are advocating for genocide. Rather than the white supremacists who are being taken down, it’s the person who goes up against them and calls them names.”

    Believe it or not, I once saw someone blocked for referring to a historical figure as a Nazi, when they were an actual member of the Nazi party.

    It’s about community standards of course, but whose community.

    I’m not just mocking Tony Ballioni for his language though, although that’s juvenile enough. I’m mocking the way he acts. They are all so anxious to destroy an “enemy” that they take ordinary useful users and put “enemy” labels on them so they can have someone to demonize and exterminate. There are very few in SPI who can break away from that domineering authoritarian mindset and think for themselves.

    And now, O Joy, we are about to be treated to an RfC on ACTRIAL by the junior patroller crowd, to see if they can reduce their workload by transferring everything to the inept Articles for Creation project. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers&diff=prev&oldid=830318789 They’re not just bullies, they’re lazy.

  3. It’s remarkable only in how generous it is, given the current climate of mistrust and insecurity on Wikipedia. You can be indef-blocked, get caught socking twice, and only then are you in the position of having to persuade the entire community you can be trusted?

    Thanks to Jytdog, they are already now way harsher where socking isn’t necessarily a factor – you can get indef-blocked for anything, appeal it to AN/I, and if the appeal is declined, bang, you’re de-facto community banned. Bizarrely, this means you’re actually better off not appealing an indef-block and just creating a sock. Then another one, if caught. At least then you have not one but two chances to persuade a single admin it’s a case of mistaken identity, before you have to then run the gauntlet of appealing to the community before you can legitimately return to whatever brought you to Wikipedia.

    In the grand scheme of things, this is unimportant – such is the state of Wikipedia, proper process and procedure when it comes to bannination and fair trials, are only truly a consideration in the tiny amount of situations where an established and long term editor has got into trouble. Their insular and protectionist culture has decayed so badly, people now simply look the other way even in clear cut and obvious cases of a miscarriage, especially if the victim is a trouble maker (defined simply as one who complains of mistreatment).

    Presenting actual evidence so it can be reviewed doesn’t matter, establishing a timeline or pattern of conduct, let alone demonstrating broken promises and spurned chances, none of it matters. Now more than ever, Wikipedia governance, for the majority, is simply a case of either a show trial, or a secret trial.

  4. One small detail, if you are blocked you cannot appeal to ANI, since you would have to create a sock to do it and would instantly be in violation of the terms of the appeal. I have seen appeals denied for this reason. If you are blocked, you technically can only appeal anything on your talk page, assuming you still have talk page access. Bishonen and Jehochman cooked up a way around that, for example user:NInaGreen. There was also a user Cosmic Colton, or something like that, who tried to appeal with an IP, they have their own filter now to cut off their IP appeals.

    The admins will still have to go to the ANI page to log the block, so no time saved there, the only real difference is in the lack of appeal process.

    Questions are supposed to be resolved by the strength of the argument, but more and more it is based on who is making the argument.

    It’s all about access to influence, or more accurately “perceived influence”, and whether you belong to a clique with access or with the ability to manufacture the perception of influence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s