It’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:
TonyBallioni, Jayron32 (this is not the Andreas Jayron), Ajraddatz (the creepy meta admin), Dennis Brown, Amory (u • t • c) (User:Amorymeltzer), Hut 8.5, GAB (User:GeneralizationsAreBad), ♠PMC♠ (User:Premeditated Chaos, currently an arbitrator), Kudpung กุดผึ้ง , Dennis Brown, Yamla, Dirk Beetstra, Malcolmxl5, Mz7, Nyttend, Agathoclea, Doc James , Thryduulf, NeilN, Bishonen, Ben MacDui, Nick-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.
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.”
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.