User talk:TonyBallioni

You've got mail!

Hello, TonyBallioni. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

GAB^gab 00:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Repeated tendentious sockpuppetry accusations

Hello, TonyBallioni. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent Changes Patrol Help

Is there any way you configure RCP so it shows edits likely needing patrol? Recent Changes Patrol seems very daunting...the list grows by 30 or 40 every second... Awesome Aasim 01:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I may have figured it out. I know of the filters available, but I do not know which ones you tend to use (which may be helpful given you are an experienced editor and admin). Awesome Aasim 01:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Awesome Aasim, (talk page stalker), I hope you don't mind another opinion.I use these settings: [1], which excludes registered users and bot edits and highlights probably bad edits. I sometimes include registered users, but I find that they are much less likely to be problematic. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi Tony. What is the precipitating event or events that caused you to indefinitely block Starship.paint?. Also, why was his talk page access revoked? Thank you.- MrX 🖋 14:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Read the block notice on Starship.paint (talk · contribs)'s talk page. Also look at roughly the last several edits across enwiki and metawiki. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You really think I didn't read the block notice? Awesome.- MrX 🖋 14:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, you asked what caused TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) to block Starship.paint (talk · contribs), and the reason is clearly given in the block notice. I assumed you hadn't noticed it, so I pointed it out. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi MrX, see my comments here and the previous warning he received by Nick here. Even if identities are known, this is not something we allow. It is the harassment of other human beings based on where they work or their perceived side in a on-wiki dispute. In cases of harassment where the harassment involved the abuse of user talk pages of others, I typically revoke TPA to prevent further issues from occurring on-wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) diff, diff, [2] seems enough to be going on with... ——SerialNumber54129 14:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I forgot about the Rob thing, but this still seems excessive under the circumstances.- MrX 🖋 14:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Seriously, Tony? This is indef-worthy stuff, from a contributor who has written excellent content and is not a flyby drama-monger? Since, Nick's warning to him counts, I will expect that stuff like this shall get a warning too for the 2 involved admins, right? I can surely point out others, who have asked the same query including ex-arbs, warn all of them? There are also multiple longstanding editors, who have raised/commented on the issue of the staffs (esp. T&S folks) liking Maher's tweet, warn/block them for infringing on OUTING and all that? ∯WBG^converse 14:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• He’s free to appeal (and has). My identity here isn’t public, but I always try to put myself in the shoes of the person the actions are taken against. The message being sent is we’re watching your every action because of your job, which I do consider to be targeted harassment, especially when taken in context. If the reason the WMF stepped in was because they thought that we couldn’t handle cases like this, the way to prove them right is to not take any action when someone targets their staff members. Yes, this whole situation is a complete mess, but blocking people for inappropriate actions in it and letting the appeals process play out shows that we do have community self-governances and that it should be taken seriously. The other option would have been for T&S to lock themselves, and that would be less than ideal in the current circumstances... TonyBallioni (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  Nice. Since we're entering newer territories, let me understand something. Floq over Jimbo's t/p noted:- Is it true that users with Twitter profiles "Trust & Safety @Wikimedia/@Wikipedia" and "Community & Audience Engagement Associate" both liked your CEO's tweet?. Does it qualify under watching your every action because of your job i.e. harassment? Does it show any fake concern? ∯WBG^converse 14:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Block is not only justified, but mandatory until they can adequately explain the error of their behavior, make it clear they understand our policies against harassment and vow to never repeat it.--MONGO (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• There is no way for volunteers to communicate with WMF or its staff. Unresponsive on-wiki, blockworthy off. It's a horrible way to treat volunteers. One could suspect that elements in WMF are deliberately winding things up in order to cause editor blow-ups, and get critics blocked. DuncanHill (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint block pulled

A jump straight to indef isn’t justified and is a really bad way of dealing with the situation. Not only does it turn the whole thing into an ego clash between you and Starship.paint but it is a great bit of passive aggressiveness towards you fellow admins who might want to resolve the matter (there aren’t many admins who like pulling fellow admin’s blocks). Yes none of these objections are entirely rational but when we are dealing with humans and people are throwing around words like honour the movement needs to be towards conflict de-escalation. Thats the advantage of time limited blocks. Gives the person a chance to get the hint without having to take an ego hit.

Oh and talking of honour this in the context of say this isn’t the most reasonable of requests.©Geni (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Geni, considering that @Doc James, Stwalkerster, Lourdes, and Dlohcierekim: and myself all thought the block was needed and wanted to wait to see their response, I don't think this was wise. You're not just overruling me. You're overruling four other administrators. Also, the reason that admins don't pull other admin's blocks without talking to them first is because it is against policy. I also think my request to Floq was entirely reasonable, and as I have said, I do not think opposing WJBscribe's action in violation of policy as a bureaucrat makes me involved here. I've been staying pretty neutral on the Fram thing, which apparently makes me "pro-foundation". TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey All. Lets just drop this. I am sure Starship understands things. I have an email indicating that they do. Geni the unblock was not cool but everyone lets just move forwards. We do not need this. I have requested here for more time to deal with the underlying issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Doc James, I typed up several responses, but I'll say this: thank you for your leadership in this difficult time. I'm very discouraged by this unblock for multiple reasons, but anything I say will be taken in bad faith by people on either side of the Fram debacle who just want to win. Geni, all I'll say is this: by overruling the consensus of reviewing administrators, you just made it much easier for the WMF to intervene on local projects. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Made it much easier to do...what they are doing anyway? Doesn't wash with me, TB. But of course, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, the issue is that this is a clear identifiable instance of harassment: if Starship.paint had started going around anywhere I'd work asking people to verify social media accounts, they'd have been trespassed and told not to return. The issue was being dealt with locally. I'd blocked, and there was going to be a discussion about what would happen going forward and what the lines are. Then an admin comes in and overrules the other administrators on the page without first talking to the blocking admin? That's a pretty good case for globally locking someone via office action if it happens again. Anyway, always good to have you on my page, even when we don't see eye to eye TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry TB, I came to rollback my remark, but you'd already replied ——SerialNumber54129 21:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You're fine :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Doc James, I'll happily drop the incident with Starship, because I do feel that they're probably on the up from here. I would still appreciate getting something from them showing that they understand why they were blocked though, but I'm not going to push for it. I'm much less willing to drop the abuse of tools by Geni in performing the unblock against both consensus and policy though. As I said elsewhere, this makes us look like harassment enablers, and that's not something I'm willing to stand by as a fellow member of this community. Finally, I find myself echoing Tony again when I also say thanks for your input :) stwalkerster (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Stwalkerster here, and the several other admins who've questioned this action. To break ADMINACCT policy at a time like this, undoing another admin's block for harassment with no strings attached, when our failure to tackle harassment is precisely what's led to the WMF seizing our powers, is crass and tonedeaf to say the least. Let's hope starship has really learned from this, but Geni please don't do anything like this again.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I am currently triaging problems. In normal times I would agree with you User:Stwalkerster and User:Amakuru. But these are no longer normal times. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding your behavior towards me

You may not know it, but when you performed this rollback on my talk page, you also removed a comment I posted in response to User:Sasquatch in the process. I've reposted it here for you:

I'm just feeling frustrated that no one is unblocking me. I put a lot of effort into my well-worded request, but what I'm essentially getting is a slap in the face for all that effort. This isn't fair; I might as well have not posted any request to begin with. :(

You really should have taken a close look at this comment before ruthlessly revoking my TPA and extending my block the way you did. MarcelTheHippie (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You were still edit warring on your talk page over an edit warring block. You'd been warned. You were told how to appeal, and you didn't. These were all your choices, not mine. Your block has expired. Just move forward and don't edit war again :) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It was your choice to make my block more harsh and severe. What do you think would have happened if you hadn't done that, but instead had accepted the unblock request which I reverted from declined status and had compassionately unblocked me? MarcelTheHippie (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You had been warned not to edit war on your unblock requests, or the block may be reset without TPA. You chose to ignore that advice and continued edit warring on your unblock requests. I'm not really not sure what you expected to happen when you reverted from declined status after you'd been told to stop it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You blocked me too early. It would have been better for you to wait for one more revert before doing what you did. I personally think you came close to abusing your admin privileges. MarcelTheHippie (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I disagree with you. I can't really do anything now: your block is over. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You'd better agree or I will report you to WP:ANI. MarcelTheHippie (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

For what? I told you how to have my action reviewed. You were blocked for edit warring and were edit warring on your talk page to undo declines. There really wasn't much else that could have been done. You can report me if you want, I never mind my actions being reviewed by others, but the block has expired so I'm not really sure why you want to have it reviewed now rather than via WP:UTRS when you were actually blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

User:TonyBallioni's block of User:Starship.paint and User:Geni's unblock

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:TonyBallioni's block of User:Starship.paint and User:Geni's unblock and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,