Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates/TonyBallioni

TonyBallioni

This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Use third-level headers for new sections. Example: === Heading title ===. Unsure about the election process? Please review the election rules. Issue with inappropriate commentary or questions? Please notify an election volunteer.	Be civil No personal attacks Refrain from canvassing and harassment Discuss the election, or ask questions here

Quoting candidate

Not a jerk, has a clue. - Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Endorsement

I have served on the Arbitration Committee for the past four years and I am one of the outgoing members. I strongly endorse this candidate. TonyBallioni is an active member of the Checkuser and Oversight team. Every committee should have at least a few members who are particularly knowledgeable in these areas as ArbCom oversees these teams. I'll go on the record and state that I encouraged TonyBallioni to put his name forward, as I am sure many others did as well. So if elected, we all know who he can blame when everything is on fire and he's trying to put it out. Mkdw ^talk 22:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Principled

Whether he knows it or not, ArbCom is probably the area where Tony and I disagree the most and most strongly, but nevertheless I'll be voting for him. He's a devoted functionary and principled editor who is always doing what he thinks makes the wiki a better place, which is the kind of person I want serving on ArbCom, regardless of how they vote. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Collegiate Disagreement - and I endorse strongly

TonyBallioni and I disagree, frequently, and fervently, on a gigantic range of issues on everything from conduct consideration, userrights, local policy, WMF/Community relations and more. Despite, or perhaps because of, that, I do feel they would be a good arbitrator. They certainly would never fall afoul of groupthink, nor has there been an incident of TB being uncivil towards me, or allowing it to reflect on other positions - they approach each issue and discussion anew, without being affected by previous sphere considerations. One of our more relevant areas of disagreement is that of arbcom behaviour/protections/policy, as considered in the anti-harassment RfC. Were all arbs as logically minded as TB, it would probably be easier to rely on individuals not rule safeguards. One reason we have the size of arbcom we do is to allow different perspectives and skillsets to be covered, and both of those will be enhanced by his addition to the committee. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Concerns from a friend

I'll preface this by saying that I'm friends with Tony and I won't be opposing him, and this is meant to be a "please take this into consideration" instead of a "I hope you lose". I know he's been watching over me and looking out for me for a long time. He nominated me for my rfa and stuck with me during the very toughest moments of it when others would have given up on me, and for that I have the utmost respect for him. I have no doubt that he has the projects best interests. But the thought of Tony being on Arbcom right now makes me uncomfortable.

In regards to the Bbb23 situation, Tony's other statements imply that he no longer agrees with his initial protest of arbcom's warning towards Bbb23, but he still says there, "This is a symptom of an overactive ArbCom, probably in reaction to last one, but I am quickly losing confidence in the ability of this committee to be fair to anyone who is active in difficult areas, and have lost substantial respect for many of its members.", which comes off as an unnecessary overreaction that Tony indicates he still partially stands by with his answer to Proc's question, albeit indirectly; "When I spoke of the Bbb23 situation I was firstly criticizing my own reaction. Bbb23 was a friend, and if I were on the committee I’d likely have recused like Katie did. I wasn’t the only one who wasn’t happy, but I was the most public. I don’t think that improved anything. On the list we had a discussion and everyone eventually came to an agreement on what the principles behind the policy were. I think starting there rather than criticizing would have been better"- Why likely? I feel like Tony, if on the committee at the time, may have opposed the rest of the committee, preventing what should've happened from happening. It confuses me how Tony prides on "having submitted multiple concerns to the Ombuds Commission over the last 3 years" yet was so defensive of Bbb23's sometimes dubious behavior and use of checkuser, which was considered by some an "open secret" of sorts, and appears to have occurred during my own rfa.... Coupled with further statements made during the discussion that seemed very reactionary Tony is a nice, well connected person who might have trouble holding other users he's on good terms with accountable.

But there's other, smaller things that make me uneasy, such as Tony's dislike of WPO. Now, I know that that's common among functionaries, and don't get me wrong, there is a high amount of extreme corniness, obnoxious whining, and 😐-worthy content on there (our biggest fan Alex Shih just made a comment about you!), but they've also helped rid us of some far more problematic editors over the years- just a few months ago they were helpful in providing evidence that got one of the most abusive editors in the sites history desysopped on commons and a at least 1 nazi indeffed. Tony's answer to my question about what he took issue with the current arbcom not including the Bbb23 and Portals cases wasn't very clear. He says he would've opposed opening the Motorsports case because "it had been returned to AN or ANI would have been closed within 72 hours with the same result" and would oppose opening the current elements request because "It doesn't take a PhD in chemistry to see that ArbCom taking that case would be unlikely to make Wikipedia better". On the Motorsports case, I do agree, although it had been to ani several times before with no result and no one opened up a report at an/ani while the case request was open... I don't understand the reasoning behind the statement "There was no reason at all to take that case." As for the other one, Tony talks about how it shouldn't go to arbcom and lists his reasons out, but doesn't mention an alternative to where it should go. I asked him to elaborate on what should be done, he hasn't done so (presumably because time), and I don't doubt he'll come up with a good answer, but it seems kind of short sighted... are the users just supposed to fight at ani until one of them becomes sad and leaves? There's also I do not consider ROPE ever to be a good reason to unblock. It’s the single most harmful essay on Wikipedia. Unblocks are cheap is a myth. It is exceptionally hard to reblock someone. So no, I don’t think there’s any rope left. I think the entire essay should be marked historical. I’m not commenting on this unblock request other than to point out that in the past, we’ve received promises and disruption has gone elsewhere. I think Galendalia is incompatible with this project, but if they can convince another admin otherwise, I’m not going to stand in the way of an unblock. Extremely skeptical is an understatement, however., which came off to me as a rather cruel thing to say about a younger user, and not something I think is 100% accurate. There's also this oppose in Captain Eek's rfa that came off as a very harsh critique of a user assuming good faith and being lied to by a user who they didn't know all the details about because they happened a while ago.

Overall, I feel like Tony is inconsistent with holding users accountable- unless they're socks of course. I don't really want you to lose and I honestly think you'll probably win, but being a friend means you've got to tell the truth, so I'll get this off my chest and be honest. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 23:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Moneytrees, not trying to change anything, but worth clarifying two things: I would have recused in the Bbb23 situation. I tend to talk in understatement when dealing with past events since I wasn't there. Just a linguistic habit. On Kudpung I responded directly since you asked directly. The other small thing I would add is that Galendalia claims to have been 43 on his userpage, so not that young. I usually try to go out of my way to be understanding with younger users since I started editing when I was fairly young myself. Otherwise I think I've already addressed everything in my questions or expressed my views on the topics loudly enough that people know my stances, and don't mind people commenting or disagreeing with them . TonyBallioni (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Moneytrees can't help feeling be that your comments above may partially have some thing to do with this comment of mine on an RfA that just scraped through with a significant opposition form some of our most respected users. You also appear to disapprove of people being friends with other users. In hindsight, perhaps I should have opposed that RfA instead of being generous. Whether it would have tipped the balance or not, I don't really care at this stage, because the Arbitration Committee is such a disjointed and contrary body of people that Tony being a member could only make it a far more equitable group than one of of 'obsessives and carreerists'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Kudpung, I don't understand where you got "You also appear to disapprove of people being friends with other users." from, or the connection between your neutral vote on my rfa and anything I said above. Are you talking about my question about whether Tony would vote to accept or decline your Arbcom case? Honestly, I only picked that case because it wasn't unanimously accepted and was wondering what Tony would've done.

You are right though, I did have something from you in mind when I wrote the above: at the top of your voter guide, you have a quote from our friend and my other rfa nom Ritchie333, where he says, "I'd rather have an admin who was straight talking than one who pussy foots around to be "nice"." I wouldn't say it like that, but I agree with the sentiment; it's better to be honest with a friend and someone I look up to than saying nothing. "In hindsight, perhaps I should have opposed that RfA instead of being generous." Why? It is because I didn't, well, "pussyfoot around"? Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 17:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Moneytrees FWIW, I also opposed CaptainEek's RfA. When admins are dragged down Via Dolorosa if they speak in their defence they will be accused of doubling down and some of the members of the Arbitration Committee who are less inclined to examine the full facts will throw the book not only harder, but as as hard as they possibly can. Tony wouldn't do that - it's not in his nature, so I'm seriously glad you won't be opposing him and I hope you will support rather than possibly just leave a neutral vote.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Opposition

TonyBallioni once threatened me with a ban to stop me from questioning an RFA candidate he had voted to support. Tony accused me of violating WP:DOX for a question about off-wiki forum posts that the candidate had already cleared for discussion, meaning the issue could be discussed under the letter of the policy. Tony was an involved admin; his warning showed at best an incredible lack of judgement and at worse a flagrant abuse of power. I will be voting against this candidate due to this conduct. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• I had forgotten about this and it took some digging, but for more context people can see this discussion, at the RfA there was generally agreement that the line of question was inappropriate and that it would have been suppressable if Kevin had not been put in the unfortunate situation of having all but been forced to acknowledge a post from when was much younger within the context of an RfA. I removed it and let you know why, and made it clear I had no intent of blocking you.
  I maintain it’s inappropriate for someone to be asked about a post they made on another forum, especially when they were younger, and the pressure to acknowledge the doxxing before it was suppressed doesn’t make it any less bad. I didn’t threaten to ban you: I let you know what the policy was. There was agreement that the RFA that the question was inappropriate; and I acted in line with that agreement without any objections at the time. The whole situation was unfortunate, but our policy forbids off-site opposition research for a reason: its harassment. Explicitly invoking IAR to remove a question generally agreed to be inappropriate is in my opinion appropriate, and letting someone know why it was done and why it shouldn’t be done in the future is also appropriate, especially if administrator tools were not used, but it was a note. TonyBallioni (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • So to reiterate, after voting to support a candidate, TonyBallioni started a mini-request for comment, determined the level of consensus (which in my opinion was far less clear than TonyBallioni claims) and then took it upon himself to enforce that consensus by removing questions and posting thinly veiled threats at the people who asked them. (And yes, an admin telling someone they’ll be blocked or banned for continuing a course of action is a threat). TonyBallioni showed a flagrant disregard for WP:Involved and a willingness to use his authority to benefit his favored editors. (For the record, I voted to support the RFA candidate, but my support was heavily delayed due to TonyBallioni’s attempted interference). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    • As Tony explained to you at the time, he was acting as an editor, not an admin. If he had blocked you, that would have violated WP:INVOLVED. Saying Please note that in the future, discussing private information could lead to a block is a reminder of policy for you going forward, not a threat to block, and certainly not an admin action. P-K3 (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
      • (This will be my final reply, as I’ve said all that needs to be said and am not interested in stoking further drama) The information being discussed was not “private” because it had been cleared by the RFA candidate even though the candidate had ever right to demand its redaction; editors are allowed to do this per wp:dox and open that evidence up to discussion. Tony’s statement carried the clear implication that he would be blocking me if I continued this legal line of questioning. This was a tacit threat clearly designed to be interpreted as such, and Tony’s explanation to the contrary is disingenuous. (This is very much the equivalent of arguing that the electoral college not the media decides who the American president is; fundamentally true in the abstract, but in practice used to imply something far more contentious). To be very blunt, I do not like drama and am not dredging this up for my own entertainment; I would have very much liked to just ignore this. However, my concerns about this editor’s actions are serious enough that I’m willing to stick my neck out. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Standard warnings on Wikipedia include references that continued disruptive behaviour "could lead to a block". As someone who has sat on the Arbitration Committee for the past four years and I have reviewed dozens of cases involving administrative misconduct. The example you provide does not constitute a threat or an involved administrative action. If you had taken it to AN or ArbCom citing ADMINCOND or INVOLVED, it would almost certainly be dismissed. Mkdw ^talk 04:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from a passive participant

Hi there. I'm just stopping by to chime in, after receiving a notification on my talk page that I was eligible to participate in this election. I recently returned from several years of inactivity, and I mainly focus on writing and editing articles. I don't spend too much time on internal community discussions, therefore ArbCom doesn't have much impact on me, so I'm not even sure if I'm going to vote in this election.

I stopped by this page, mainly out of curiosity, and I was surprised to see a name that I had recently come across: TonyBallioni. He and I recently engaged in a brief discussion regarding whether WP:OSPOL should be amended. I was surprised to learn, through this Elections page, that Ballioni is an Oversighter, yet he didn't disclose this fact when commenting on the very policy that regulates his privileges. It's possible that I was just unaware, as I'm a rather passive member of this community, but I do think that the public should be informed whenever high-ranking authority figures are commenting on policy.

Indeed, the very change that I was proposing would have limited the scope of Oversight authority. Naturally, Mr. Ballioni opposed it, claiming "shades of grey" and "discretion" in implementing the Oversight policy. But had I known that he's an Oversighter, I probably would have viewed his comments differently, as it is in the interest of Oversighters to maximize the scope of their discretion, regardless of how other community members might feel about it. In this case, I think we would benefit from electing members that have less existing authority rather than more, mainly to ensure a balance of viewpoints on the ArbCom that avoid favoring any specific groups.

Again, my comments are likely more reflective of my own status as a returning user, rather than one shared by the rest of the active editing community. Also, I don't have knowledge of the other candidates to make an informed decision, so I hesitate to even vote in this election. Edge3 (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Oversighter status isn't secret. It's well-known to most active users that Tony is an OSer and a CU, and he mentions it on his userpage in both a userbox and the first sentence of his bio. Him mentioning it every time he commented at WT:OS would probably be taken as unnecessary. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

If you'd like to better-know a user's groups, there are numerous scripts that could help you. The popups gadget is also useful. Stating one's user groups would likely be taken as rude or bullying and vaguely WP:OWNership-y. FWIW, I agree with Tony's take there, both in terms of opinion and in terms of OS practice. I say this an Oversighter, Interface-Admin, Sysop, and for the moment, Reviewer and Patroller. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)