Mantanmoreland goes socking? (Again?), LOL Options

[Piperdown]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sus.../Mantanmoreland

a big birdie tells me he's gotten caught again on off-WP sites sockpuppeting with new names, lol. Looks like this "bassett" guy on WP is up to the samiharris-mantanmoreland legacy.

At this point, anyone without a non-SPA history of some length on WP should be Checkusered if they edit the Patrick Byrne-Overstock-Naked Shorting trifecta of "let's fuck Byrne!" that's been going on, on-WP for years.


And who's the last person who should be doing a checkuser on Gary Weiss's socks or potential socks? (um, after Slimmy that is)?

Thatcher.

LOL. Thatcher, you've already been proven a wikifraud on the Gary Saga. Turn over the bullshit story to someone else. No one believes you any more on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req.../Mantanmoreland

Nevard is not Weiss, that's not news. Bassett's activity smells of Team Gary.

Tor proxies by any chance? Maybe Gary's gotten smart enough to get one of his associates to take up his man-love torch for Byrne.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[jorge]

If there was such thing as "avatar awards"- that would win (horror category).

[Derktar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm..._and_Bassettcat

Mantanmoreland and Bassettcat

* Bassettcat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - for editing history.
* Mantanmoreland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)


Technical and behavioral information indicate a very great possibility that User:Bassettcat is an abusive sock-puppet or otherwise editing in breach of both puppetry policy and most of the remedies of the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland. Specifically:

* Remedy 1 - "Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to Naked short selling, Overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, Gary Weiss, or closely related pages or discussions on any page is directed: (A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account; ... © To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies ... (D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances ... that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page."

* Remedy 4 - "Mantanmoreland, under any current or future account, is banned from editing articles related to Gary Weiss, Patrick Byrne, Overstock.com, Naked Short Selling, and other mainspace articles in the area of dispute, broadly construed."

* Remedy 5 - "Mantanmoreland is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account"


On May 14 2008, Bassettcat edited from his normal IP range at both 00:12 and 00:15, followed by an edit made on a second IP located over a thousand miles away at 00:18, and then an edit at his normal dialup IP at 00:21. The IP, located an estimated 500 - 1000 miles away, was a dsl connection, and almost beyond doubt, Mantanmoreland's (the same /25 block for those who understand IPs: ww.xx.yy.19 for Mantanmoreland, vs. ww.xx.yy.88 for Bassetcat). This is likely to show two things - when Bassetcat has access to a dsl connection in one city, he prefers to avoid using it and to instead edit via dialup using a connection that locates to around 500 - 1000 miles away, and that the dsl connection Bassetcat avoids editing through is almost certainly the connection of a user with past likely sock-puppetry, and an Arbcom ban on editing the articles that Bassettcat almost exclusively seeks to edit.

This is in addition to strong prior behavioral evidence that had alerted a number of users to the connection as well. Bassettcat's contributions were already suspect (see results of UserCompare, and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mantanmoreland). The question of "framing" was considered but technical evidence suggests it is both unlikely, and would have required a significant degree of telepathy. Other potential explanations such as "visiting on business" or "not my dsl" were considered but evaluated as being rather less likely, given the case evidence and its back-history.

Based on these findings I have blocked Bassettcat as a sockpuppet, and blocked Mantanmoreland for 2 weeks for breach of sock-puppetry policy and of the remedies of this case. Due to the gross egregious nature of this activity, I was tempted to block for considerably longer (some will surely feel a site ban is to be expected and wonder why not given) but feel that in fact this plus the sock being blocked, is sufficient, this time at least. Do not repeat after the block ends, and final warning on all egregious abuse or evasion issues of these kinds.

FT2 (Talk | email) 21:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Poor guy, he just couldn't behave.

[SirFozzie]

Gee, I'm so shocked. Not.

[Cla68]

Logged: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...blocks_and_bans

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Heat]

Logged: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...blocks_and_bans

Definitely time to slap a sockpuppeteer tag on Mantanmoreland's userpage and create [[Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mantanmoreland]] and [[Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mantanmoreland]]

[SirFozzie]

I think it's necessary, but if I did it, I'd be accused of kicking folks while they're down (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Aloft]

It's not his fault! Can't you see he's being subject to off-site trolling and harassment?

Where's JzG to step in and defend him again?

[Castle Rock]

It's not his fault! Can't you see he's being subject to off-site trolling and harassment?

Where's JzG to step in and defend him again?

Oh noes, JzG is on a wikibreak to avoid his Arbitration case.

This post has been edited by Castle Rock:

[WordBomb]

Gee, I'm so shocked. Not.

How shall we celebrate?

[SirFozzie]

Well, for me, it's 0 calorie lemonade, and Nutrisystem "diet" food.

The good news is I'm down three pounds in less then a week so far (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I have to admit, that more then the frustration over MM not being sitebanned YET, I'm feeling vindicated that the work Durova, G-Dett, Cool Hand Luke and to a point, myself did on Wikipedia has now been vindicated at the highest level possible. (not discounting the work Judd and others have done OFF of WP, mind you)

This post has been edited by SirFozzie:

[Piperdown]

Gary, in honour of his latest socking, and of Don Martin, got really upset with this latest outing of his little problem, and wrote 2 more hysterical blogs against Byrne and his "Baloney Brigade" (that now includes the head of the SEC, several Senators, powerful lawyers, witnesses, Hedge funds who've sued prime brokers for it, etc) today.

One of them was straight out of Emily Litella's schtick, lol. Went on and on and he didn't even read the article before he went off in a white-hot diatribe.

Apparently, any place is a good place for Gary to be off-base about naked short selling*


* that's just for you, Gary-Sami Moreland....

[Piperdown]

so this "FT" has blocked MM and banned Bassetcat.

Whither art thou, Thatcher?

You folks remember Thatcher. Gave Bassett a clean bill of health a few weeks ago. Imagine that.

Thatcher's behaviour on this matter over the years has been....interesting.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Kato]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI..._and_Bassettcat

On the admins noticeboard, where this business is being discussed, there is a complete absense of the usual idiotic mob. No Sidaways. No Sandifers. No Gerards. No JzGs. No SlimVirgins. No Jayjgs.

Where have they all gone? Where are all the people who have been attacking the mere idea that Gary Weiss was using socks to corrupt a series of articles? Where are all the people who attacked Wordbomb, Cla68, this site, even Cade Metz, over the last year or so?

Where are the admissions of responsibility? Where are the arenas where this corrupt crew can be held accountable for their actions over this?

The whole Weiss thing was classic Wikipedia. It was so damn obvious what was going on after any kind of mature analysis of the facts back in the early days. And yet those lunatics were allowed to get away with it in the face of any form of common sense for sooo long. And not only that, they aggressively rubbed people's noses in their nonsense. Just ridiculous.

[Piperdown]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI..._and_Bassettcat

On the admins noticeboard, where this business is being discussed, there is a complete absense of the usual idiotic mob. No Sidaways. No Sandifers. No Gerards. No JzGs. No SlimVirgins. No Jayjgs.

Where have they all gone? Where are all the people who have been attacking the mere idea that Gary Weiss was using socks to corrupt a series of articles? Where are all the people who attacked Wordbomb, Cla68, this site, even Cade Metz, over the last year or so?

Where are the admissions of responsibility? Where are the arenas where this corrupt crew can be held accountable for their actions over this?

The whole Weiss thing was classic Wikipedia. It was so damn obvious what was going on after any kind of mature analysis of the facts back in the early days. And yet those lunatics were allowed to get away with it in the face of any form of common sense for sooo long. And not only that, they aggressively rubbed people's noses in their nonsense. Just ridiculous.

Jossi chimed in with disdain about Gary's behaviour. Lol. Of all people. Although maybe Jossi just has a massive conflict of interest and WP:OWN problem with just one account and doesn't play the self-talking sock game like Gary.

[Alison]

so this "FT" has blocked MM and banned Bassetcat.

Whither art thou, Thatcher?

You folks remember Thatcher. Gave Bassett a clean bill of health a few weeks ago. Imagine that.

Thatcher's behaviour on this matter over the years has been....interesting.

Weeel ... Bassetcat had been on the radar for quite some time, too. I remember this checkuser case from some weeks back, although MM wasn't explicitly mentioned. Given that the account was only five days old, there would not have been a whole lot to go on, and Thatcher pretty-much said that, well, things seemed okay.

I've no idea of the checkuser info as I've not checked anyways (honest!), nor would I tell, but given the last case, it's likely that MM had got even sneakier since the previous experience and likely did his best to avoid association. Just speculation on my part, mind ...

This post has been edited by Alison:

[SirFozzie]

From what FT2 said, looks like MM screwed up once and made an edit from a MM IP with the Bassetcat account instead of the dial in and that was enough to trip him up

[WordBomb]

From what FT2 said, looks like MM screwed up once and made an edit from a MM IP with the Bassetcat account instead of the dial in and that was enough to trip him up

I find this the most sublime of all ironies: in the end, it was the ridiculously ineffective ArbCom decision (to allow Mantanmoreland to edit non-NSS articles) that was, in the end, his undoing.

Otherwise, there would have been no point of reference for associating MM and Bassettcat.

Another effect of the earlier ArbCom decision was -- just as they'd intended -- that it was very difficult to sell this as a story to any worthwhile media outlet, given nothing really happened.

And so, I didn't even bother.

Believe me when I say that's not how things are going to be tomorrow.

At this point, it's an embarrassment of riches: either the guy is site-banned or he's not. Site-banning this shyster journalist will be a huge story. But, given FT2's findings, not site-banning might make for an even bigger story.

I'm a little torn... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Alison]

so this "FT" has blocked MM and banned Bassetcat.

Whither art thou, Thatcher?

You folks remember Thatcher. Gave Bassett a clean bill of health a few weeks ago. Imagine that.

Thatcher's behaviour on this matter over the years has been....interesting.

Weeel ... Bassetcat had been on the radar for quite some time, too. I remember this checkuser case from some weeks back, although MM wasn't explicitly mentioned. Given that the account was only five days old, there would not have been a whole lot to go on, and Thatcher pretty-much said that, well, things seemed okay.

Okay, so I had a dig around. From what FT2 said;

On May 14 2008, Bassettcat edited from his normal IP range at both 00:12 and 00:15, followed by an edit made on a second IP located over a thousand miles away at 00:18, and then an edit at his normal dialup IP at 00:21.

That was weeks after Thatcher ran the first RFCU case on April 3, so he'd no chance of catching him until MM goofed with that single edit. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

This post has been edited by Alison:

[Viridae]

I LOL'd.

[Gold heart]

I LOL'd.

Catching socks. Job satisfaction. Exhilarating, no doubt? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[The Joy]

How many socks could a sockpuppeteer sock if a sockpuppeteer could sock socks?

Maybe Mantanmoreland knows! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[Milton Roe]

At this point, it's an embarrassment of riches: either the guy is site-banned or he's not. Site-banning this shyster journalist will be a huge story. But, given FT2's findings, not site-banning might make for an even bigger story.

I'm a little torn... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Here's today's Moment of Zen from that discussion:

Non-voting comment - Whilst a ban is usually a popular thing to vote for, I propose a block of a fixed time period (and not a ridiculous period, like 3,481 years). This allows the user to reflect. Banning only helps websites like Wikipedia Review. I give only philosophical comments and am not casting a vote. Comployeah (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And we can't have THAT, can we? Instead, let's keep all the people banned who went to WP to complain about about Mantan, all those months ago, while we continue to handle Mantan with kid gloves, so as not to help WR.

You know those bad WR people? They lie and say evil things about WP, like how it's dysfunctional, vicious toward newbies and people who know the score, permits sockpuppeting from cronies of the cabal; and in addition, is filled to the max with pompous nerds who cannot find their rear ends with both hands? But who frequently want to? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Yep, that's us. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[Gold heart]

How many socks could a sockpuppeteer sock if a sockpuppeteer could sock socks?

Maybe Mantanmoreland knows! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

How long is a piece of string? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

The amusing aspect about is that much of Wikipedia's finest work is done by socks. Socks can be good and also serve as an expedient counter against barnbot pov-pushers.

"Sock-it-to-them" Mantanmoreland. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

"Long live the socks", they keep some folks intent, no doubt!

You know those bad WR people? They lie and say evil things about WP, like how it's dysfunctional, vicious toward newbies and people who know the score, permits sockpuppeting from cronies of the cabal, and it addition, is filled to the max with pompous nerds who cannot find their rear ends with both hands? But who frequently want to? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Yep, that's us. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

Cultish, ain't it? Those bad outsiders who criticise WP. How dare they! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[Sarcasticidealist]

Here's today's Moment of Zen from that discussion:

Non-voting comment - Whilst a ban is usually a popular thing to vote for, I propose a block of a fixed time period (and not a ridiculous period, like 3,481 years). This allows the user to reflect. Banning only helps websites like Wikipedia Review. I give only philosophical comments and am not casting a vote. Comployeah (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, that was a Dereks1x (Archtransit's sockmaster) sock, so I don't think anything he says can be considered as being cabal-authorized.

[Viridae]

I LOL'd.

Catching socks. Job satisfaction. Exhilarating, no doubt? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I've never caught a sock in my life. I LOL'd at arbcom being so spectacuarly wrong and then having it thrown in their face.

[cyofee]

Mantanmoreland (the account) isn't banned becasue it might provide evidence about the misdeeds of the person behind it (and it has).

[BobbyBombastic]

I've never caught a sock in my life. I LOL'd at arbcom being so spectacuarly wrong and then having it thrown in their face.

I laughed too. At least FT2 was willing to admit what he found though, instead of just feeding it to the dog and acting like the evidence did not exist. So I guess I have to give him some respect for that. Certainly not all Arbcom members would have acted on this--that is evidenced by their previous comments, refusal to say Mantan was socking, and their ridiculous "Samiharris is Wordbomb" theory.

If Gary/Mantan is reading this, I have an offer that is out of this world. How would you like to have a BIG advertisement positioned on the front page of the Internet's hottest wiki directory, for the entire month of June 2008?! No need to sock, cultivate powerful friends, purchase proxy services, or pretend that you are Catholic! Sound too good to be true? Then don't take my word for it, try it today!

[Somey]

Getting back to topic, I wonder if Mantanmoreland is finally banned, maybe he would like to join Wikipedia Review? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

He already has, at least twice. One is just a lurker account in case the other (occasionally active) one gets suspended, of course...

[dogbiscuit]

He already has, at least twice. One is just a lurker account in case the other (occasionally active) one gets suspended, of course...

Ooh, you're such a tease (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[BobbyBombastic]

Mod note: The discussion among Wikipedia Reviewers Who Are Watching Their Weight was moved here.

[Milton Roe]

Getting back to topic, I wonder if Mantanmoreland is finally banned, maybe he would like to join Wikipedia Review? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

He already has, at least twice. One is just a lurker account in case the other (occasionally active) one gets suspended, of course...

Ewwwww.

[One]

I've never caught a sock in my life. I LOL'd at arbcom being so spectacuarly wrong and then having it thrown in their face.

I laughed too. At least FT2 was willing to admit what he found though, instead of just feeding it to the dog and acting like the evidence did not exist. So I guess I have to give him some respect for that. Certainly not all Arbcom members would have acted on this--that is evidenced by their previous comments, refusal to say Mantan was socking, and their ridiculous "Samiharris is Wordbomb" theory.

The new Arbs were the good guys in that ArbCom; I think FT2 was vindicating himself. Recall how UninvitedCompany claimed that the more "experienced" Arbs were the most reluctant to draw conclusions from the "ambiguous" evidence. Note how FT2 and FayssalF are ready to seriously entertain indefinite ban. I think those two plus NYB would have banned him to begin with.

[Alison]

I've never caught a sock in my life. I LOL'd at arbcom being so spectacuarly wrong and then having it thrown in their face.

I laughed too. At least FT2 was willing to admit what he found though, instead of just feeding it to the dog and acting like the evidence did not exist. So I guess I have to give him some respect for that. Certainly not all Arbcom members would have acted on this--that is evidenced by their previous comments, refusal to say Mantan was socking, and their ridiculous "Samiharris is Wordbomb" theory.

The new Arbs were the good guys in that ArbCom; I think FT2 was vindicating himself. Recall how UninvitedCompany claimed that the more "experienced" Arbs were the most reluctant to draw conclusions from the "ambiguous" evidence. Note how FT2 and FayssalF are ready to seriously entertain indefinite ban. I think those two plus NYB would have banned him to begin with.

What I liked about this case was that FT2 came right out on behalf of ArbCom, stated the facts, laid out the evidence and didn't brush the whole matter under the carpet. This is how things should be dealt with, as we've seen time and time again that coverups and under-the-counter deals only get found out in the end, and only foster an atmosphere of distrust. This time - good call, IMO. Let's hope this is the default setting and not just some aberration (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[dogbiscuit]

Gone

Even when given a poke, his defenders were silent. However, this is a standard tactic - ignore an unwinnable argument and then come back later with a different tactic. So what will it be:

* ArbCom decision does not support,
* not long enough to discuss something as important as a community ban so overturning while regaining consensus,
* Krimpet is acting as a proxy for a banned site?

Place your bets.

[Alison]

Gone

Even when given a poke, his defenders were silent. However, this is a standard tactic - ignore an unwinnable argument and then come back later with a different tactic. So what will it be:

* ArbCom decision does not support,
* not long enough to discuss something as important as a community ban so overturning while regaining consensus,
* Krimpet is acting as a proxy for a banned site?

Place your bets.

(sticks neck out)

Vindication feels good right now, I'll bet (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

All this time wasting, all the effort put in by so many people over months and months. And he gets away with it. It's obvious that he'd felt emboldened by the previous case and felt he could get away with anything.

Still, he slipped up and now he's busted (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Good riddance! A lot of people got hurt, got sucked into this whole mess (nods @ Piperdown), wasted valuable time in painstaking investigations only to have it largely ignored and a lot of otherwise good people were cowed by overbearing bullies.

Good riddance to that and hopefully, to the dark days of guilt by association. Well done, guys (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[One]

No one will touch that.

Don't get me wrong. They would have argued to the ends of the earth if it could be dismissed as "circumstantial evidence," but CU kills it. They look foolish, and they won't want to draw attention to their idiocy. (I think this is why FT2 and FayssalF have commented and not, say, FloNight.)

[thekohser]

If Gary/Mantan is reading this, I have an offer that is out of this world. How would you like to have a BIG advertisement positioned on the front page of the Internet's hottest wiki directory, for the entire month of June 2008?! No need to sock, cultivate powerful friends, purchase proxy services, or pretend that you are Catholic! Sound too good to be true? Then don't take my word for it, try it today!

I can't believe you'd have the nerve to pollute this site with a commercial, for-profit spam link!

[Alison]

If Gary/Mantan is reading this, I have an offer that is out of this world. How would you like to have a BIG advertisement positioned on the front page of the Internet's hottest wiki directory, for the entire month of June 2008?! No need to sock, cultivate powerful friends, purchase proxy services, or pretend that you are Catholic! Sound too good to be true? Then don't take my word for it, try it today!

I can't believe you'd have the nerve to pollute this site with a commercial, for-profit spam link!

It's okay - I'll update MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist on here.

Oh wait .... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by Alison:

[Milton Roe]

Vindication feels good right now, I'll bet (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

All this time wasting, all the effort put in by so many people over months and months. And he gets away with it. It's obvious that he'd felt emboldened by the previous case and felt he could get away with anything.

Still, he slipped up and now he's busted (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Good riddance! A lot of people got hurt, got sucked into this whole mess (nods @ Piperdown), wasted valuable time in painstaking investigations only to have it largely ignored and a lot of otherwise good people were cowed by overbearing bullies.

Good riddance to that and hopefully, to the dark days of guilt by association. Well done, guys (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

It's not over till the damage is fixed. Wordbomb is still blocked for complaining about this. They have him blocked for the complaint he made connecting an account with a real person (not knowing this is sacrosanct) and then SlimV seems to have lost the records (and so has everybody else) regarding whether he continued to talk about GW after being blocked. THEN after keeping him blocked, he switched tactics to the only ones he had available. Now he's banned for those.

But this all goes back to the cop who nightsticks a guy for protesting outside the political convention, after which they guy beats up the cop, gets arrested, busts out of jail, and winds up in prison for all kinds of resistance to authority things much worse than protesting outside a convention. And nothing is said about the violent cop. And everybody is congratulating themselves because it's been proven that substance of the original protest was correct. Yeah, but what about the guy still in the slammer for resisting arrest and jailbreak?

[Heat]

Banned and tagged. And with that the credibility of Arbcomm, Slimmy, JzG et al slips further into the muck.

[dogbiscuit]

No one will touch that.

Don't get me wrong. They would have argued to the ends of the earth if it could be dismissed as "circumstantial evidence," but CU kills it. They look foolish, and they won't want to draw attention to their idiocy. (I think this is why FT2 and FayssalF have commented and not, say, FloNight.)

There are still lots of options. There is the "Gary is contrite and admits his sins, so we must show good faith so let's unblock this fine contributor to our site" routine, for a start. Then there is that dratted root kit doing the rounds, of course.

Given that Gary thinks Wikipedia is a very important platform (which informs us more generally of why WR is right to be concerned about WP), then I doubt he will give in, as now he does not have to maintain a sock, he can just go for the vanilla new account, if he has not already been brewing up a couple more, just in case.

[Rootology]

Given that Gary thinks Wikipedia is a very important platform (which informs us more generally of why WR is right to be concerned about WP), then I doubt he will give in, as now he does not have to maintain a sock, he can just go for the vanilla new account, if he has not already been brewing up a couple more, just in case.

Gary doing this will have the same problem I would have had, with us having extremely unique interests that put together are a cute little fingerprint. How many people out there have interests in bluegrass/celtic/jam music, Seattle, Connecticut, and comic books on one side, and for example Gary Weiss, DTCC, Naked Short Selling, Byrne, Bagley, and all that on his side? Anyone showing up to do all of them is clearly going to be me or him, and if made a separate account for each of those articles, like one for DTCC, one for Naked shorting, I bet you it'd still be Checkusered and it would eventually turn up the others.

[LessHorrid vanU]

No one will touch that.

Don't get me wrong. They would have argued to the ends of the earth if it could be dismissed as "circumstantial evidence," but CU kills it. They look foolish, and they won't want to draw attention to their idiocy. (I think this is why FT2 and FayssalF have commented and not, say, FloNight.)

There are still lots of options. There is the "Gary is contrite and admits his sins, so we must show good faith so let's unblock this fine contributor to our site" routine, for a start. Then there is that dratted root kit doing the rounds, of course.

Given that Gary thinks Wikipedia is a very important platform (which informs us more generally of why WR is right to be concerned about WP), then I doubt he will give in, as now he does not have to maintain a sock, he can just go for the vanilla new account, if he has not already been brewing up a couple more, just in case.

Ahead of you there, I have commented that the articles that Mantanmoreland is so keen to control may need protection. Since I doubt my preferred option of scorched earth will get any traction I have made another raft of suggestions.

[everyking]

This all reminds me of something. See if you can guess who said the following about whom: "He showed no remorse and no understanding of the gravity of what he did. ... He should not again be given another opportunity to violate the trust of the community." Because I think that sounds like the perfect attitude to adopt in dealing with the situation at hand.

[dogbiscuit]

This all reminds me of something. See if you can guess who said the following about whom: "He showed no remorse and no understanding of the gravity of what he did. ... He should not again be given another opportunity to violate the trust of the community." Because I think that sounds like the perfect attitude to adopt in dealing with the situation at hand.

There are large amounts of humble pie to be eaten.

A wise response from the community would now be to show good faith and unban WordBomb. I would note that WordBomb has always behaved well on Wikipedia in spite of provocation. I'm sure that is a safe action, WordBomb has little interest in editing Wikipedia as far as I am aware.

[SirFozzie]

The "problem" with a ban is that anyone who looks even a smidge like MM is going to be hammered without restraint/remorse, followed to the ends of the earth, spark edit war after edit war (remember, BAN policy on WP states that they can be reverted WITHOUT recourse to 3RR), and generally drama.

So.. basically the same as things things were, just place "Socks of Mantanmoreland" in the neat lil placeholder in front of "Socks of Wordbomb".

(raises an eyebrow as he contemplates that)

your suggestion is looking better and better LessHorrid vanU....

[Gold heart]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI..._and_Bassettcat

On the admins noticeboard, where this business is being discussed, there is a complete absense of the usual idiotic mob. No Sidaways. No Sandifers. No Gerards. No JzGs. No SlimVirgins. No Jayjgs.

Where have they all gone? Where are all the people who have been attacking the mere idea that Gary Weiss was using socks to corrupt a series of articles? Where are all the people who attacked Wordbomb, Cla68, this site, even Cade Metz, over the last year or so?

Where are the admissions of responsibility? Where are the arenas where this corrupt crew can be held accountable for their actions over this?

The whole Weiss thing was classic Wikipedia. It was so damn obvious what was going on after any kind of mature analysis of the facts back in the early days. And yet those lunatics were allowed to get away with it in the face of any form of common sense for sooo long. And not only that, they aggressively rubbed people's noses in their nonsense. Just ridiculous.

A typical "Elephant in the Room" scenario. Everyone sees it, but no-one wants to say anything at all. Then, after the fact, voilà, everyone at Wikipedia becomes an expert in the analysis.

It'll be the same again, and again, and again, for there are many "elephants in rooms" yet to be addressed. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)



This post has been edited by Gold heart:

[WordBomb]

A wise response from the community would now be to show good faith and unban WordBomb. I would note that WordBomb has always behaved well on Wikipedia in spite of provocation. I'm sure that is a safe action, WordBomb has little interest in editing Wikipedia as far as I am aware.

Not entirely true. Earlier this week, I was shocked by the stubbiness of the article on David P. Broder, and began doing the research to expand it, but then remembered that I'm not allowed. I must admit that if unbanned, I will almost certainly work on improving that article.

Oh yeah...for the past few months I've also been contributing to the Spanish language Wikipedia...so far without incident. If that's a technical violation of my ban, then they might have to reset the clock (back to infinity).

[No one of consequence]

Oh yeah...for the past few months I've also been contributing to the Spanish language Wikipedia...so far without incident. If that's a technical violation of my ban, then they might have to reset the clock (back to infinity).

No, every wiki is separate.

[Rootology]

Oh yeah...for the past few months I've also been contributing to the Spanish language Wikipedia...so far without incident. If that's a technical violation of my ban, then they might have to reset the clock (back to infinity).

It wouldn't be. I began contributing on Commons before my English Wikipedia unblock was approved--one Wiki has no authority over any other. I think they only block people on multiple ones for totally insane stuff, but I can't even think of anyone that had that happen. Maybe some IP that spammed multiple ones?

[dogbiscuit]

A wise response from the community would now be to show good faith and unban WordBomb. I would note that WordBomb has always behaved well on Wikipedia in spite of provocation. I'm sure that is a safe action, WordBomb has little interest in editing Wikipedia as far as I am aware.

Not entirely true. Earlier this week, I was shocked by the stubbiness of the article on David P. Broder, and began doing the research to expand it, but then remembered that I'm not allowed. I must admit that if unbanned, I will almost certainly work on improving that article.

Oh yeah...for the past few months I've also been contributing to the Spanish language Wikipedia...so far without incident. If that's a technical violation of my ban, then they might have to reset the clock (back to infinity).

Ah, so we can add the "did good work on another project" PoetLister manoeuvre too. Your case is looking stronger by the second. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

If you take away the character assassination, what were your real sins on Wiki - though I suppose we still "don't know" that MM == GW which allows the BADSITErs to still claim you were that most heinous of sinners - the outer. You carried yourself well in the ArbCom case, so I am sure you would not embarrass anyone who proposed this. It would be as near to closure as they could get - and they also have the example of Piperdown who was a man of his word.

[WordBomb]

Oh yeah...for the past few months I've also been contributing to the Spanish language Wikipedia...so far without incident. If that's a technical violation of my ban, then they might have to reset the clock (back to infinity).

No, every wiki is separate.

¡Menos mal!

[SirFozzie]

Blocks/Bans are only good on the version of WP that issued them.

so working on the spanish language WP is not a violation of an en WP ban.



This post has been edited by SirFozzie:

[dogbiscuit]

Blocks/Bans are only good on the version of WP that issued them.

so working on the spanish language WP is not a violation of an en WP ban.

Go on Fozzie, you can do it - you know you want to (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[SirFozzie]

Porque? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Random832]

Oh yeah...for the past few months I've also been contributing to the Spanish language Wikipedia...so far without incident. If that's a technical violation of my ban, then they might have to reset the clock (back to infinity).

Bans don't extend across projects, and a history of good contributions to another project may even help you get unbanned. If you'd like to contribute in english, there's also the simple english wikipedia, and of course wiktionary, wikiquote, etc.

[WordBomb]

If you take away the character assassination, what were your real sins on Wiki - though I suppose we still "don't know" that MM == GW which allows the BADSITErs to still claim you were that most heinous of sinners - the outer. You carried yourself well in the ArbCom case, so I am sure you would not embarrass anyone who proposed this. It would be as near to closure as they could get - and they also have the example of Piperdown who was a man of his word.

Their main concern -- which I could empathize with were the circumstances less strange -- is that I took less-traditional steps to ascertain the identity of certain editors I suspected of being Gary Weiss (ie: Tomstoner, Lastexit, Mantanmoreland and Samiharris), and then blogged about the results.

Along the way, SlimVirgin and Jayjg got caught up in the madness (on behalf of Weiss) and, through database analysis, I discovered evidence of questionable actions on their parts, and blogged about that, as well.

Outting is not good, in and of itself. I understand that.

Dropping nuclear weapons on cities full of civilians is also bad. However, it is less bad when viewed in the context of Pearl Harbor and everything that followed.

Similarly, taking steps to out Mantanmoreland is less bad when viewed in the context of everything that preceded it, and the damage Weiss was doing to Wikipedia by being allowed to operate unfettered.

Keeping that end of the equation in the dark is what the Cabal has been extraordinarily effective at doing.

And this is why I remain skeptical that my status will change, though I'd welcome and support any effort to unban me.

[Moulton]

Everyone sees it, but no-one wants to say anything at all.

See mokita.

[dogbiscuit]

And this is why I remain skeptical that my status will change, though I'd welcome and support any effort to unban me.

It strikes me that unbanning you without an inquest would be a good way for Wikipedia to move on and declare those events passed. I'm sure you could come up with some words of assurance that can save face for those embarrassed by their part (more or less as you have just said above).

I was thinking someone could propose an unban along the lines of:

Given that the MM socking case has been shown to be proven, as an act of good faith, I propose that WordBomb is unblocked. From postings elsewhere, WordBomb has made it clear that he understands that his unconventional techniques for sock checking were inappropriate and would not seek to use them in the future. I also understand he has made positive contributions on the Spanish Wikipedia project without incident. Therefore, to seek closure on this matter, with the minimum of fuss, I am proposing his unblocking. I am sure that he will be under close scrutiny, so there is little risk to the project in this action.

I'm tempted to do it myself, but that would probably only be seen as drama.

[WordBomb]

It strikes me that unbanning you without an inquest would be a good way for Wikipedia to move on and declare those events passed. I'm sure you could come up with some words of assurance that can save face for those embarrassed by their part (more or less as you have just said above).

I was thinking someone could propose an unban along the lines of:

Given that the MM socking case has been shown to be proven, as an act of good faith, I propose that WordBomb is unblocked. From postings elsewhere, WordBomb has made it clear that he understands that his unconventional techniques for sock checking were inappropriate and would not seek to use them in the future. I also understand he has made positive contributions on the Spanish Wikipedia project without incident. Therefore, to seek closure on this matter, with the minimum of fuss, I am proposing his unblocking. I am sure that he will be under close scrutiny, so there is little risk to the project in this action.

I'm tempted to do it myself, but that would probably only be seen as drama.

I'd even up the ante by pointing out that I recognize that I'm conflicted on the Big Four Weiss-touched articles, and I don't intend to edit any of them (though I'd likely opine on their talk pages, where appropriate).

Not only that, but -- and I've made this commitment before -- I'll gladly remove the Wikipedia-related content from my blog (which was put there to affect change, and would have served its purpose).

[Heat]

A wise response from the community would now be to show good faith and unban WordBomb. I would note that WordBomb has always behaved well on Wikipedia in spite of provocation. I'm sure that is a safe action, WordBomb has little interest in editing Wikipedia as far as I am aware.

Not entirely true. Earlier this week, I was shocked by the stubbiness of the article on David P. Broder, and began doing the research to expand it, but then remembered that I'm not allowed. I must admit that if unbanned, I will almost certainly work on improving that article.

Oh yeah...for the past few months I've also been contributing to the Spanish language Wikipedia...so far without incident. If that's a technical violation of my ban, then they might have to reset the clock (back to infinity).

It's not. You've only been banned on English wikipedia. You're free to edit any other wikis and, in fact, good behavior on those wiks can be used to support a case for unbanning on en.wikipedia.

[Shalom]

In all seriousness:

I came too late to this discussion to pile on my support for banning Mantanmoreland. If he never edits Wikipedia again, it won't be too soon. It's better for me not to say more about that.

I think it's a little early to talk seriously about unbanning WordBomb, though I would consider it a few months into the future. Everyone else in a similar situation is asked to wait a year from the last time they abusively use sockpuppets. In WordBomb's case, I think his most recent sockpuppet, Post Doctorate y-o-y, was blocked in January 2008. (See [url]block log.) Come back in 2009, after staying clean for a year, and then we can talk. However, as a matter of principle, I have to agree with what WordBomb wrote on his blog: "When you're right, you're right."

The other issue that needs to be resolved is outing SlimVirgin. I think a lot of people will want to keep you banned forever unless you offer some kind of explanation for why you absolutely had to do that. I don't support outing of Wikipedia editors regardless of whether I personally am friendly with those editors or not.

This post has been edited by Shalom:

[WordBomb]

The other issue that needs to be resolved is outing SlimVirgin. I think a lot of people will want to keep you banned forever unless you offer some kind of explanation for why you absolutely had to do that. I don't support outing of Wikipedia editors regardless of whether I personally am friendly with those editors or not.

Excellent points, all. However I will point out that the SV=LM connection was made here by Daniel Brandt (I believe), months before I came along.

[dogbiscuit]

In all seriousness:

I came too late to this discussion to pile on my support for banning Mantanmoreland. If he never edits Wikipedia again, it won't be too soon. It's better for me not to say more about that.

I think it's a little early to talk seriously about unbanning WordBomb, though I would consider it a few months into the future. Everyone else in a similar situation is asked to wait a year from the last time they abusively use sockpuppets. In WordBomb's case, I think his most recent sockpuppet, Post Doctorate y-o-y, was blocked in January 2008. (See [url]block log.) Come back in 2009, after staying clean for a year, and then we can talk. However, as a matter of principle, I have to agree with what WordBomb wrote on his blog: "When you're right, you're right."

The other issue that needs to be resolved is outing SlimVirgin. I think a lot of people will want to keep you banned forever unless you offer some kind of explanation for why you absolutely had to do that. I don't support outing of Wikipedia editors regardless of whether I personally am friendly with those editors or not.

That does not bring reconciliation and closure and does not recognise the unusual circumstances of this case. There comes a point where it is best to move on.

The SV thing is pretty well understood, and it is not a simple, one sided affair, and outside Wikipedia makes perfect sense (remembering this is in the context where real companies and real people were being damaged by a dispute that had been brought onto Wikipedia and Wikipedians involved themselves in).

[Shalom]

The other issue that needs to be resolved is outing SlimVirgin. I think a lot of people will want to keep you banned forever unless you offer some kind of explanation for why you absolutely had to do that. I don't support outing of Wikipedia editors regardless of whether I personally am friendly with those editors or not.

Excellent points, all. However I will point out that the SV=LM connection was made here by Daniel Brandt (I believe), months before I came along.

I know this is hypocritical of me to say, because I think the Sweet Blue Water connection is relevant to the current arbitration case, but your posting that information was a breach of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy, if only because you also posted an IP address and named a geographic location to go along with it. Now, I'm fully aware that your own geographic location and real-world identity has been dragged into this also, so it may seem like fair game to do the same to SlimVirgin, and I have no doubt that it was fair with respect to Mantanmoreland (that was basically a conflict-of-interest content problem when you boil it down to its essence). But I guess that's what bothers me more than just the question of who was the first to say SV=LM. I would add that you posted some details on your blog about LM that, to the best of my knowledge, Daniel Brandt would not have known without your saying so.

To Dogbiscuit: I don't really care about closure. I care about fairness. For now, I think fairness dictates that WordBomb stays banned, but that could change with a few months of good behavior or even no behavior at all. As a practical matter, it's in ArbCom's hands, and I'm not going to join ArbCom anytime soon.

[Gold heart]

The other issue that needs to be resolved is outing SlimVirgin. I think a lot of people will want to keep you banned forever unless you offer some kind of explanation for why you absolutely had to do that. I don't support outing of Wikipedia editors regardless of whether I personally am friendly with those editors or not.

Couldn't agree with less. It should be mandatory that all administrators be accountable and public. If they don't want to go public, then resign the task. And this has more to do with credibility than anything else. If you want the "professor of philosophy" at Yale University, then you can get him/her on the internet, or write. No big secret, no big deal. Why is it such a big deal for Wikipedia, what are they trying to hide? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

[WordBomb]

I know this is hypocritical of me to say, because I think the Sweet Blue Water connection is relevant to the current arbitration case, but your posting that information was a breach of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy, if only because you also posted an IP address and named a geographic location to go along with it. Now, I'm fully aware that your own geographic location and real-world identity has been dragged into this also, so it may seem like fair game to do the same to SlimVirgin, and I have no doubt that it was fair with respect to Mantanmoreland (that was basically a conflict-of-interest content problem when you boil it down to its essence). But I guess that's what bothers me more than just the question of who was the first to say SV=LM. I would add that you posted some details on your blog about LM that, to the best of my knowledge, Daniel Brandt would not have known without your saying so.

I suspect that if enough time is spent examining this case, numerous violations of WMF policy -- literal, technical, spiritual, and otherwise -- could be found on all sides. The problem is, only one side has been allowed to be examined in the uniquely public forum that is Wikipedia.

Care to guess which side?

At this point, if healing is to take place, either the whole thing should be exhaustively examined bit by bit, or the whole thing should be put behind us and a stake driven through its heart.

I was unjustly banned, minutes into my editing career. That madness has led to all manner of other madness, and that's where fixing things should begin.

[Aloft]

User:Pwntjuice was just banned by FT2 as a sockpuppet of Wordbomb. Was that really you?

This post has been edited by Aloft:

[dogbiscuit]

To Dogbiscuit: I don't really care about closure. I care about fairness. For now, I think fairness dictates that WordBomb stays banned, but that could change with a few months of good behavior or even no behavior at all. As a practical matter, it's in ArbCom's hands, and I'm not going to join ArbCom anytime soon.

Well, what is fair? A lot of people made mistakes. Is it fair to drag up all the dirt and pour over the ashes of an unpleasant business. It seems to me that to be fair by your definition might mean working back through all the evidence, all the cause and effect to come to a logical conclusion. A unpleasant public spectacle, I'd suggest.

My definition of fair is different. Mine is recognising that people are fallible on all sides and if we look to apportion blame and punish accordingly then we will not forgive.

You seem to see a ticking clock against a last infraction, but give no credit that for a very long time it has been a given on Wikipedia that WordBomb is an evil, lying scumbag and that anyone could say that with impunity. Credit for time served seems fair to me.

What I am suggesting is a get out of jail free for all those on Wikipedia who campaigned thoughtlessly against WordBomb in a fantasy world of invented rules, where real life was not relevant, yet those goings on impacted people in the real world, not just in arguments on blogs, but potentially hindering a campaign against fraud affecting the fortunes of real people, as the players should have known. This was not a game of editing articles, this was about disinformation and fraud, and Wikipedia policy should come as a very low priority in that scheme of things.

There is a way to rapidly draw this to an end, in a way that reflects well on those who put it behind them. The worst thing for Wikipedia would be to suggest that this is left festering for any longer than it has to. People know that something went wrong without it being acted through and argued over. Those who know that they were in the wrong will be humbled and may be more circumspect in the future, those who deny their wrongdoing will be recognised by others.

It would be the fair thing to do to close this now. The unfair thing to do would be to gloat on the future pain that can be inflicted on SlimVirgin, Guy, and the many players of the ArbCom case who have a public record of their denial in the face of the obvious. If you want to play into the hands of those who want to humiliate Wikipedia, carry on with your version of fairness.

[Moulton]

What fair is what's most peaceable.

Unfairness tends unpeace the soul.

So, if you want peace, work for justice.

(And if you want justice, work for mirth.)

When all else fails, clown around.

[wikiwhistle]

These are the people who can't tell a Kohs sock from a Jon Awbrey one.

There are probably people who would even mistake me for Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Shalom]

Dogbiscuit: This is not a situation like CreepyCrawly, where the two options are black-and-white: either this account is a sockpuppet and must be indef-blocked, or this account is not a sockpuppet and should not have been blocked for one second. There is no question that WordBomb did things in violation of Wikipedia policy. There is no question that people who disagreed with WordBomb also violated Wikipedia policy. WordBomb says so himself, and he's right.

The question is whether what WordBomb did is worse than what other people did. In comparison to Mantanmoreland, no: Mantanmoreland was far more disruptive, if only because he was given the opportunity to be far more disruptive. In comparison to the administrators who dealt with this case, yes: WordBomb proudly talks on his blog about how he created a sockpuppet account to disagree with BADSITES and get blocked, then created another sockpuppet account minutes later to agree with BADSITES and not get blocked, just to make a WP:POINT. What am I supposed to say to that? There are legitimate ways of registering your displeasure with the inequities of Wikipedia's arcane policies, and socking for WP:POINT is not one of them. WordBomb can say in his defense that legitimate avenues of appeal were denied to him. I guess that's fair. But if he hadn't done stupid things like socking for WP:POINT, he'd be unbanned now, just like some other users who allegedly did stupid things last year or earlier and have been reinstated. He was right about Mantanmoreland and SlimVirgin, but he violated policy in order to prove it. I guess that makes him a martyr to his conscience, and to that extent, I respect him. But in my capacity as a senior Wikipedian non-admin, I can't invite him to return just yet.

I think even if WordBomb were reinstated today, there would not be closure. I don't know if there will ever be closure. I was not closely involved with the Mantanmoreland arbitration, but I know the basics of what happened. A lot of people feel deeply hurt by the injustices on all sides. This controversy, more than any other that I can remember in two years of active editing, has raised doubts about the community's ability to handle difficult problems. It will take some time for the sense of betrayal some people feel to wither into the forgotten past. I am certain that someone involved in this case will apply for ArbCom in December, and if that person defended the wrong side of this dispute, he or she will have a lot of difficulty passing the threshold for election. Such are the consequences of letting problems fester for a year and a half instead of solving them right away. That, more than anything, is a lesson people ought to learn from this fiasco.

[Moulton]

You need a Truth and Reconciliation Process.

[Milton Roe]

There is a way to rapidly draw this to an end, in a way that reflects well on those who put it behind them. The worst thing for Wikipedia would be to suggest that this is left festering for any longer than it has to. People know that something went wrong without it being acted through and argued over. Those who know that they were in the wrong will be humbled and may be more circumspect in the future, those who deny their wrongdoing will be recognised by others.

I wish that were true. But most people have no idea how badly SV and Guy and Gerard screwed the pooch on this, and these people are going to deny it to themselves, too. Soon we'll just see them mauling some other poor editor who doesn't have the resources to fight back that Wordbomb had.

Remember what happened here. Rather than stop GW/MM, an abuser of WP, from continuing to edit (which they are forced to do now, at least temporarily), just because they knew GW and MM in the past and the evidence wasn't absolutely perfect for a recent case of socking, they protected them from all critcism and attempts to shut them down. This led to outing GW/MM, and finally to piling rocks on the outing of SV, also. And led to Gerard blocking a whole ISP in Utah to get at Wordbomb, rather than to examine whether Wordbomb was right (which he was). Finally, after a monster ArbCom case, they still could not bear to ban Mantanmoreland.

Once the thing got going, there was almost nothing these people would not do to protect Mantan, because doing otherwise would be to admit they were backing the wrong horse, which is to say, admitting they were wrong. These people are narcissists, who are never wrong. Are we going to have to go through armageddon every time we identify a sock-using friend of SV and Guy who they've edited with? Apparently so. But they know that's not likely to happen.

It would be the fair thing to do to close this now. The unfair thing to do would be to gloat on the future pain that can be inflicted on SlimVirgin, Guy, and the many players of the ArbCom case who have a public record of their denial in the face of the obvious. If you want to play into the hands of those who want to humiliate Wikipedia, carry on with your version of fairness.

What? The public record is useless! What future pain? What evidence do you have of humiliation, except in your own mind? I'll be amazed if the records don't somehow get refactored, redacted, or oversighted! Anybody who ever even wants to refer to them, will be accused of disruption, stalking, personal attack, and harrassment (synomyms for reminding an admin of their previous related fuckups, which don't apply to the reverse of admins doing the same thing to editors). See the Cla68 records.

Basically, SV, Guy, Gerard, and the rest of the bunch who defended Mantanmoreland to the last (even Jimbo weighed in), following which MM recidivized (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif), are going to KEEP doing whatever they want, the next time when it's somebody else they like. They HAVE no shame. They are NOT going to be held accountable, and they know it. ArbCom, as we've seen, cannot function in cases of people who have the favor of powerful admins, unless they are checkuser caught in the cookie sock-jar, and usually not even then (MM has been caught now 3 times, I think, and SV once). This case will have no impact at all. And no, I agree, that's not fair. If I thought David "Block Half of Utah" Gerard, and Jimbo "Shoot on Sight" Wales had learned anything from the case, I'd possibly have a different opinion. But they've very scarce right now, and I doubt they've learned anything at all

I'm open to suggestions. If it were up to me, I'd remove all their admin powers and make all of them edit nowhere but Simple English Wikipedia for a year. I think they'll all come back with better prose and clearer thoughts. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[JohnA]

I never thought I'd actually see the day when Gary Weiss and his merry band of socks finally got permabanned.

Wonders will never cease. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[WordBomb]

User:Pwntjuice was just banned by FT2 as a sockpuppet of Wordbomb. Was that really you?

I learned a while ago that the answer to that question doesn't matter. I was not Piperdown, I was not Speditor, I was not Jkilla, I was not Errudite (sic), I was not Ldkim, I was not Schroedinger the Cat, I was not Barbamama, I was not Wordy Wiseman, I was not Gnetworker, and on and on.

I will say that nothing about Pwntjuice's edits offends me.

But I will also say that Pwntjuice's style differs greatly from my own.

[WordBomb]

You need a Truth and Reconciliation Process.

I would refer you to my post dated February 11 of this year, in which I said:

What WordBomb wants is a truth and reconciliation effort to take place, in which everybody (myself included) takes ownership of their part in this madness.

And that's still what WordBomb wants.

Hey, Shalom...please stop and take note of this, and tell me what you make of it:

Look at both sides of this issue (me versus SV, Jayjg, JzG, Gerard, Sidaway, Wales, Weiss, etc, etc) and try to identify which of the two is clamoring...begging for an opportunity to put everything on the table, and which side is doing everything possible to keep that from happening.

I may not be completely objective on this topic, but I think the distinction is pretty clear.

Does that tell you anything at all?

[Shalom]

Hey, Shalom...please stop and take note of this, and tell me what you make of it:

Look at both sides of this issue (me versus SV, Jayjg, JzG, Gerard, Sidaway, Wales, Weiss, etc, etc) and try to identify which of the two is clamoring...begging for an opportunity to put everything on the table, and which side is doing everything possible to keep that from happening.

I may not be completely objective on this topic, but I think the distinction is pretty clear.

Does that tell you anything at all?

Yes. It tells me that some Wikipedia administrators treated you unfairly. It tells me that Jimbo himself was wrong. It tells me that the dispute resolution process failed to resolve this dispute.

You don't need to convince me that the Wikipedia governance system is not well-equipped to handle difficult cases. I work on the inside, and I know how hard it is to judge some of these cases fairly. I do the best job I can. Sometimes, my best effort is not good enough. But I'll keep trying because somebody needs to answer those requests at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.

I think you're falling into the same trap as Moulton. Believe me, if Moulton really wanted to edit Wikipedia, I would strongly support letting him. We let bored teenagers edit articles about TV shows because "anyone can edit." Yet we don't let Moulton edit because he knows too much? I haven't reviewed the Moulton case fully, nor have I spoken publicly about it until now. My understanding is that, in order to accept reinstatement, Moulton wants the Arbitration Committee to issue a formal statement that the banning of Moulton was unfair to begin with. Moulton knows, as does everyone, that the Arbitration Committee will not issue such a statement. Instead of actually returning to edit the encyclopedia, Moulton wants to prove a point. I would say to Moulton: you don't need to convince me. Of course Moulton should not have been indef-blocked. A topic ban could have been tried first. A two-week block could have been tried first. Article probation and mentorship could have been tried first. We try these things for other editors, but the problem is that the folks who banned Moulton are in the group of administrators who don't believe in such subtleties as topic bans or temporary blocks or article probation or mentorship. That's why Wikipedia appears to have no due process: the degree of due process depends on which administrators happen to be involved in a particular case. You will receive more due process from me (I'm not an administrator, but for this context it's close enough) than you will from some other people. Moulton had the misfortune of arguing with people who have less patience than I do. That's life. It is what it is. There's not much I can do about it at this point in time.

The best contrast to Moulton is Poetlister. She never asked the Arbitration Committee for a statement that they didn't follow due process. Now I don't think she needs to convince anyone that they didn't follow due process by their own standards. Recall that Poetlister was blocked with ten other user accounts on May 30, 2007. Just one week earlier, on May 23, 2007, ArbCom closed one of its simplest cases ever: Henrygb. This case set the interesting precedent that an administrator with almost three years experience can be banned for refusing to respond to an inquiry from ArbCom. Aside from that, it was an open-and-shut case: Henrygb got stone-cold busted for using two sockpuppets. He was blocked on April 1, 2007, with a log summary "Please contact ArbCom." He was given seven weeks to do so. Instead of making a reasonable response, he started using another sockpuppet, which was blocked during the case. I reviewed the editing history of Henrygb and his two sockpuppets from early 2005 through April 2007 using the same "offdays analysis" that I used to compare the Runcorn/Poetlister group of accounts. The evidence linking Henrygb to Audiovideo was much stronger than the evidence linking Runcorn to Poetlister. Yet ArbCom gave Henrygb seven weeks to respond to these allegations, whereas in the Runcorn/Poetlister case, they decided to shoot first and ask questions later, and refused to open an ArbCom case when Firsfron asked for a formal review in August 2007. So Poetlister darn well knows that "due process" was not followed in her case. She also knows that it's not worthwhile to complain about it. She wanted to edit Wikipedia, and I did whatever I could to help her return to editing Wikipedia. She did not want a formal statement that "due process was not followed," and she did not get that. We know what really happened, and we'll leave it at that.

So which path will WordBomb choose: the Moulton path or the Poetlister path? You have two choices with Wikipedia: prove that it doesn't work, or try to make it work. There is no third option. Moulton has chosen to prove that Wikipedia doesn't work, but the result is simply that it doesn't work for Moulton. Poetlister has decided to make it work, so the result is that it does work for Poetlister. WordBomb, you seem to prefer Moulton's approach. You can complain about not receiving due process, but that's not going to reform the process into becoming fairer. The way to make the process fairer is to promote more good administrators, remove the bad administrators, enforce a reasonable balance between BLP and COI, and give more latitude to editors who appear not to understand the nuances of these two somewhat contradictory policies. It may make you feel better to initiate some kind of "cage match" with Jimbo Wales, but it won't actually reform the dysfunctional community that he no longer controls.

By the way, I believe you when you say that a certain subset of alleged sockpuppets of WordBomb are not actually yours.

[Moulton]

So which path will WordBomb choose: the Moulton path or the Poetlister path? You have two choices with Wikipedia: prove that it doesn't work, or try to make it work. There is no third option.

Why not invent the excluded middle? Why would it not be useful for WordBomb to craft a hybrid path that adopts the best features of the two distinct approaches and drops the less becoming features either?

After all the space of all conceivable methods is only constrained by our collective lack of creativity.

When the Good Lord inspired Gregor Mendel to experiment with hybrid peas, he came up with thousands of hybrid combinations never seen before. Not a bad outcome for an obscure pea-brained cleric. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

While I don't barely have a shred of evidence to support this next theory, I nonetheless believe it on faith: WordBomb has a God-given ability to discover and devise a superior method than anyone has manifested so far.

Moulton has chosen to prove that Wikipedia doesn't work, but the result is simply that it doesn't work for Moulton.

I'm confused, Shalom.

How did you form that theory of my goal at this phase?

John Dear is a Jesuit priest who taught me a valuable lesson: If you want peace, Shalom, work for justice.

So please be kind enough to educate me on this obscure point, Shalom: What is the Hebrew word for justice?