Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Gary Weiss and his cavalcade of socks _ MM and SH indef blocked
Posted by: Achromatic
Well, not much to read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Samiharris both indefinitely blocked by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coren.
Lets see if David Gerard lights up the wheel war fireworks.
Posted by: The Joy
What is this wikilegalese of it being just an "indefinite block" as opposed to a "community ban" and why is undoing an "indefinite block" frowned upon while a "community ban" can just be undone by a rogue administrator?
Wouldn't this just keep going back and forth between the "community" and ArbCom? I mean, we should be celebrating the defeat of a master sockpuppeteer, but there's no real finality to this. What's to stop Gerard, SlimVirgin, JzG, or any admin from undoing this especially with some socially-powerful admins crying foul over Coren's block of MM?
Posted by: Heat
If someone does unblock MM I hope it's JzG. That could provide the tipping point to finally have him desysopped.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
This is indeed an interesting development. Watch this thread.
Posted by: Miltopia
David Gerard has already pledged to unblock them. I wonder if Jimbo will desysop him for wheel warring like he did scou for unblocking me...
Then again, David does have three votes here... his own, his wife's, and his girlfriend's.
Posted by: dogbiscuit
David Gerard has already pledged to unblock them. I wonder if Jimbo will desysop him for wheel warring like he did scou for unblocking me...
Then again, David does have three votes here... his own, his wife's, and his girlfriend's.
What is interesting that there are quite a few names that I don't recognise that have put their head above the parapet.
...and Durova has awarded a barnstar for the block.
Posted by: cyofee
Doc Glasgow has unblocked Mantanmoreland.
Apparently, there exists a "significant admin disagreement".
Posted by: dogbiscuit
Doc Glasgow has unblocked Mantanmoreland.
Apparently, there exists a "significant admin disagreement".
Perhaps gwh should re-block as an obvious self-idenitifying sockpuppet of WordBomb?
Posted by: Kato
The dispute, which was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_of_Mantanmoreland_and_Samiharris has moved to the Arbcom request for clarification page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_Mantanmoreland
Despite there being overwhelming support for a block of Mantanmoreland, Doc Glasgow writes:
Which I take to mean JzG, David Gerard and a few others who are so knee deep in this they were effectively parties to the disruption, and in Gerard's case was even named in the media scandal about the episode. Conflict of Interest anyone?
Posted by: Moulton
By definition, all drama includes competing interests across the cast of characters.
In fact, drama is one of the ways to surface competing and conflicting interests.
Posted by: dogbiscuit
The dispute, which was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_of_Mantanmoreland_and_Samiharris has moved to the Arbcom request for clarification page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_Mantanmoreland
Despite there being overwhelming support for a block of Mantanmoreland, Doc Glasgow writes:
Which I take to mean JzG, David Gerard and a few others who are so knee deep in this they were effectively parties to the disruption, and in Gerard's case was even named in the media scandal about the episode. Conflict of Interest anyone?
It is difficult to untangle. Given that Fozzie and Cla68 to name but two, clearly are involved in the ArbCom, however, I don't believe they were ever involved in the article wars (happy to be corrected).
The main vocal opponents of the ban are not just opposition within the ArbCom, they have a long history of being involved in the dispute itself, and therefore should step back as being involved. There is also some friends of friends going on.
It would be interesting to peel back the involved admins and see what comments remain from genuinely neutral people. I was interested that Lar stepped up to the plate initially, as he is not a WR lackey, and did not play a particularly strong role in the arbcom (of the top of my head).
Posted by: Kato
Some gems from Tony Sidaway who is opposed to the blocking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=197981180
Other than Weiss going onto Wikipedia and controlling articles on Patrick Byrne, naked short selling and other relevant topics where he was engaging in a real life dispute, then adding material that immediately identified the editor as Weiss to Byrne and others, and hence beginning this whole mess. Other than that, Sidaway is correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=197994366
Other than using his socks to bully off other editors, add duplicate votes in numerous discussions, create false consensus wherever he could etc.
Posted by: badlydrawnjeff
But...but I thought the ArbCom case was going to FIX these problems.
Go figure - they punt on a ban and the banning becomes controversial for no reason other than a bunch of admins who probably shouldn't have the tools anymore anyway. Oh, and administrative misconduct was punted too, and look at what the main problem is at this juncture.
Absolutely ridiculous. What a complete failure.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
But … but I thought the ArbCom case was going to FIX these problems.
Go figure — they punt on a ban and the banning becomes controversial for no reason other than a bunch of admins who probably shouldn't have the tools anymore anyway. Oh, and administrative misconduct was punted too, and look at what the main problem is at this juncture.
Absolutely ridiculous. What a complete failure.
And so surprising, too.
Jonny
Posted by: dogbiscuit
I was surprised. I thought that the powers that be would have enough sense to see that it was not a battle worth fighting. While SV did pop up to support the ridiculous SH == WB notion, the old guard were in general keeping their heads down.
I had assumed that having been beaten at ArbCom, or perhaps a dishonourable draw would be a better view, that they then had the face saver to let MM disappear, eventually turn up in another guise.
But it becomes clearer that off-wiki they determined that they were not going to make a proper fight of the ArbCom, they knew that it was not going to go for any serious sanctions so there was no need to be obvious. They can now obfusticate, using the ArbCom debacle to support their position.
Yet I was surprised, I really thought there would be some puffery, but then they would let it die. What they have guaranteed now is that the knives will be out. Plus more good admins now have had the scales removed from their eyes and will understand far more clearly the scale of manipulation going on here. There are a number of admins who will now find that their blocks will be questioned. I predict far more drama and the likes of SV, Guy and so on (the "admins of good standing" NOT!) will no longer be able to rely on "I said so."
Posted by: Jonny Cache
Here, tattoo this ↓ on your wrist, and maybe next time you'll be less surprised.
I was surprised. I thought that the powers that be would have enough sense to see that it was not a battle worth fighting. While SV did pop up to support the ridiculous SH == WB notion, the old guard were in general keeping their heads down.
I had assumed that having been beaten at ArbCom, or perhaps a dishonourable draw would be a better view, that they then had the face saver to let MM disappear, eventually turn up in another guise.
But it becomes clearer that off-wiki they determined that they were not going to make a proper fight of the ArbCom, they knew that it was not going to go for any serious sanctions so there was no need to be obvious. They can now obfusticate, using the ArbCom debacle to support their position.
Yet I was surprised, I really thought there would be some puffery, but then they would let it die. What they have guaranteed now is that the knives will be out. Plus more good admins now have had the scales removed from their eyes and will understand far more clearly the scale of manipulation going on here. There are a number of admins who will now find that their blocks will be questioned. I predict far more drama and the likes of SV, Guy and so on (the "admins of good standing" NOT!) will no longer be able to rely on "I said so."
Posted by: dogbiscuit
Here, tattoo this ↓ on your wrist, and maybe next time you'll be less surprised.
Yeah, well. Perhaps I wasn't that surprised, just thought they were better at the game. Perhaps they are, essentially they always ignore all rules to keep the upper hand.
What is less surprising is the adaptation of 3RR techniques to blocking:
1) Someone makes a block you don't like.
2) Revert it and then claim anyone now reverting is wheelwarring and should be sanctioned.
Tony Sidaway:
Administrators should avoid taking action that might be interpreted as a controversial revert of Doc's unblock.
How about Doc should not have done a controversial revert of a block, especially as an interested party? Perhaps Doc should have an RFC raised on his actions.
Posted by: Moulton
Hickory Dickory Doc
He clicked the mouse on 'block'
The block struck some
As being undone
Hickory Dickory Doc
Posted by: Doc glasgow
Hickory Dickory Doc
He clicked the mouse on 'block'
The block struck some
As being undone
Hickory Dickory Doc
Do WR contributors accept barnstars? That made me laugh.
No I'm not an interested party. As to whether SH=MM=GW I neither know nor care. That's for arbcom to decide.
Posted by: The Joy
Hickory Dickory Doc
He clicked the mouse on 'block'
The block struck some
As being undone
Hickory Dickory Doc
Do WR contributors accept barnstars? That made me laugh.
No I'm not an interested party. As to whether SH=MM=GW I neither know nor care. That's for arbcom to decide.
But all ArbCom really decided was... it was indecisive?
Posted by: Somey
Well, I think we have to remember that Doc is generally on "our" side, and he knows the most effective way to ensure that Wikipedia receives the worst possible press from this incident is to allow the primary instigator to go off scot-free. Obviously we're going to point out the fundamental dumbness of the "decision," but this result is exactly what the anti-Wikipedia faction has wanted all along - clear indication of hypocrisy, continuation of "disruption" and "drama," and many PR black-eyes to come in the next few weeks... We couldn't have scripted this any better, quite frankly.
Although I should think it would be obvious to everyone by now that the ArbCom doesn't actually "decide" anything anymore?
Posted by: Unrepentant Vandal
I can't count the number of times Yamla has blocked me or declined my spurious unblock requests... But this time he did brilliantly, pwning Gary - see the history of the user talk page.
Removed inflammatory material - Guy
Posted by: One
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Samiharris&diff=197989985&oldid=197989460.
Sami's back, so now we have a reason to block him, eh?
Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom
This is one case that, to any outside observer, proves once and for all that Wikipedia cannot be trusted as anything save for a social site run entirely by cabals of kids...many of whom are, in fact, minors.
The feaux court that is silenced by this cause is shameful in the explicit conflicts of interest that are so fully displayed, therein. Power, money, and greed have taken over the project.
Aside from defaulting to a mediocre product that is, at best, average by any standard by which it can be measured, Wikipedia pales in comparison to any truly well run encyclopedia or business.
Posted by: Count DeMonet
This is one case that, to any outside observer, proves once and for all that Wikipedia cannot be trusted as anything save for a social site run entirely by cabals of kids.
THIS!
On the one hand part of me actually enjoys watching them throw WP headlong into such disrepute, but on the other hand it burns that they can pull this kind of crap whilst at the same time unashamedly banning others from the project on the scantest of evidence for (irony alert) disruption!!!.
In-effin'-credible!
Posted by: D.A.F.
One thing this case has shown is that it takes so much opposition from the community to have the arbitrators to move a quarter of an inch. Now imagine when those idiots poop not on public (cases not as much popular) and there is not many witness for the sh!t they throw.
Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed_decision#Is_the_AC_or_WMF_aware_of_any_legal_threats.3F
There aren't real details; there's a large amount of text from the parties (email, postings, comments) that make the parties look sufficiently distinct to cast doubt upon the analysis, in the eyes of a number of arbitrators. In other words, we can't provide a list and say "these are different, these are different, these are different" -- it's the body of material, not any individual items. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Translation of jpgordon's comment; "We pulled this paper thin rationale it out of our asses. Wikipedia will block people at will with little or no evidence, when it suits us. Wikipedia will allow abusive pov pushing sock puppetry, when it suits us, no matter the mountain of evidence"
Posted by: Kato
Well, I think we have to remember that Doc is generally on "our" side, and he knows the most effective way to ensure that Wikipedia receives the worst possible press from this incident is to allow the primary instigator to go off scot-free. Obviously we're going to point out the fundamental dumbness of the "decision," but this result is exactly what the anti-Wikipedia faction has wanted all along - clear indication of hypocrisy, continuation of "disruption" and "drama," and many PR black-eyes to come in the next few weeks... We couldn't have scripted this any better, quite frankly.
Although I should think it would be obvious to everyone by now that the ArbCom doesn't actually "decide" anything anymore?
Yes, the biggest fear is that the Arbcom make a half-assed decision to punish Mantanmoreland, which satisfies no one in particular, but is enough to disperse the sense of injustice felt by Wikipedians over this, and everyone goes home.
Fortunately, this is WP, and there are enough DocGs, JzGs, Herberts and Gerards to ensure maximim drama and disruption. Which all adds to the growing Press Cuttings File of corrupt and terrible practices. These terrible judgments are doing to Wikipedia what the ropes did to Saddam Hussein's statue in Fardus Square.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
Weiss won't change...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANewyorkbrad&diff=198094227&oldid=198079073
Brad, I can state here that Samiharris is still using proxies for all of his edits, including the aforementioned unblock requests - Alison ⤠01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The whole thing is a total mess.
Edit: Removed, I may have gone too far...
Posted by: Amarkov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed_decision#Is_the_AC_or_WMF_aware_of_any_legal_threats.3F
There aren't real details; there's a large amount of text from the parties (email, postings, comments) that make the parties look sufficiently distinct to cast doubt upon the analysis, in the eyes of a number of arbitrators. In other words, we can't provide a list and say "these are different, these are different, these are different" -- it's the body of material, not any individual items. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Translation of jpgordon's comment; "We pulled this paper thin rationale it out of our asses. Wikipedia will block people at will with little or no evidence, when it suits us. Wikipedia will allow abusive pov pushing sock puppetry, when it suits us, no matter the mountain of evidence"
It's nice, though, that they've changed from "we won't give you this sooper sekrit evidence" to "it is not actually possible to give you this sooper sekrit evidence".
Posted by: Piperdown
Weiss won't change...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANewyorkbrad&diff=198094227&oldid=198079073
Brad, I can state here that Samiharris is still using proxies for all of his edits, including the aforementioned unblock requests - Alison ⤠01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The whole thing is a total mess.
Edit: Removed, I may have gone too far...
WH, yeah that was going too far.
Gary's got balls. Proxying with Sami to ask for an unblock. Classic! You make me laugh, G-dub, and I don't mean that sarcastically.
Posted by: dogbiscuit
User newbyguesses sums up on wiki what we have been saying off wiki. No doubt his days are numbered:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durova&diff=198145118&oldid=198095373
Debrief
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland, closed 13 March 2008.
I am pretty dissapointed with my first Arbcom case. Not with the Arbs, and their decisions, which, though a little reticent, ended up being reasonable. Not with my own contributions, which came in for heaps of criticism, since I was doing the best I could, (and I am forced to doubt that in the case of a number of users). I was dissapointed that, despite my taking it very seriously, I was not taken seriously, and my genuine questions, submitted formally as Evidence, went unanswered (the 600Emails).
What I found most disappointing, though, was the attitude of some power-users, that they are simply above the law, and untouchable. It appears that the proper procedure, were one to wish to attain the stratospheric heights, is to simply be as high-handed (and under-handed) as possible. (I definitely do not mean User:Durova.)
The rules are: A)Never answer a direct question, no matter how many times it is asked. B)Never pay attention to any debate, or any facts or evidence, nor to any User and their concerns. C)Never post, except self-servingly. D)Always post, off-topic and at length if there is any likelihood of attention being paid to a post you would rather CENSOR. E)Just do what you like, and accuse any critics of bad-faith. F)If you upset someone, or hurt someone, just accuse them of being a SOCK and BLOCK. G)Move on, and leave the wounded to look after themselves.
No, I do not want to become like that. This Arbcom, for me, was about the double standard, and the arbitrary abuse of power. All of that is unresolved, indeed the abusers of power have won, and they seem to feel vindicated.
This has not destroyed my enthusiasm for Wikipedia, but it sure has put a big dent in it. I really thought that "good would prevail" and the power-wielders would be brought to heel. That is what needed to happen, and it sure didnt. So it goes from bad to worse, and all just very smelly water under a very rickety bridge.
I dont think this is good enough. And, once more, by reflex now, I have to apologise for any offence that my naivety, and good faith may have caused, --Newbyguesses - Talk 07:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
edit:my bolding
Posted by: guy
Brad, I can state here that Samiharris is still using proxies for all of his edits, including the aforementioned unblock requests - Alison ?¥ñ 01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope Alison is blocking all the open proxies she finds.
Posted by: Heat
Yes, our Doc Glasgow operation is working very well. Kudos to Selena and WordBomb on their joint sockpuppet.
Posted by: Yehudi
So at the moment, Mantanmoreland has been unblocked because "I see significant admin disagreement here. Please take the matter to arbitration." (Doc Glasgow) However, Samiharris, Lastexit and Tomstoner are blocked as confirmed sockpuppets of Mantanmoreland, so he is a confirmed sockpuppeteer. Is there disagreement that sockpuppet masters should be blocked? Or is that a silly question?
Posted by: Random832
Is there disagreement that sockpuppet masters should be blocked?
Yes. As ludicrous as it sounds, people have actually expressed that sentiment; i.e. well, the sockpuppet is blocked, so what's the harm in letting the main account continue to post? This is appropriate for a first offense; it's not appropriate for someone who already did it and was caught twice.
Posted by: Heat
So at the moment, Mantanmoreland has been unblocked because "I see significant admin disagreement here. Please take the matter to arbitration." (Doc Glasgow) However, Samiharris, Lastexit and Tomstoner are blocked as confirmed sockpuppets of Mantanmoreland, so he is a confirmed sockpuppeteer. Is there disagreement that sockpuppet masters should be blocked? Or is that a silly question?
Is there disagreement that the sock accounts should be tagged with the "confirmed sockpuppet" label ("suspected" for Sami) and that a "confirmed sockpuppeteer" tag should be slapped onto MM's user page? Who'll be the first person to attempt this post-ArbComm?
Posted by: Achromatic
Is there disagreement that the sock accounts should be tagged with the "confirmed sockpuppet" label ("suspected" for Sami) and that a "confirmed sockpuppeteer" tag should be slapped onto MM's user page? Who'll be the first person to attempt this post-ArbComm?
Hell yes there is. There are at least half a dozen who'd eagerly revert that with "ArbCom confirmed no such thing!" because to them, nothing short of a literal, explicit, unequivocal confirmation from them would be enough, and for some, even that. "ArbCom have applied sufficient remedies, we needn't do more punishment of our own" sounds like something someone would say (points, though not many, for guessing who'd be most likely to utter this).
Posted by: Piperdown
Is there disagreement that the sock accounts should be tagged with the "confirmed sockpuppet" label ("suspected" for Sami) and that a "confirmed sockpuppeteer" tag should be slapped onto MM's user page? Who'll be the first person to attempt this post-ArbComm?
Hell yes there is. There are at least half a dozen who'd eagerly revert that with "ArbCom confirmed no such thing!" because to them, nothing short of a literal, explicit, unequivocal confirmation from them would be enough, and for some, even that. "ArbCom have applied sufficient remedies, we needn't do more punishment of our own" sounds like something someone would say (points, though not many, for guessing who'd be most likely to utter this).
Arbcom. LOL.