Mantanmoreland goes socking? (Again?), LOL Options

[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.



This post has been edited by Gold heart: Thu 29th May 2008, 7:57pm

[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.

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: Thu 29th May 2008, 8:09pm

[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

[SirFozzie]

Porque?

[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.