|
|
|
MM and SH indef blocked, Read all about it |
|
|
Achromatic |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 191
Joined:
From: Washington State
Member No.: 4,185
|
Well, not much to read. Mantanmoreland and Samiharris both indefinitely blocked by Coren. Lets see if David Gerard lights up the wheel war fireworks.
|
|
|
|
dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 13th March 2008, 2:34pm) The dispute, which was over here has moved to the Arbcom request for clarification page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._MantanmorelandDespite there being overwhelming support for a block of Mantanmoreland, Doc Glasgow writes: QUOTE(DocG) I'm actually neutral on the facts/evidence, but whether there is a community consensus is disputed. There is significant objection from some experienced admins. 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).
|
|
|
|
Kato |
|
dhd
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined:
Member No.: 767
|
Some gems from Tony Sidaway who is opposed to the blocking: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=197981180QUOTE(Sidaway) I find the suggestion that he imported a dispute into Wikipedia improbable. 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=...oldid=197994366QUOTE(Tony Sidaway) Mantanmoreland has no history of tendentious and disruptive editing. Apart from deceptive socking, there is no known issue with his editing. --[[User talk:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The|Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The]] 16:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Other than using his socks to bully off other editors, add duplicate votes in numerous discussions, create false consensus wherever he could etc.
|
|
|
|
dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
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."
|
|
|
|
Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
Here, tattoo this ↓ on your wrist, and maybe next time you'll be less surprised. QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Thu 13th March 2008, 1:21pm) 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."
|
|
|
|
dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 13th March 2008, 6:28pm) 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: QUOTE 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |