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:

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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:

[dogbiscuit]

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)

I have a simpler view. Given that SV and so on have excuses and have successfully obfusticated the evidence for some time, I know that unless they give any indication of wanting part of a reconciliation, it is not going to happen.

Wikipedia has a number of choices, public humiliation, drawing a line, pretending nothing was wrong. I'm sure there are others. Public humiliation is simply divisive, as is pretending nothing was wrong with the Wordbomb attackers' behaviour. There are too many attackers, with too many excuses to get any meaningful public apology - and it will just be cast as playing into the hands of the BADSITEs - giving us satisfaction rather than righting a wrong.

So, to those who know about the case, a clear action, such as reinstating Wordbomb by ArbCom or the community (I do not care for the internal politics as to how this happens) makes it clear that the attackers have been over-ruled. If they care to pretend that they have not been beaten, then that is for them to work out how they delude themselves. To those that know, ArbCom, the interested community, those here at WR, we will know that the wrong has been acknowledged and the lesson acknowledged.

From this point on, the supporters of Wordbomb have a large number of "I told you so points". I think this will influence thinking on the Cla68 case, the ID Crowd and so on, where there is now such damning evidence that Wikipedia processes have been derailed by inappropriate actions, that ArbCom will have to stop making protective decisions of those that they favour for unfathomable reasons.

I'm a great believer in loss of face being a strong motivator to avoid doing the right thing, therefore to achieve the right ends, sometimes we need to forget about"fairness" and simply move on, in the knowledge that the lesson of holding to a belief in the face of overwhelming evidence will have been learnt by some people.

This is a give them enough rope moment. Truth and reconciliation comes after acknowledgement, it is not a weapon of war. Of course, the alternative is a further descent into anarchy. I sense that the likes of ArbCom are starting to grasp the implications of tolerating the abuse and are considering how to turn the tanker around - without too much loss of face for ArbCom.