Mantanmoreland RfAr, A unique occasion Options

I'm a little bit stunned at the moment. Maybe best you just read the Proposed Decision in the Mantanmoreland case for yourselves, and tell me whether it's anything other than an unmitigated disaster.

Also, please tell me whether there's any reason, at all, to have any hope for the future of that project.

I have been, to put it bluntly, less than impressed with NYB's performance as an arbcom member. He has thus far appeared to be more trying to appease everyone than to actually deal with the issue at hand. Would have been better as a mediator than as a arbcom member.

I'm a little bit stunned at the moment. Maybe best you just read the Proposed Decision in the Mantanmoreland case for yourselves, and tell me whether it's anything other than an unmitigated disaster.

Also, please tell me whether there's any reason, at all, to have any hope for the future of that project.

Word fail me, Mr. Bomb.

Everyone knows that MM=SH=TS=LE=GW. Everyone. If they don't wish to ban him, fine, but at least they could be honest about what they're choosing and why.

If there's any hope, it's that this isn't the one that passes.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Fri 29th February 2008, 3:44am

told you guys the jimbo fix was in.

the community is going to ban anyway. all faces saved and the usual suspect admins move along as if nothing to see here.

so about those emails, wordbomb. this will make it even better when your time comes with that, lol.

back to the piperunderground. i think this cameo was called for in this case in support of the word-b.

WP community, go ahead with what you were going to do anyway, and read that fozzie investigation page again, lol. You don't answer to Jimbo like arbcom does...back to wikisleep....

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Fri 29th February 2008, 3:45am

We'll see once the inevitable JzG Arb case comes around as to whether the Arbcom actually has some balls. They surely aren't showing 'em in this one.

Well I think there should at least be an acknowledgment that David Gerard and Phil Sandifer have grossly abused their positions and played a major part in this disgrace. They should have their administrator's tools removed immediately as they clearly cannot be trusted to act in a mature, expected manner. JzG, of course, should be banned from the site for lacking the minimal judgment required, and proving himself to be a menace to the site. Herbert and a couple of others should be on probation etc for reducing the level of discussion to a farce.

Mantamoreland should obviously be banned for the most blatant abuse of trust since Essjay. In fact it is worse than Essjay.

I was half hoping for a whitewash like this though. Because these things make the job of a Wikipedia critic much easier as they come giftwrapped, they save time having to look for abuse. There's been a sliver of common sense and good practice going round there recently, and it has made life here a bit more of a struggle. But with WP, just when you're going back to bed, they come up trumps again. This is something else:

A majority of the committee concludes that the weight of the credible evidence taken as a whole is suggestive of or consistent with a relationship between the two accounts, but that the absence of usable checkuser findings and other factors prevent a definitive conclusion from being reached.

A majority of the committee concludes that the weight of the credible evidence taken as a whole is suggestive of or consistent with a relationship between the two accounts, but that the absence of usable checkuser findings and other factors prevent a definitive conclusion from being reached.

And on the basis of secret evidence:

In this case a more cautious and conservative standard was needed, due to confounding issues discussed internally by the Committee. Although the evidence is respected and was extremely carefully reviewed, the most that can be said by consensus in this most bitter case is "suggestive but not confirmed".

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Fri 29th February 2008, 3:58am

But... but the evidence! Mantanmoreland should be banned for all he and his defenders have done. SirFozzie and Cla and others have done so much to prove Mantanmoreland's sockpuppetry. Why isn't he going to be banned?

Mantanmoreland has harmed Wikipedia by bringing his off-wiki conflict to the WP. WP needs to make an example of him to show anyone else with their own COI agendas to back off. This ArbCom won't deter Gary Weiss or anyone else.

If the arbitrators think they are going to get away with this obvious shirking of their duties, they are sadly mistaken.

"suggestive but not confirmed".

I think we've got a new catchphrase guys!

By that rationale, they should turn over 100s of cases where the evidence was a fraction that of this case.

JzG, of course, should be banned from the site for lacking the minimal judgment required, and proving himself to be a menace to the site.

The site merits people who lack judgement and are menace to itself.

I'm a little bit stunned at the moment. Maybe best you just read the Proposed Decision in the Mantanmoreland case for yourselves, and tell me whether it's anything other than an unmitigated disaster.

Also, please tell me whether there's any reason, at all, to have any hope for the future of that project.

Damn! Are you trying to get The Wikipedia Review swamped with \/|/-\GR/-\ spam?

Jonny

But... but the evidence! Mantanmoreland should be banned for all he and his defenders have done. SirFozzie and Cla and others have done so much to prove Mantanmoreland's sockpuppetry. Why isn't he going to be banned?

Mantanmoreland has harmed Wikipedia by bringing his off-wiki conflict to the WP. WP needs to make an example of him to show anyone else with their own COI agendas to back off. This ArbCom won't deter Gary Weiss or anyone else.

If the arbitrators think they are going to get away with this obvious shirking of their duties, they are sadly mistaken.

It goes beyond not reading the evidence. Newyorkbrad consistently included [[Judd Bagley]] in the list of disputed articles, though it does not currently exist, and he omitted [[Patrick Byrne]].

I will say this: Patrick Byrne has gone on the record speaking rather harshly as to Jimbo's role in this madness. I was a little concerned that the ArbCom was going to do the right thing here and make Patrick look needlessly strident.

Well, I'm pleased to say that's not a concern of mine any more.

I should also announce that some time ago, I registered the domain name wikipediacoverup.com. I suppose it's about time to start doing something with it.

"suggestive but not confirmed".

I think we've got a new catchphrase guys!

By that rationale, they should turn over 100s of cases where the evidence was a fraction that of this case.

Yeh, nothing new here. Editors getting indef's with no evidence against them, just for expressing an unpopular view. While sleazebags with a lot of careful evidence against them walk, as long as they are on the 'right' side.

In my mind, this has been going on for about two or three years. Before that, banning someone was difficult and the community took it seriously.

Any user who violates any restriction imposed by this decision, or imposed by any administrator acting on the authority of this decision, may be blocked for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator.

How is that distinguishable from what was already happening?

Someone's told a certain story by e-mail, IRC etc., arrives and is "uninvolved." For example, when Samiharris solicited me via e-mail to appear on the Gary Weiss article, if I'd done so, I would have been "uninvolved." And were I an administrator, I could block for an "appropriate length of time." Say, indefinitely, as a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of WordBomb.

Whereas if Mr. Bomb's purported meatpuppet protested that Samiharris is a proven sockpuppet of Mantanmoreland (as he is, hello, earth to arbitrators, come in, arbitrators…) I could say, well, that's "suggestive but not confirmed."

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Fri 29th February 2008, 4:31am

Any user who violates any restriction imposed by this decision, or imposed by any administrator acting on the authority of this decision, may be blocked for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator.

Isn't that what administrators are supposed to do, anyway?

"suggestive but not confirmed".

I think we've got a new catchphrase guys!

By that rationale, they should turn over 100s of cases where the evidence was a fraction that of this case.

I think "suggestive but not confirmed" is the yang to the yin of "living in (location) in a similar way".

A wise man once said "follow the money". So... how much is Gary Weiss paying WP for this charade?

Brad is reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=194829922

This post has been edited by Viridae: Fri 29th February 2008, 4:35am

And on the basis of secret evidence:

In this case a more cautious and conservative standard was needed, due to confounding issues discussed internally by the Committee. Although the evidence is respected and was extremely carefully reviewed, the most that can be said by consensus in this most bitter case is "suggestive but not confirmed".

Haa ha. When are these idiots going to learn - the more they rely on secrecy the more people's imaginations run wild. The more trouble it causes. And these things usually leak anyway.

Anyone want to guess what this these "confounding issues" are.

Anyone want to guess what this these "confounding issues" are.

I betting it has something to do with the Sole Confounder™ …

Jonny

Anyone want to guess what this these "confounding issues" are.

I betting it has something to do with the Sole Confounder™ …

Jonny

My guess would be a clear and present danger of a lawsuit if the arbcom said GW = MM (and so on), or even imposes sanctions on MM (and so on) that would suggest it.