Mantanmoreland goes socking? (Again?), LOL Options

[WordBomb]

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.

I'd even up the ante by pointing out that I recognize that I'm conflicted on the Big Four Weiss-touched articles, and I don't intend to edit any of them (though I'd likely opine on their talk pages, where appropriate).

Not only that, but -- and I've made this commitment before -- I'll gladly remove the Wikipedia-related content from my blog (which was put there to affect change, and would have served its purpose).

[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: Thu 29th May 2008, 9:08pm

[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.

[dogbiscuit]

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.

That does not bring reconciliation and closure and does not recognise the unusual circumstances of this case. There comes a point where it is best to move on.

The SV thing is pretty well understood, and it is not a simple, one sided affair, and outside Wikipedia makes perfect sense (remembering this is in the context where real companies and real people were being damaged by a dispute that had been brought onto Wikipedia and Wikipedians involved themselves in).

[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.

[Gold heart]

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.

Couldn't agree with less. It should be mandatory that all administrators be accountable and public. If they don't want to go public, then resign the task. And this has more to do with credibility than anything else. If you want the "professor of philosophy" at Yale University, then you can get him/her on the internet, or write. No big secret, no big deal. Why is it such a big deal for Wikipedia, what are they trying to hide?

[WordBomb]

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.

I suspect that if enough time is spent examining this case, numerous violations of WMF policy -- literal, technical, spiritual, and otherwise -- could be found on all sides. The problem is, only one side has been allowed to be examined in the uniquely public forum that is Wikipedia.

Care to guess which side?

At this point, if healing is to take place, either the whole thing should be exhaustively examined bit by bit, or the whole thing should be put behind us and a stake driven through its heart.

I was unjustly banned, minutes into my editing career. That madness has led to all manner of other madness, and that's where fixing things should begin.

[Aloft]

User:Pwntjuice was just banned by FT2 as a sockpuppet of Wordbomb. Was that really you?

This post has been edited by Aloft: Thu 29th May 2008, 10:21pm

[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.

[Moulton]

What fair is what's most peaceable.

Unfairness tends unpeace the soul.

So, if you want peace, work for justice.

(And if you want justice, work for mirth.)

When all else fails, clown around.

[wikiwhistle]

These are the people who can't tell a Kohs sock from a Jon Awbrey one.

There are probably people who would even mistake me for Jon

[Shalom]

Dogbiscuit: This is not a situation like CreepyCrawly, where the two options are black-and-white: either this account is a sockpuppet and must be indef-blocked, or this account is not a sockpuppet and should not have been blocked for one second. There is no question that WordBomb did things in violation of Wikipedia policy. There is no question that people who disagreed with WordBomb also violated Wikipedia policy. WordBomb says so himself, and he's right.

The question is whether what WordBomb did is worse than what other people did. In comparison to Mantanmoreland, no: Mantanmoreland was far more disruptive, if only because he was given the opportunity to be far more disruptive. In comparison to the administrators who dealt with this case, yes: WordBomb proudly talks on his blog about how he created a sockpuppet account to disagree with BADSITES and get blocked, then created another sockpuppet account minutes later to agree with BADSITES and not get blocked, just to make a WP:POINT. What am I supposed to say to that? There are legitimate ways of registering your displeasure with the inequities of Wikipedia's arcane policies, and socking for WP:POINT is not one of them. WordBomb can say in his defense that legitimate avenues of appeal were denied to him. I guess that's fair. But if he hadn't done stupid things like socking for WP:POINT, he'd be unbanned now, just like some other users who allegedly did stupid things last year or earlier and have been reinstated. He was right about Mantanmoreland and SlimVirgin, but he violated policy in order to prove it. I guess that makes him a martyr to his conscience, and to that extent, I respect him. But in my capacity as a senior Wikipedian non-admin, I can't invite him to return just yet.

I think even if WordBomb were reinstated today, there would not be closure. I don't know if there will ever be closure. I was not closely involved with the Mantanmoreland arbitration, but I know the basics of what happened. A lot of people feel deeply hurt by the injustices on all sides. This controversy, more than any other that I can remember in two years of active editing, has raised doubts about the community's ability to handle difficult problems. It will take some time for the sense of betrayal some people feel to wither into the forgotten past. I am certain that someone involved in this case will apply for ArbCom in December, and if that person defended the wrong side of this dispute, he or she will have a lot of difficulty passing the threshold for election. Such are the consequences of letting problems fester for a year and a half instead of solving them right away. That, more than anything, is a lesson people ought to learn from this fiasco.

[Moulton]

You need a Truth and Reconciliation Process.

[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 , 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.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Fri 30th May 2008, 12:10am

[JohnA]

I never thought I'd actually see the day when Gary Weiss and his merry band of socks finally got permabanned.

Wonders will never cease.

[WordBomb]

User:Pwntjuice was just banned by FT2 as a sockpuppet of Wordbomb. Was that really you?

I learned a while ago that the answer to that question doesn't matter. I was not Piperdown, I was not Speditor, I was not Jkilla, I was not Errudite (sic), I was not Ldkim, I was not Schroedinger the Cat, I was not Barbamama, I was not Wordy Wiseman, I was not Gnetworker, and on and on.

I will say that nothing about Pwntjuice's edits offends me.

But I will also say that Pwntjuice's style differs greatly from my own.

[WordBomb]

You need a Truth and Reconciliation Process.

I would refer you to my post dated February 11 of this year, in which I said:

What WordBomb wants is a truth and reconciliation effort to take place, in which everybody (myself included) takes ownership of their part in this madness.

And that's still what WordBomb wants.

Hey, Shalom...please stop and take note of this, and tell me what you make of it:

Look at both sides of this issue (me versus SV, Jayjg, JzG, Gerard, Sidaway, Wales, Weiss, etc, etc) and try to identify which of the two is clamoring...begging for an opportunity to put everything on the table, and which side is doing everything possible to keep that from happening.

I may not be completely objective on this topic, but I think the distinction is pretty clear.

Does that tell you anything at all?

[Shalom]

Hey, Shalom...please stop and take note of this, and tell me what you make of it:

Look at both sides of this issue (me versus SV, Jayjg, JzG, Gerard, Sidaway, Wales, Weiss, etc, etc) and try to identify which of the two is clamoring...begging for an opportunity to put everything on the table, and which side is doing everything possible to keep that from happening.

I may not be completely objective on this topic, but I think the distinction is pretty clear.

Does that tell you anything at all?

Yes. It tells me that some Wikipedia administrators treated you unfairly. It tells me that Jimbo himself was wrong. It tells me that the dispute resolution process failed to resolve this dispute.

You don't need to convince me that the Wikipedia governance system is not well-equipped to handle difficult cases. I work on the inside, and I know how hard it is to judge some of these cases fairly. I do the best job I can. Sometimes, my best effort is not good enough. But I'll keep trying because somebody needs to answer those requests at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.

I think you're falling into the same trap as Moulton. Believe me, if Moulton really wanted to edit Wikipedia, I would strongly support letting him. We let bored teenagers edit articles about TV shows because "anyone can edit." Yet we don't let Moulton edit because he knows too much? I haven't reviewed the Moulton case fully, nor have I spoken publicly about it until now. My understanding is that, in order to accept reinstatement, Moulton wants the Arbitration Committee to issue a formal statement that the banning of Moulton was unfair to begin with. Moulton knows, as does everyone, that the Arbitration Committee will not issue such a statement. Instead of actually returning to edit the encyclopedia, Moulton wants to prove a point. I would say to Moulton: you don't need to convince me. Of course Moulton should not have been indef-blocked. A topic ban could have been tried first. A two-week block could have been tried first. Article probation and mentorship could have been tried first. We try these things for other editors, but the problem is that the folks who banned Moulton are in the group of administrators who don't believe in such subtleties as topic bans or temporary blocks or article probation or mentorship. That's why Wikipedia appears to have no due process: the degree of due process depends on which administrators happen to be involved in a particular case. You will receive more due process from me (I'm not an administrator, but for this context it's close enough) than you will from some other people. Moulton had the misfortune of arguing with people who have less patience than I do. That's life. It is what it is. There's not much I can do about it at this point in time.

The best contrast to Moulton is Poetlister. She never asked the Arbitration Committee for a statement that they didn't follow due process. Now I don't think she needs to convince anyone that they didn't follow due process by their own standards. Recall that Poetlister was blocked with ten other user accounts on May 30, 2007. Just one week earlier, on May 23, 2007, ArbCom closed one of its simplest cases ever: Henrygb. This case set the interesting precedent that an administrator with almost three years experience can be banned for refusing to respond to an inquiry from ArbCom. Aside from that, it was an open-and-shut case: Henrygb got stone-cold busted for using two sockpuppets. He was blocked on April 1, 2007, with a log summary "Please contact ArbCom." He was given seven weeks to do so. Instead of making a reasonable response, he started using another sockpuppet, which was blocked during the case. I reviewed the editing history of Henrygb and his two sockpuppets from early 2005 through April 2007 using the same "offdays analysis" that I used to compare the Runcorn/Poetlister group of accounts. The evidence linking Henrygb to Audiovideo was much stronger than the evidence linking Runcorn to Poetlister. Yet ArbCom gave Henrygb seven weeks to respond to these allegations, whereas in the Runcorn/Poetlister case, they decided to shoot first and ask questions later, and refused to open an ArbCom case when Firsfron asked for a formal review in August 2007. So Poetlister darn well knows that "due process" was not followed in her case. She also knows that it's not worthwhile to complain about it. She wanted to edit Wikipedia, and I did whatever I could to help her return to editing Wikipedia. She did not want a formal statement that "due process was not followed," and she did not get that. We know what really happened, and we'll leave it at that.

So which path will WordBomb choose: the Moulton path or the Poetlister path? You have two choices with Wikipedia: prove that it doesn't work, or try to make it work. There is no third option. Moulton has chosen to prove that Wikipedia doesn't work, but the result is simply that it doesn't work for Moulton. Poetlister has decided to make it work, so the result is that it does work for Poetlister. WordBomb, you seem to prefer Moulton's approach. You can complain about not receiving due process, but that's not going to reform the process into becoming fairer. The way to make the process fairer is to promote more good administrators, remove the bad administrators, enforce a reasonable balance between BLP and COI, and give more latitude to editors who appear not to understand the nuances of these two somewhat contradictory policies. It may make you feel better to initiate some kind of "cage match" with Jimbo Wales, but it won't actually reform the dysfunctional community that he no longer controls.

By the way, I believe you when you say that a certain subset of alleged sockpuppets of WordBomb are not actually yours.

[Moulton]

So which path will WordBomb choose: the Moulton path or the Poetlister path? You have two choices with Wikipedia: prove that it doesn't work, or try to make it work. There is no third option.

Why not invent the excluded middle? Why would it not be useful for WordBomb to craft a hybrid path that adopts the best features of the two distinct approaches and drops the less becoming features either?

After all the space of all conceivable methods is only constrained by our collective lack of creativity.

When the Good Lord inspired Gregor Mendel to experiment with hybrid peas, he came up with thousands of hybrid combinations never seen before. Not a bad outcome for an obscure pea-brained cleric.

While I don't barely have a shred of evidence to support this next theory, I nonetheless believe it on faith: WordBomb has a God-given ability to discover and devise a superior method than anyone has manifested so far.

Moulton has chosen to prove that Wikipedia doesn't work, but the result is simply that it doesn't work for Moulton.

I'm confused, Shalom.

How did you form that theory of my goal at this phase?

John Dear is a Jesuit priest who taught me a valuable lesson: If you want peace, Shalom, work for justice.

So please be kind enough to educate me on this obscure point, Shalom: What is the Hebrew word for justice?