David Gerard has already pledged to unblock them. I wonder if Jimbo will desysop him for wheel warring like he did scou for unblocking me...

Then again, David does have three votes here... his own, his wife's, and his girlfriend's.

Doc Glasgow has unblocked Mantanmoreland.

Apparently, there exists a "significant admin disagreement".

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.

The dispute, which was over here has moved to the Arbcom request for clarification page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._Mantanmoreland


Despite there being overwhelming support for a block of Mantanmoreland, Doc Glasgow writes:



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?

I find the suggestion that he imported a dispute into Wikipedia improbable.

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)

But … but I thought the ArbCom case was going to FIX these problems.

Go figure — they punt on a ban and the banning becomes controversial for no reason other than a bunch of admins who probably shouldn't have the tools anymore anyway. Oh, and administrative misconduct was punted too, and look at what the main problem is at this juncture.

Absolutely ridiculous. What a complete failure.

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."

Here, tattoo this ↓ on your wrist, and maybe next time you'll be less surprised.

Administrators should avoid taking action that might be interpreted as a controversial revert of Doc's unblock.

Hickory Dickory Doc
He clicked the mouse on 'block'

The block struck some
As being undone

Hickory Dickory Doc

Do WR contributors accept barnstars? That made me laugh.


No I'm not an interested party. As to whether SH=MM=GW I neither know nor care. That's for arbcom to decide.

This is one case that, to any outside observer, proves once and for all that Wikipedia cannot be trusted as anything save for a social site run entirely by cabals of kids.

There aren't real details; there's a large amount of text from the parties (email, postings, comments) that make the parties look sufficiently distinct to cast doubt upon the analysis, in the eyes of a number of arbitrators. In other words, we can't provide a list and say "these are different, these are different, these are different" -- it's the body of material, not any individual items. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we have to remember that Doc is generally on "our" side, and he knows the most effective way to ensure that Wikipedia receives the worst possible press from this incident is to allow the primary instigator to go off scot-free. Obviously we're going to point out the fundamental dumbness of the "decision," but this result is exactly what the anti-Wikipedia faction has wanted all along - clear indication of hypocrisy, continuation of "disruption" and "drama," and many PR black-eyes to come in the next few weeks... We couldn't have scripted this any better, quite frankly.

Although I should think it would be obvious to everyone by now that the ArbCom doesn't actually "decide" anything anymore?

Brad, I can state here that Samiharris is still using proxies for all of his edits, including the aforementioned unblock requests - Alison ❤ 01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...egal_threats.3F



Translation of jpgordon's comment; "We pulled this paper thin rationale it out of our asses. Wikipedia will block people at will with little or no evidence, when it suits us. Wikipedia will allow abusive pov pushing sock puppetry, when it suits us, no matter the mountain of evidence"

Weiss won't change...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=198079073



The whole thing is a total mess.

Edit: Removed, I may have gone too far...

Debrief

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland, closed 13 March 2008.

I am pretty dissapointed with my first Arbcom case. Not with the Arbs, and their decisions, which, though a little reticent, ended up being reasonable. Not with my own contributions, which came in for heaps of criticism, since I was doing the best I could, (and I am forced to doubt that in the case of a number of users). I was dissapointed that, despite my taking it very seriously, I was not taken seriously, and my genuine questions, submitted formally as Evidence, went unanswered (the 600Emails).

What I found most disappointing, though, was the attitude of some power-users, that they are simply above the law, and untouchable. It appears that the proper procedure, were one to wish to attain the stratospheric heights, is to simply be as high-handed (and under-handed) as possible. (I definitely do not mean User:Durova.)

The rules are: A)Never answer a direct question, no matter how many times it is asked. B)Never pay attention to any debate, or any facts or evidence, nor to any User and their concerns. C)Never post, except self-servingly. D)Always post, off-topic and at length if there is any likelihood of attention being paid to a post you would rather CENSOR. E)Just do what you like, and accuse any critics of bad-faith. F)If you upset someone, or hurt someone, just accuse them of being a SOCK and BLOCK. G)Move on, and leave the wounded to look after themselves.

No, I do not want to become like that. This Arbcom, for me, was about the double standard, and the arbitrary abuse of power. All of that is unresolved, indeed the abusers of power have won, and they seem to feel vindicated.

This has not destroyed my enthusiasm for Wikipedia, but it sure has put a big dent in it. I really thought that "good would prevail" and the power-wielders would be brought to heel. That is what needed to happen, and it sure didnt. So it goes from bad to worse, and all just very smelly water under a very rickety bridge.

I dont think this is good enough. And, once more, by reflex now, I have to apologise for any offence that my naivety, and good faith may have caused, --Newbyguesses - Talk 07:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Brad, I can state here that Samiharris is still using proxies for all of his edits, including the aforementioned unblock requests - Alison ?¥ñ 01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there disagreement that sockpuppet masters should be blocked?

So at the moment, Mantanmoreland has been unblocked because "I see significant admin disagreement here. Please take the matter to arbitration." (Doc Glasgow) However, Samiharris, Lastexit and Tomstoner are blocked as confirmed sockpuppets of Mantanmoreland, so he is a confirmed sockpuppeteer. Is there disagreement that sockpuppet masters should be blocked? Or is that a silly question?

Is there disagreement that the sock accounts should be tagged with the "confirmed sockpuppet" label ("suspected" for Sami) and that a "confirmed sockpuppeteer" tag should be slapped onto MM's user page? Who'll be the first person to attempt this post-ArbComm?

Hell yes there is. There are at least half a dozen who'd eagerly revert that with "ArbCom confirmed no such thing!" because to them, nothing short of a literal, explicit, unequivocal confirmation from them would be enough, and for some, even that. "ArbCom have applied sufficient remedies, we needn't do more punishment of our own" sounds like something someone would say (points, though not many, for guessing who'd be most likely to utter this).