Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland ban discussion/Part 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For earlier discussion on this issue, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland ban discussion.

Contents

[edit] Mr. IP's proposal

In looking at Mr. IP's proposal, this is precisely along the lines of the "Last Chance" I originally proposed. Combined with Lawrence's total topic ban, I think this can go somewhere.

There have been concerns that this flies in the face of ArbCom's 4th remedy. However, at this point it would be irresponsible to assume that any contributions he makes in this area are in good faith. Until and if we can make that assumption, a total topic ban is required to protect the project's integrity. So if this can garner enough support that a concise version can be presented to Mantanmoreland, let's go with it. Blueboy96 04:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup. I think the most important thing is to get some sort of clear statatement from Mantanmoreland about how he intends to contribute positively to the 'pedia. Once we have that, we can hold him to it. If we can't get that, there can be no remaining doubt that he has no such intentions. It may still even be possible to reform the guy, which is the only way to please all sides here. Certainly any ban will be as much of a disruption as he'd be, given how successfully he's divided us, and just as certainly, a total failure to hold him to account (which is really how things stand) will leave even more people angry and frustrated. Mr. IP (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It is absolutely correct that we need a statement from MM. MM needs to, as a bare minimum, acknowledge the massive concerns of the community, promise to follow our policies, respect the community's wishes, strictly avoid making accusations about people, and tell us what he intends to do on Wikipedia in the future. Can those opposed to a block or ban agree that he must make some sort of statement along those lines if we're going let him continue editing? It surely cannot be acceptable for him to simply ignore us and make no pledges after all that he has done. Everyking (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed sanction

Based on the discussions that have gone on in past weeks, I propose the following draft sanctions on Mantanmoreland:

Due to concerns about whether User:Mantanmoreland is here to help build a neutral point of view encyclopedia, the community feels compelled to impose the following sanctions on Mantanmoreland (under whatever account) in addition to those imposed by ArbCom at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland:

1. Mantanmoreland (udner whatever account) must make a statement on the administrators' noticeboard apologizing to the community for his disruptive actions. In this statement, he must also give sufficient assurances to the community that he does intend to make a positive contribution to the project. If the community feels that his statement displays an unapologetic attitude, it shall be grounds for an immediate ban from the project without further warning.

2. For a period of one year, Mantanmoreland (under whatever account) is banned from any and all interaction or discussion, broadly construed, of any articles related to finance, Gary Weiss, Patrick Byrne, or Overstock.com, broadly construed. During this period, any and all edits involving these articles, invoking actions on those articles in any dispute resolution process or Wikipedia process, or discussions of issues with these articles in any namespace or situation, will result in escalating blocks from any non-involved admin. After one year, as per Remedies 1 and 4 of the ArbCom decision, Mantanmoreland will be permitted to make suggestions to the articles in question on talk pages, but shall remained banned indefinitely from making edits of his own to the articles in question.

3. Mantanmoreland (under whatever account) must accept mentorship.

4. Any additional sockpuppetry from this user shall result in an immediate ban from the project without further warning.

The community feels that these restrictions are necessary to protect the integrity of the project, which has been seriously compromised by its involvement in an off-wiki dispute. Blueboy96 12:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

1. seems to ask for a remedy based on no finding. Any disruption caused by Mantanmoreland's edits was, at most, marginal.
2. seems to be unnecessarily swingeing, forbidding discussion and even dispute resolution. What is the justification?
I'm not opposed to 3 in principle, and as an uninvolved party I offer myself as mentor.
4. is superfluous. See the arbitration remedies.
--Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Here was the logic behind this, Tony:
1. Given the fact that Mantanmoreland used Wikipedia as a battleground for an off-wiki dispute, we need assurances that he is in fact here to write an encyclopedia. Plus, if he's unapologetic about his behavior, there is no defensible reason to allow him to edit.
2. Since there is doubt as to whether any of his contributions are in good faith, a topic ban is necessary until we can be sure that they are. I was initially skeptical of this when Lawrence proposed it, but when Rocksandirt noted that a similar restriction from a a previous ArbCom case had the effect of banning a disruptive single-purpose editor from the project, I figured it was something we could go with.
4. Per the enforcement section, anyone who violates the imposed restrictions can be blocked for an appropriate period. Given the circumstances, indef is really the only possible way to go in case of a violation on Mantanmoreland's part.
The key here is that Mantanmoreland has to reestablish trust with the community. After all, you once said yourself that we don't need extremely untrustworthy people on Wikipedia. Blueboy96 13:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to comment on one point of Blueboy's proposal: Asking for an apology kind of defeats the purpose of an apology. I always cringe when I see someone asking another for an apology. An apology has no meaning if it is asked for, it is just words. Mm has not apologized and has made no indication that will; that says a thousand words. Indeed, some would say that he has nothing to apologize for and that too says a thousand words. If he hasn't given an apology yet, he's probably not sorry and does not believe he did anything wrong.

Things that are not said sometimes convey more information than things that are said. daveh4h 16:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There is zero evidence of Mantanmoreland ever having used Wikipedia as a battleground in any external dispute. That he was stalked and subject to personal attacks is undeniable. That he ignored them and quietly continued editing for well over a year in the face of such attacks reflects well on him. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You do realise that yours is very much a lone voice here in these assertions, don't you? Other people have pointed to the selective references used in promoting the practice of Naked Short Selling while disregarding or removing cites which criticised it within the article, the same in Gary Weiss, and the opposite in Patrick Byrne, and the only reason why those others are still not contesting your comments is that they realise you have no intent in accepting those points - for whatever reason. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm far from alone. Little in the way of evidence was given to support the assertions, although at least one arbitrator canvassed for such evidence repeatedly and I went a long way to try to make it easier for those who wanted to seek such evidence. Accordingly, not finding was passed concerning Mantanmoreland abusing Wikipedia for the purpose of advocacy, tendentious editing, disruptive behavior or personal attacks. Indeed his clean block record was noted. The assertions you make above have been made repeatedly but never adequately supported. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Again I believe you are misrepresenting the position, ArbCom came to a (controversial, as it turned out) decision not to review the evidence of past misdemeanours but to concentrate on how to avoid disruption for the future. While they did not make hard findings on claims of disruptive editing (bias and NPOV) they included a topic ban on those subjects I mentioned above; if they were only concerned with the fact of socking then they would have limited their sanctions to the use of editing accounts by MM - they did not, they specified restrictions in editing those articles. Whether it relates to possible undeclared COI or the acceptance that other symptoms of bias and POV were apparent is unclear but substantive. As for Mantanmorelands block record... have you noticed the calibre and history of those editors who are even now advocating his return to the editing community? Not many people are willing to take on the collective gravitas of David Gerard, SlimVirgin et al, and whenever concerns were previously raised it was drowned in the cries of "WordBomb enabling troll alert!" Clean block record of itself means nothing, and I suggest that it only indicates a clever manipulator of wp processes who was helped by the tacit support of powerful friends. Only the stupid, unlucky, or friendless get to have a heavily scored blocklog. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't support this for various reasons. #1 and #3 strike me as humiliation reminsicent of the "self criticism" imposed during the Cultural Revolution in China. It seems to me it's unprecedented here (at least I hope so) and it would set a bad example for the future. #2 extends ArbCom's topic ban to all finance articles and all discussion. I agree with extending the ban to all finance articles, since that seems to be an area he hasn't handled well, but discussion pages can't do much harm. It might be a good idea to say that his contributions to discussion pages on financial topics should be completely discounted when it comes to anyone considering a consensus. #4 is inevitable anyway. Noroton (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Upon reflection, I've decided to provide links/diffs to material collected by others which - while generally being used to indicate socking activity - comment on how the article or discussion is being manipulated;
  1. User:SirFozzie/Investigation#Further_information - MM and SH socking to merge various articles into an article that they created.
  2. [1] - Referencing the contentious removal of a reliable source.
  3. [2] - removing pro Byrne reference.
This is just a few from SirFozzie's pages - I can look for more if you continue to assert that they did not edit in a biased manner. They are there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a bit late now to purport to present such evidence now that the Arbitration committee, which did ask for such evidence, no longer has the opportunity to evaluate it. Actually strike that. If such evidence exists, ask the Committee to move for a finding that Mantanmoreland did engage in tendentious editing.
What's being ignored is that the Committee would have loved to make a finding that Mantamoreland edited abusively. This would have made it quite unnecessary to consider the extremely tenuous and untried evidence of socking, which in the end wasn't sufficient for them to make a determination on the question. They asked or such evidence repeatedly, but whatever was forthcoming was extremely weak stuff. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The abusive editing was that which related to the the question of socking, and since the Committee were unprepared to make a finding that stated that that MM was a sockmaster then two accounts which are removing the same pro-Byrne material and adding pro-Weiss references are arguably indicating consensus. If either account had been acting improperly independently they would have been warned (it can be argued that such actions took place, but one account was then used to back up the other) and sanctioned. It is only when the overall picture is reviewed can an argument be made that the combined actions of the two accounts were detrimental to the neutral bias of the articles.
All this material was available to the ArbCom, they needed only to wade through the swathes of evidence that was available from the investigations and RfC. Since the weight of that material related specifically to the question of socking - and that was the basis of the request for an ArbCom - it was not made apparent. You must surely remember the dismay that met the ArbCom's announcement that they were not going to deal with the historical question of socking (and only make remedy as a matter of moving forward), when all that information had been collated and presented. At no point did the ArbCom state a wish to review evidence of historical wrongdoing, presumabley since it was so tied in with the question of socking. Only if one assumes the question of socking as proven can otherwise legit seeming edits been considered abusive. The pattern only makes sense on that basis. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed the historical socking was long in the past and of course it would be unproductive for the community or the committee to consider it in the current situation. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just a note

This isn't exactly helping his cause. Blueboy96 14:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an impostor. As for the other points raised, I have already indicated that I will abide by the ArbCom's decision and I will focus on other parts of the encyclopedia, and building up the articles that I have created (list of them on my user page). I have edited Wikipedia less than usual in recent months, largely because of the off-wiki harassment.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I have emailed Wikinews to ask that that account be terminated as an impostor account.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you going to apologize? Cla68 (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I take the above statement by User:Mantanmoreland to be an expression of intention to edit Wikipedia in a positive, and neutral manner. I wish MM well in that endeavour. If possible, a longer statement by Mantanmoreland might clear the air a little, if MM were to agree to each of the Arbs. restrictions specifically, so there is no doubt. --Newbyguesses - Talk 00:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] my own private comment by User:Dorftrottel

When the RfC/RfA was started, I thought it was a good idea to let our elected authorities decide, but what happens here & now smells of revenge. Please note that personally speaking, I'm not very happy with the way the ArbCom handled the decision, but that's because I'm a masochist and I have a soft spot for strong men showing me the way. Anyway, is there recent (or any?) policy-violating behaviour outside of those articles included in the topic ban? If not, then I don't see a good reason for a community ban... i.e. other than mob bloodlust. One qualification I have to make though: I would appreciate it if Mantanmoreland could simply say sorry for his fuckups just once (or has that happened since I tuned out?). At any rate, it's not a must, only a personal preference. On a somewhat related note, I just stumbled upon the word risibility. Dorftrottel (ask) 16:55, March 15, 2008

I think a community ban of MM is definitely off the table now. If someone tried to impose it, I would undo it myself because there's manifestly not support at this time. MM had already agreed to a topic ban with SV, and had been abiding with it since September, so it's not really an onerous restriction.
And no, MM has never apologized, and has hardly even commented on his prior socking. Cool Hand Luke 17:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed ... and Mantanmoreland's statement earlier is definitely a step in the right direction. Blueboy96 17:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:WordBomb

We've offered to allow MM to continue to participate in Wikipedia if he apologizes, promises not to repeat the behavior, and stays away from the four articles in question. Since we've offered him another chance in spite of his severe, past malfeasance, shouldn't we offer the same to WordBomb under the same conditions? Cla68 (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Not here to write an encyclopedia. To put it mildly. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Neither has mm been, until we've taken away his battle field. I don't agree that wb should be unbanned without some serious appolgy/cleanup on his part, but as he's not interested in the encycopedia either, who cares. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think this is a good idea. I promised MM I wouldn't join any push for his banning, and at this point I see no reason to anyway. The intolerable situation that obtained here for so long, in which anti-WordBomb hysteria was coupled with willful naïveté about Mantanmoreland's abuses, has passed at long last. At this point only a few eccentrics and courtiers are mouthing the memes that were the law of the late regime. The banning of Mackan79 as a WB sock the other day was a last gasp of that era, and the swiftness with which it was reversed a sure sign that a page has indeed been turned. Yes, Mantanmoreland brought a destructive personal and real-world battle onto Wikipedia, and yes WordBomb responded to the provocation, but now that this is all out in the open we can just keep an eye on the involved articles and editors. Let MM stay, and let WB back.--G-Dett (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Even if it were true that Mantanmoreland was not here to write an encyclopedia (a claim belied by his many excellent contributions) it is a fact that WordBomb was only here to cause damage. He is not welcome. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think there are many who disagree with you on both points, Lover. Regarding WordBomb specifically, I think even if his only purpose was to expose Mantan's COI problem and aggressive agenda-pushing, many of us would say this constituted an attempt on WB's part to improve the encyclopedia (one which is finally beginning to pay off). His methods ran afoul of WP policies, to be sure, but none but the most rankly partisan or willfully blind editor would lay all blame for the ensuing train wreck at his door.--G-Dett (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with G-dett, but I think he underestimates the need folks have to blame wb for all the ills associated. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It might be fun to see how long the troll would last. But no. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
One is often surprised by the staying power of apparent trolls, Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The.--G-Dett (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The form of your comment reminds me that it would be unseemly to get into an argument on such matters with an editor has all of 700 article edits in two years, but many thousands of comments on discussion pages of controversial articles. Stamina varies. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, that's Olivia's line. Do you have her permission?--G-Dett (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
No. If we need to include WordBomb's pov in any of the related articles (and I really don't see why we should) then there are several sites that can be linked to. Same for any pov by Mr Weiss. These are both secondary (or primary, I don't want to look too closely) sources and there should be enough third party references to make NPOV articles. If there aren't the reliable third party sources, then I question if the articles are notable enough to exist. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

WB has been demonized beyond all reason. I see no problem in unbanning him... then, if he uses this status to harm the encyclopedia, re-ban him. What irreparable harm would be done by letting him in on a revokable basis? *Dan T.* (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There is fairness in that, to WordBomb at least. But, has User:WordBomb asked to come back? It is up to them, and we cant get fairness now, between WordBomb and Mantanmoreland, since so many other issues have arisen since. It would be a good step if Mantanmoreland were to offer an explanation, and give some assurance as to their aims, not an apology, and not a diatribe about the off-wiki "persecution". When we are questioned by the community, we ought to respond respectfully.--Newbyguesses - Talk 00:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No. No unblock on Wordbomb. Attempting to "out" an editor is by itself enough for him to stay banned--period, full stop (to use a UK expression). Blueboy96 12:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, a good deal of the stuff on the evidence and discussion pages of the ArbCom case consisted of the very same "outing" that WB was banned for, so should everybody participating there be banned too? *Dan T.* (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
We "out" people all the time. We have a whole page for it. And another for speculating on what people's IP addresses are. It's generally accepted that a conflict of interest is a legitimate reason to reveal an editor's real-life identity or who their employer is. How is what WordBomb did different? Putting it in article space was a newbie mistake, and one he did not repeat. —Random832 00:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree with random, but the only way he's going to get unbanned (imo) is if SV says it's ok to un-ban him. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you stating that as an apprisal of the current situation or as a principle to hold to? If the former, that's an unfortunate state of affairs, if true, and if the latter, that's not how we claim to do things here. ++Lar: t/c 13:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It is an appraisal of the current state of the mm/wb/gw/pb/jb/investors with no pants situation. We claim some nice ideals. We don't always follow our ideals, and rarely in this case at all. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


But, has User:WordBomb asked to come back? - I have contacted him and he does indeed want to come back and contribute to the encyclopedia. He has removed some material from his blog as a gesture of good will. —Random832 18:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
my advice would be to contact sv and see if there'd be objection. I have my thoughts on the answers you'll get. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
A single person having a right to veto is not how we do things. We should have a community discussion. If you wish to notify SlimVirgin of this discussion feel free to do so. —Random832 (contribs) 03:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we start a discussion at WP:ANI or WP:AN? Cla68 (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Rply to Randome: It wouldn't be a single person's objection. There are a number of users who will support sv's objection without question, so you'll have half a dozen at least objections. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
And even without the outing, it looks like his edits were so egregious that they had to be oversighted. I'm really not comfortable letting someone return under those circumstances. A quick look at his contributions confirms, to my mind, that this guy was not here to write an encyclopedia. Blueboy96 18:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Blocks are intended to be corrective, not punitive. If WordBomb says that he's ready to follow the rules, then it's time to give him another chance. Anyway, the original block was wrong, because he wasn't warned before he was blocked. As later events have indicated, he probably was right in what he was alleging. If WordBomb had been listened to at the beginning, and he obviously approached the wrong group of admins with his information, it would have saved a lot of time and effort by other editors and some bad press for the project. Cla68 (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
And even without the outing, it looks like his edits were so egregious that they had to be oversighted. Um... the fuck? How in the hell can you say "even without the outing" and then invoke the fact that it was oversighted when the sole reason given for oversighting was outing? —Random832 (contribs) 03:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)