User:RegenerateThis/Sandbox/Mantanmoreland community ban discussion

Catalog of my edits in the Mantanmoreland community ban discussion, March, 2008


 * [17:31, 12 March 2008] I oppose this proposal to ban from Wikipedia, on the basis that the remedy is sufficient. Mantanmoreland has been given a perpetual topic ban of the open-ended "articles related to" nature and firmly instructed not to use socks, and there is also an exceptionally firm set of enforcement clauses. I have no objection to a block on the Samiharris account because it deliberately used proxies and the possibility that he is a sock of Mantanmoreland exists.
 * 18:55, 12 March 2008 I don't object to that line of reasoning, but I would add that the evidence that Mantanmoreland caused or intended any harm with those sock puppets is weak. He betrayed our trust, but I'm unconvinced, having carefully examined his histor of editing on two of the articles, that he slanted them egregiously, inserted unsourced or irrelevant facts or opinions or engaged in systematic removal of sourced opinions, or indeed any such removal at all without discussing his reasons on the talk page and accepting consensus. Perhaps his behavior had some subtle disinformational intent, and the socking is worrying, but this is one of the weakest cases for a community ban I've ever seen.
 * 19:01, 12 March 2008 That isn't a correct characterization of Mantanmoreland's response to the RFC. See [Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Mantanmoreland/RfC#Response|here]].
 * 19:02, 12 March 2008 Some kind of tweak (I'm color blind so I may be missing some highlighting in the diff)
 * 19:51, 12 March 2008 Although I'm surprised to be saying this, it's obvious that this ban proposal is a lot more controversial within the community than I anticipated during the recent arbitration case. I don't recall a community ban ever passing with this level of opposition from well established members of the community, and suggest that its proponents consider postponing it for a week or so to see how things go. If problems emerge I'm sure the situation will be resolved by a ban in any case.
 * 20:16, 12 March 2008 append to preceding comment: Sami can be blocked now in my opinion. He uses a paid proxy without any obvious need to do so, and a plausible case exists that he could be socking.''
 * 20:51, 12 March 2008 The banning policy requires a very high level of consensus for a ban--not one admin prepared to unblock. Moreover there is quite strong opposition to a ban, even discounting David's statement. I was referrig to David Gerard who had said: I will happily be the one admin to unblock, demonstrating this "community ban" ("not one admin will unblock") isn't.
 * 23:07, 12 March 2008 This is clearly a controversial proposal and I suggest that we set the decision aside to await developments. There is no urgency, and the extremely strong arbitration remedies and enforcement clauses will prevent harm being done.
 * 23:08, 12 March 2008 Append to "controversial proposal" in the above the text (read: literally no consensus) to the above.
 * 01:23, 13 March 2008 There is no consensus to ban.
 * 01:24, 13 March 2008 Reverted previous statement (I had misread the context of Rlevse's previous comment)
 * 13:05, 13 March 2008 This is not a vote. There was not adequate consensus for the block of Mantanmoreland. It was conducted in a precipitate manner in the face of strong and well supported arguments against: to wit, that the user is under a sufficient remedy imposed by the arbitration committee. Suggestions that we wait and see (under his very generously worded remedy he can be indefinitely blocked if he ever edits disruptively) were apparently ignored by the blocking administrator. This block should be undone and the user should remain under the sanction of the arbitration committee to edit under only that username and to refrain indefinitely from editing articles related to the dispute. This is ample remedy for the case. A stronger remedy especially as here in the absence of sufficient consensus for a community ban, would be perverse and would tend to divide the community.
 * 13:06, 13 March 2008, append to previous comment:  I say this as a person completely and wholly involved in the dispute. I had, in fact, no knowledge of mantanmoreland until two weeks ago.
 * 13:07, 13 March 2008 tweak spelling, 'involved' -> 'uninvolved'
 * 13:12, 13 March 2008 Add to previous statement:  I should add that, other than being under almost continual attack by Wordbomb for nearly two years, there is no evidence that the user imported any dispute into Wikipedia. The charges on that line seem to be especially thin.
 * 15:22, 13 March 2008 Statement in Request for clarification on the requests for arbitration page: There is obviously no urgency to block the Mantanmoreland account. It is under some of the most stringent socking remedies, with indefinite effect, and the most swingeing enforcement provisions I've ever seen, and is likely to be under permanent scrutiny. There is no justification for an immediate block. The block by Coren was reversed by Doc and discussion continues, which I think it the right thing. The possibility of a community ban, or an alternative community remedy, is being dicussed and should be permitted to continue without prejudice.
 * 15:28, 13 March 2008 Another spelling tweak
 * 15:51, 13 March 2008 I'd like to add that, from examining the edits of Mantanmoreland carefully, I find the suggestion that he imported a dispute into Wikipedia improbable. He certainly socked, but otherwise his edits put me in mind of a fellow who breaks into your home and doesn't take anything but fixes the microwave and replaces the toilet paper. If he's been pushing some agenda, it's far too subtle to register on my radar.
 * 16:04, 13 March 2008 I take issue with the statement that "we as a community have failed to deal with this editor in the same fashion we would deal with other editors who engaged in similar behavior". We have forbidden him to use any secondary accounts or proxy, and we have forbidden him to edit the four articles named in the controversy or any article related to them. If he edits disruptively any administrator can block him for an unspecified "suitable" period. In the circumstances, the urgency to block would need some strong justification that has not been demonstrated.
 * 16:51, 13 March 2008 I'm unclear how involved you're claiming Doc is. I don't consider myself involved at all, not having heard of Mantanmoreland until a fortnight ago. Doc glasgow has not even given evidence on the evidence page. Nor is he named in the evidence page. He is not listed as an involved party in the application. He participated in the workshop but that does not make him an involved party in the dispute. Moreover David Gerard, who is not involved in the dispute, has also proposed unblocking. I'm quite sure you will find others in this discussion, perhaps even a former arbitrator or two, who still would propose unblocking.
 * 17:42, 13 March 2008 I agree. Discussion should continue. Clear consensus may form in due course.