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

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

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)

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)

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)

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