On 3 Jun 2007 at 19:08:00 +0100, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cla68
Cla68 would like to open a debate on Wiki about this, seems eminently sensible, please feel free to pitch in.
I found it of interest, in the incident from December that this RfC centers on, that Mantanmoreland was insisting that Cla68 be blocked for making a mistaken accusation of sockpuppetry with regard to him and another user (based on a misunderstanding of another message thread), while Mantanmoreland himself is profligous with accusations of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and trolling with regard to people who end up at odds with him in a dispute (he did some of that at the very same time he was regarding it as an inexcusable offense to make that sort of accusation at *him*). He gets so much mileage out of the fact that he was at one point trolled by "WordBomb" (an apparent single-purpose trolling account that was banned after a very short "career") that, if it were a frequent-flyer program, he'd have several free trips already -- people who criticize him are likely to end up on the receiving end of his accusations that they're a "sock/meatpuppet of a banned user".
So I ask... is there a double standard on Wikipedia, where there's an "untouchable" caste that gets to hurl accusations freely, but can suppress anybody who does the same back at *them*?
On 6/3/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 3 Jun 2007 at 19:08:00 +0100, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cla68
Cla68 would like to open a debate on Wiki about this, seems eminently sensible, please feel free to pitch in.
I found it of interest, in the incident from December that this RfC centers on, that Mantanmoreland was insisting that Cla68 be blocked for making a mistaken accusation of sockpuppetry with regard to him and another user (based on a misunderstanding of another message thread), while Mantanmoreland himself is profligous with accusations of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and trolling with regard to people who end up at odds with him in a dispute (he did some of that at the very same time he was regarding it as an inexcusable offense to make that sort of accusation at *him*). He gets so much mileage out of the fact that he was at one point trolled by "WordBomb" (an apparent single-purpose trolling account that was banned after a very short "career") that, if it were a frequent-flyer program, he'd have several free trips already -- people who criticize him are likely to end up on the receiving end of his accusations that they're a "sock/meatpuppet of a banned user".
I find it of interest that you so thoroughly misconstrued the incidents in question, and filled the RFC itself with a rather vicious rant/personal attack, seemingly without shame, and carry it forward to this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cla...
Six months after an alleged sockpuppeting incident, WordBomb socks were still bringing it up, and suddenly Cla68 decided to bring it up as well, on a number of different fora. This followed a previous accusation of sockpuppetry against three accounts, Cla68 had made a month earlier on an AfD nomination, one which was eventually deleted by Jimbo himself.
As for sockpuppetry accusations, it appears that it is *you* who is getting mileage out of them, bringing them up a further 6 months later.
And WordBomb, far from being "an apparent single-purpose trolling account that was banned after a very short "career"", his career lasted quite a few months, through a number of incarnations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_WordBomb
Finally, regarding the RfC, I have to say it's a first. I've seen straw man arguments a-plenty on Talk: pages, and even straw man AfD nominations, but this is the first time I've seen a straw man RfC.