In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 02:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC).

---

• Mantanmoreland (talk · contribs · logs)
• Samiharris (talk · contribs · logs) (Account has left a statement saying that he's left Wikipedia)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

There has been concern that User:Mantanmoreland, who had previously been warned by former ArbCom member User:Fred Bauder for using an alternate/additional account (User:Lastexit) in ways that violated Wikipedia policy, was using the account User:Samiharris to violate Wikipedia's rules on multiple accounts. A CheckUser was performed between the two accounts, and came back Inconclusive, for one account had only edited via open proxies. Since a technical match could not be made, it fell to a less precise, more imperfect way to compare the two accounts, via details such as time of edits, as well as common targets, and editing style to determine if the two accounts could be considered a match via The Duck Test. An investigation was performed, and the details are available via the following pages: my initial investigation, and Additional evidence compiled by interested editors. It is time to take the next step with that evidence at hand.

Desired outcome[edit]

The community needs to view the evidence and come to a consensus on whether the accounts are to be considered a match via The Duck Test. I invite the greater community to view the evidence provided and to determine if the accounts are the same. If there is no consensus that the two accounts are the same via this test, then no further action needs to be taken. If the two accounts are considered the same, then further action needs to be contemplated, whether to restrict one or both accounts via blocks, topical restrictions, up to a sitewide ban.

Description[edit]

The most telling bits of evidence compiled in the evidence gathering phase of this project:

1) The two accounts never edit at the same time, going back to January 31st, 2007 (when the Samiharris account was created). That means that despite the two accounts having roughly 4000 edits combined over the last year, and having roughly similar editing habits (there is a graphic on the sandbox page that shows how similar editing patterns the two had by time frame), the edits are always one account, then the other. There are rare occurences where they edit on the same day.

2) There is a long list of grammatical similarities, uncommon phrases, and shorthand that the two accounts share, that other accounts do not share.

There is numerous other bits of evidence that provisionally links the two together.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

See the following evidence pages generated during the project:

Investigation page diff as of when this RfC was started
Investigation Sandbox page diff as of when this RfC was started

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

1. WP:SOCK
2. WP:CIVIL

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

1. [1] Myself asking Mantanmoreland for an explanation of the evidence I've found
2. [2] Durova asking Mantanmoreland to post any exculaptory evidence that he has. Mantanmoreland later calls it a kangaroo court and withdraws without answering publicly.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

1. Realized I never signed this as the initator of this RfC. My apologies. SirFozzie (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. With respect toward all sides, I believe community input is required here. This dispute has been festering far too long. As of now I am neutral regarding the merits of the sock investigation, and request all participants to communicate here in a productive manner, without harnessing personal theories about Wikipedia dynamics. Let us examine the facts both pro and con and try to come to a rational consensus. Durova^Charge! 03:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

1. krimpet✽ 04:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. I can't certify because I've not asked Mantanmoreland for any action, but this is all true. Cool Hand Luke 04:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Whenever any editors display the same singlemindedness on the other side of the issues Sami/Mantan are preoccupied with, they're bound to be blocked as sock/meatpuppets of WordBomb... it's time to drop the double standard and treat the opposing sides identically. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per observations and input at the Investigation and Sandbox, and per Dan T's concerns. Achromatic (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Everyking (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Not having been involved in any of this, but reading the recent materials, I agree that this statement is accurate as to both information presented and goals/objectives. I am concerned that DanT's comments are closer to the 'truth' than is good for the encyclopedia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Having read through the evidence in detail to-date - Alison ^❤ 16:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Yes, I've read through the evidence closely and the statement appears to be accurate. Whitstable 17:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. (my comment in CHL's section, below). R. Baley (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Cla68 (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Viridae^Talk 21:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Majorly (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. I think that this statement correctly reflects the main points that the evidence is substantial, that there is indeed a dispute, and that a genuine response is necessary. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Neıl ☎ 10:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Yes. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. -Dureo (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. I endorse this summary. There is substantial evidence, there is a dispute, and it is a reasonable request to the community that they weigh in on what they think of the evidence presented. I carried out CU checks on both Mantanmoreland and Samiharris prior to the RFCU request being made, and found puzzling things, which I raised with fellow CUs, but technical analysis did not resolve the matter. So I think a DUCK test is a reasonable approach to try to get to the bottom of the question. I think SirFozzie is to be commended for having went to this level of effort, as are the others who did analysis. ++Lar: t/c 18:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. --G-Dett (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. нмŵוτнτ 21:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Avb 03:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I agree with Morven concerning this RfC, but there seems to be no consensus to delete this and put it in SSP where it belongs. Also Samiharris has quit the project, so this is moot.

I am not Samiharris, and neither I nor Samiharris have ever been blocked or even warned. There are no accusations of edit warring, and the POV pushing accusations come from Cool Hand Luke, who has been a partisan and aggressive editor in Patrick M. Byrne, removing sourced material from the New York Times, claiming that a notable Times columnist, Joseph Nocera, is an "advocacy" and not a reliable source[3]. He had an extensive but civil exchange with Samiharris on that point, in which he continued stubbornly to his POV position.[4]

Cool Hand and the others pushing this rely on statistics, because we have not behaved as socks. The section above is a good example. If I was Sami, would not I have chimed in in this faceoff between Sami and an administrator? A consensus was needed, and I could have supplied a consensus. I did not, because I have been trying my best to avoid all of these articles because of a steady drumbeat of off-wiki harassment, originating from an official of Overstock.com who is a banned user.

Similarly, I did not chime in when Samiharris was facing off against Cool Hand and others in Talk:Gary Weiss last December. In fact, I checked that Talk page and I have not one edit there while Sami has many. If we were socks, I'd be all over that talk page and the article.

Also our writing style is different, and I posted some diffs concerning that here [5].

Reply to WAS 4.250: What "war"? All of the articles he alludes to, such as Patrick M. Byrne and Naked short selling, are comparatively stable and have been for months.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Mantanmoreland (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to remember that Mantanmoreland has abusively used at least two sockpuppet accounts in the past: Lastexit and Tomstoner. He never admitted to this, nor did he apologize, but the accounts fell into disuse after User:Fred Bauder warned him.[6] With that in mind, consider these facts:

• Samiharris always used a proxy.
• Mantanmoreland and Samiharris shared a POV, and were especially prolific on articles related to Naked short selling, Overstock.com, and Gary Weiss.
• They edited dozens of the same articles at similar times and to similar ends, and !voted on several issues together.
• Mantanmoreland and Samiharris edit at precisely the same times of day. (see chart, details)
  • These accounts have better correlation coefficients with each other's editing patterns than any pair of 21 other accounts studied.
• In spite of this fact, they have only interleaved edits within 30 minutes of each other five times over the last year (details), which is much less overlap than with similarly situated accounts.
  • Their contributions dovetail. That is: there are long strings of one user editing, followed by another editing, with no intersection.
• Both accounts have used uncommon expressions such as "asked and answered many times," and "lipstick on a pig"—in fact it appears the latter expression has only occurred 20 times by 14 users in talk space, and two of those instances were from Mantanmoreland and Samiharris.
• A lengthy catalog has been compiled of editing traits which these two accounts share. Of particular note are edit summaries using the strings " -- ", "rply", "duplicative", "Talk" (capitalized referring to talk page), and "as per" (instead of simply "per"). These traits are seen in several edit summaries by both of these accounts. Mantanmoreland's previous socks also shared many of these traits. However, these traits are uncommon among editors at large, based on cross-section of Wikipedia editors. (summary table)

Given Mantanmoreland's history of abuse, and given that these accounts shared interests, ideologies, "phraseologies," editing traits, and hours of operation, this is an easy case.

These are sockpuppets.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Cool Hand Luke 04:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Note—the two offset points were added after Sarcasticidealist (#20) signed.[reply]
2. The evidence is strong. But even if it weren't, they'd certainly be meatpuppets at least, by the standards that are constantly used on anybody who displays similar zeal for the opposite side of the culture wars. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Endorsed. CHL gives a good summation of investigation. Achromatic (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cla68 (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Endorsed. Too many "coincidences." Huldra (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. No reasonable doubt. Everyking (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. The evidence Luke has presented is just far too strong to ignore. krimpet✽ 16:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. hard not to say yes to at least meatpuppets. And plenty more than is usually required for an AN/I duck test. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Endorsed. CHL's work has solidified a lot of links that were vague and unclear when this started. SirFozzie (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. - Alison ^❤ 16:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Some very useful evidence, thanks to hard work by CHL, that for me shows the difference between possible meatpuppets and possible sockpuppets. Whitstable 17:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Quack. Too much evidence, coincidence, commonality and similarity to ignore or explain away. Strands make a rope. Open to an explanation, as always. But this does not preclude forming of a working conclusion given the evidence. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Barring conclusive evidence from both of them, agreed. They need to come clean, for having disrupted Wikipedia and broken trust. Lawrence § t/e 19:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. I am convinced most by 3 factors discussed so far: 1) "Dovetailing" (thanks Huldra) contribs in conjunction with 2) highly similar edit times overall, and 3) " -- " used in edit summaries, because there are lots of ways to do this (one dash, no space or spaces, semi-colon, comma, –I think I've made my point) but they both used the exact same text, and asfaik, no other (incorporating the double dash anyway). The other idiosyncratic edits (e.g. "rply") could be passed off as mimicry due to editing in the same areas. I am watching this, so if anything new comes up that is mitigating or explanatory in nature, I remain open to that. R. Baley (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. In the absence of any reasonable explanation from Mantanmoreland I find Cool Hand Luke's evidence and conclusions compelling. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. No other reasonable explanation --BETA 20:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. I'm open to hearing a defense, but this seems the reasonable explanation at this time. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Viridae^Talk 21:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Endorse. Majorly (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Endorse. That fifth point is the smoking gun, given the volumes of their respective editing histories. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Endorse. This evidence is enough to ban any user. Discombobulator (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. The evidence is quite damning. Sean William @ 01:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Endorse. This evidence is enough to ban any user. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Endorse. God, I don't think I've ever seen a "duckier" duck. нмŵוτнτ 03:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. I hate to say it, but the evidence is awfully compelling. Grandmasterka 04:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. The locomotion, appearance and vocalizations are consistent with those of typical Anatidae. — Coren ^(talk) 04:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Neıl ☎ 10:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Dureo (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Kudos to the editors who compiled this evidence. Amerique^dialectics 18:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Endorse. A very thorough and very damning analysis. Kudos indeed. The minor issue I have is that the community cannot afford to do this every time, it is too labour intensive, and now any future suspected sock who is clever enough to evade CU detection can say "unless it's as thorough as this one was, it won't count" and will perhaps get some sympathy... ++Lar: t/c 18:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, and in fact it was said at the initiation of this case, which is one of the (many) reasons, it had to be done here. But I agree that in general, this goes far beyond what should usually be required. R. Baley (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

33. Endorse, with minor clarification on "lipstick on the pig." As explained here, the phrase in fact has occurred twenty times on Wikipedia talk pages, by a total of fourteen different editors (two of whom are Mantan and Sami). Two other editors are fond of the phrase and have used it several times each.--G-Dett (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Avb 03:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase and expand upon my query to Mantanmoreland of a few days ago:

• Mantanmoreland formerly used a second account in a way that brought a reprimand from Fred Bauder.
• Possibly the Tomstoner account is also related; Mantanmoreland appears to have modified a Tomstoner edit and referred to it in the first person, and refused to answer queries about that.
• Either Mantanmoreland or Sami Harris always edits from an open proxy.
• Both the Mantanmoreland and Sami Harris accounts share a lot of common interests, edit dozens of the same articles, and tend to agree with each other.
• Both accounts have rich edit histories containing thousands of edits, and often edit the same article during the same week.
• Both accounts edit during the same time of day; their average edit stamp is 10 minutes apart.
• The two accounts are never or almost never actually online simultaneously (out of 4000 combined edits during calendar year 2007, only five possible overlaps have been found).
• Per findings described here, Mantanmoreland edited several articles in summer 2007 in a manner which, at minimum, looks like the two bypassed normal onsite input to redirect several articles into a newly created article of their making.

That's enough to raise a reasonable person's eyebrow. We assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary, yet this rises to a level that merits a response and I'd like to see reasonable explanations if such can be made.

Likewise, a few words for the people who have been pursuing this for months. Per a new section I added to a site essay:

If something's wrong and it's not getting fixed, please be patient and keep working on fixing it the right way. If you let your own standards drop because you get frustrated, people will go ewwww and walk away. Then it'll take even longer to get your problem solved. That's not a happy place to be.

I considered looking into this matter nearly half a year ago, but backed away out of distaste at the methods that were being used to pursue it. Since then those methods got worse. SirFozzie and I made a hard decision to overlook that side of the equation when we dug into this. So to make this clear: that didn't get my attention; it slowed things down. And in the future I'd likely turn my back entirely. People who countenanced those things say they had to because Wikipedia's dispute resolution doesn't work. That claim might hold water if this page were named Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mantanmoreland II or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mantanmoreland III or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mantanmoreland IV. So I ask all Wikipedians, onsite and offsite, to stand up for fair play. Durova^Charge! 05:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. At this point I find the evidence to be rather strong, but per Durova (and comments I once made in a somewhat similar case in terms of the nature of the investigation) I want to remain open to a reply from Mantanmoreland, including more convincing exculpatory evidence than that which was provided here. I also echo Durova's enjoinder that we proceed in as fair and meticulous a fashion as possible on this controversial matter (which has, I think, been the case so far).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. SirFozzie (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. - per Bigtimepeace, awaiting a reply from Mantanmoreland - Alison ^❤ 16:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. R. Baley (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. In the absence of any reasonable explanation from Mantanmoreland I find the evidence compelling. I remain open to considering any explanation that may be forthcoming, and would be prepared to change my opinion if subsequent evidence warrants it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Much as in the US court system, evidence obtained in an unethical manner should be deemed unacceptable and rightly throws an entire case into question. I commend SirFozzie and Durova for addressing these concerns the right way. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. This ain't a court; there ain't no exclusionary rule. But it's good that on-wiki evidence could be found, anyway, to avoid the slightest taint of "attack sites" which could otherwise be used by certain elements to squelch the inquiry. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Until this recent effort, all I could be sure about was that there was an effort to use Wikipedia as a battleground by forces for and against some specific individuals and their points of view. Several admins played an important role in this battle and only one side was allowed to express an opinion at Wikipedia with anyone taking the other side called a sock or worse for their thought crime. It is good to see honest effort put into the unraveling of this horrible destructive war. I hope that admins that turn everything into a war are desyoped. I hope admins that now see the errors of their ways, say so and pledge to change. I hope the principals in the war are given a ban for life. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Agree. Majorly (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Lawrence § t/e 05:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Dureo (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Enough evidence for Mantanmoreland to be held to answerGeoff Plourde (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to consider a hypothetical situation, or put the cart before the horse, or get way ahead of myself and the facts of the matter in an ill-advised manner, or whatever else you might like to call it. At this point I find the evidence rather persuasive while still remaining open to evidence that leads me in the opposite direction. However I'm going to offer an opinion on how, in a very general sense, we ought to proceed if the community comes to some agreement that these two accounts are controlled by the same person. To summarize the key point at the outset: I would consider that behavior an extremely egregious abuse of the community's trust and one warranting severe sanctions.

If the sock accusations are found to be true, based on the evidence I think we would have to conclude that the user in question engaged in double !voting and collusion between supposedly distinct accounts to create consensus on certain issues/articles. Obviously this is not an acceptable use of sockpuppets per policy. Beyond this fact though I would offer the simple point that the editor in question chose to repeatedly deny that the Samiharris and Mantanmoreland accounts were operated by the same person, apparently going to great lengths (to cite just one possible example) in order to do so. It is the manner in which deception would have been compounded by deception that I would find so deeply disturbing - again assuming that the accusations are generally agreed to be true.

It is entirely possible that there will not be agreement that Samiharris is a sock of Mantanmoreland and in that case this comment will be irrelevant at best. But if there is agreement on the sock accusation I think we have a serious problem. This whole issue is (and has been) a dramafest wrapped in a dramatic festival for reasons that will be obvious to most folks who comes to this RfC. But of course all that should be quite irrelevant to how we proceed (and here I think I am echoing Durova's comment above).

If the community decides that Mantanmoreland has engaged in abusive sockpuppetry and lied about it afterward to boot (which of course comes on after the sock!) then the editor in question should - regardless of the history of this dispute or the good contributions the user may have made in the past - face severe sanctions as would any less-well-known-and-respected (or - importantly - less-controversial) editor in the same situation.

But again, and I mean this in all seriousness, this is an opinion based on a hypothetical situation which may or may not come to pass. However I also believe it is an opinion that needs to be expressed from the outset.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary;

1. The possibility of the consequences of the potential findings of this Request must be considered when both noting the presenting of a view, and the endorsing or commenting upon a view. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. I agree that if the findings of this discussion are that abuse has taken place, and continued to take place up until recently it is very serious and per DanT's comments above I think we need to take a firm stand against all abuse of the community and project. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. If the community finds these allegations true, then he should be banned. Yes. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Of course, the user(s) should be treated just like any other user. Majorly (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dureo (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Avb 03:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the sockpuppeting issue discussed here concerning the Samiharris account it is mentioned that Mantanmoreland was caught abusively sockpuppeting in the past with Lastexit. Fred Bauder apparently discovered it and warned Mantanmoreland about it [7] [8].

Well, Mantanmoreland also appears to have socked with another account, Tomstoner. In this diff [9], Mantanmoreland edits a comment left by Tomstoner on the Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. Tomstoner, much like Mantanmoreland/Lastexit, heavily edited the Naked short selling and Patrick M. Byrne articles and shared similar POV. Tomstoner did not respond to G-Dett's question about the edit [10]. Tomstoner hasn't edited since July 23, 2006 [11], which is about the same time, perhaps the same day, that the Lastexit sock was discovered by Fred Bauder [12]. I therefore submit that Mantanmoreland was also abusively sockpuppeting with Tomstoner in addition to Lastexit and this should be taken into account with regards to consequences if a decision is made that Mantanmoreland was abusively sockpuppeting with the Samiharris account. Cla68 (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. As I've just commented on the talk page, the Mantanmoreland correction of the Tomstoner comment, without any explanation when asked, should be considered. The Lastexit account seems to be very closely related. Whitstable 00:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Viridae^Talk 00:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Endorsed as a valid concern - re Whitstable, I find it disconcerting that Mantanmoreland is now claiming this RFC is improper, "as there is no dispute to resolve" when as noted, there are a very large number of questions that have not received any kind of response whatsoever. Achromatic (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yes, and to clarify that I personally consider all four accounts part of this RfC. Cool Hand Luke 01:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Everyking (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Majorly (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Alison ^❤ 05:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Lawrence § t/e 05:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Neıl ☎ 10:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Indicates previous history. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. krimpet✽ 13:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Dureo (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. ++Lar: t/c 18:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Jehochman ^Talk 18:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Endorse, with minor clarification: While it's true that Tomstoner did not reply to my question regarding apparent sockpuppeting, Mantanmoreland did respond by categorically denying it – "Tomstoner is not me" – and accusing me of harassment and trolling for having asked.--G-Dett (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the dispute? RFCs are supposed to be a means of resolving an actual issue. I don't see an actual dispute being described here, and would suggest that the filers need to have an actual dispute with the users against whom they're filing to have standing.

Without such a current dispute, this is an unnecessary accusation against two established users whose current conduct is not apparently being called into question. Moreover, since Samiharris has indicated he has left the project, there appears to be no ongoing issue that will be remediable.

Follow-up: if there's a dispute, (a) then it should be detailed in the RFC, and (b) are any of the people certifying this RFC actually involved in it? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. --MONGO 01:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. I agree with this. Acalamari 02:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. I agree only insofar as I consider this RfC an unnecessary intermediate step toward the seemingly inevitable RfAr. The whole issue needs thorough examination of the actions of all involved users. User:Dorftrottel 13:50, February 13, 2008

Morven claims that there is no current dispute. To the contrary. There is in fact a continuing WAR going on on a series of articles related to the real life points of views of two specific individuals. One side has free ownership of these articles and anyone agreeing with the other side is called a sock or worse and not allowed to edit at wikipedia. This is a consensus that comes from banning the other side for their thought crimes. This is unacceptable. This is the beginning of the unraveling of that war so we can in the end discover for the first time what a real consensus would look like on those owned articles. I have no opinion on what that will look like. I do know that the process up to now on those articles has been contrary to policy in that contributors have been banned for their thought crimes rather than allowed to have a voice in making the articles NPOV.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Viridae^Talk 03:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. While I don't necessarily consider the "thought crime" opinion valid, when it comes to Wikipedia Policies about double-votes on AfD's, Request for Arbitration, and especially, as Durova noted, possibly using multiple accounts to generate a false consensus, there is an issue, and it needs to be resolved. SirFozzie (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Endorse inasmuch as the argument that there is no dispute is demonstrably false. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Everyking (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. There is most definitely a dispute over possible policy violations here, as detailed at User:SirFozzie/Investigation#Double !Votes and Dual ArbCom discussion. :/ krimpet✽ 04:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. As per Krimpet. Maybe Morven and the users endorsing are turning a blind eye to it - not a good sign. Majorly (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Agree that there is a real dispute to be resolved, and that at least Matanmoreland needs to make a substantive response. In the absence of one, I am almost certain that he will be blocked. Even if there wasn't, the most we'd do is move this page somewhere else and continue the same conversation - or skip the conversation and a hair-trigger admin would just block Matanmoreland and Samiharris as abusive sockpuppets. GRBerry 04:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Precisely. It doesn't really matter who these parties are, but they've used Wikipedia as a battleground for their proxy war long enough. Cool Hand Luke 05:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. While I don't buy into the thoughtcrime language here, it's patently obvious that there has been a long-running and festering issues (a dispute, if you like) which needs to be addressed. Mantanmoreland needs to at least show some respect for the community and make some sort of substantive effort to address the very real questions which have arisen here, rather than attempting to turn his back on the matter - Alison ^❤ 05:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. I have some personal experience with what WAS is talking about. I became involved in this dispute over a year ago [13] not realizing what I was getting myself into. I think that if I would have been a new editor, instead of one that had, at that time, been a significant contributor to seven featured articles, I would have been banned as a "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". I wasn't banned, but I was definitely on the receiving end of some retaliation because I was involved in a way that apparently wasn't approved of by certain group of editors [14] [15] [16] (detailed more here). Once this RfC and resulting actions, if any, are complete I think we need to exhaustively and openly examine the entire episode. One of the first things we should find out is if Jimbo has really known what's going on since September, 2007 [17]. Cla68 (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Lawrence § t/e 05:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 07:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Neıl ☎ 10:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. I disagree with some of the language, but insofar as there is a dispute, I agree wholeheartedly Whitstable 12:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. The principles, if not the language. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. A tough pill that needs to be swallowed. A bit of sugar would help. Jehochman ^Talk 14:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Since all's fair in love and war, ignore all rules has been in effect. Adults with some personal restraint could have resolved the underlying dispute years ago, in a collegial and good for the encyclopedia manner. Instead we have disputes that cause otherwise good editors to get dragged through the mud and others to act in ways that are wholely unethical and inappropriate. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Endorsed per numerous above. Achromatic (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. As an editor who developed what some have called a "drama-only account" that was blocked, (by Jehochman, no less, above) I must say that, although I was never a participant in the Weiss, Overstock, or related articles, WAS 4.250's statement definitely reflects a certain social reality on-site, as the selected diffs from my on-site interactions with Mantanmoreland that went to support blocking that account attest:[18][19]. While I'm not asking to have AL unblocked, I'd like to say in belated defense to accusations of trolling on my part that anyone can read Weiss's own blog, which contains numerous posts displaying first-hand knowledge of WP activities in relation to Overstock and related articles, and come to the conclusion I did that the author of the blog must be active in those same mainspaces on WP. When I posted a link to the blog in a discussion with Mantanmoreland on WP:NPA (which has since been oversighted), my intentions were not simply to troll him, but to make a point (also against policy, i know) that attempts at the time to prohibit links to so called "outing sites" needed to account for cases where the evidence for "outing" or inferring an identity seemed to originate from blogs or chat-room posts "authored" or "signed" by the subject in question. Granted, I choose a dramatic fashion of making that point, but with Mantanmoreland there providing choice openings like this [20] I admit I couldn't resist. For what it's worth, Amerique^dialectics 17:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. I must agree that there is a ongoing long term dispute, this seems fairly unquestionable. Dureo (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. The principles, if not the language, per LessHeard. To the extent that this has cost us better articles (in this topic space because of the warring, and in other topic spaces because of the diversion of resources) that is something we should try to avoid. ++Lar: t/c 18:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Endorse, including language about "thought crimes."--G-Dett (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Avb 03:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Jimbo Wales's quoted statement on the Wikbak forum, confirmed by Arbiter Morven there:

Jimbo Wales, on 9/15/2007:
"I just want to go on record as saying that I believe the reason for this is that Mantanmoreland is in fact Gary Weiss."

I propose that Mantanmoreland is sanctioned somehow for disruption, COI, and a further RFC be opened on why the "higher ups" such as Jimbo allowed this to happen and roll this disruption so long. Was it to "stop" Wordbomb, or to just prove a point? The history of disruption to the project here is horrendous. Why allow it to go so long if even our founder believes Mantanmoreland is Weiss? The complaint from some on that thread is that the principle of "not outing" is more important than protecting Wikipedia. What is more important? Stopping one disruptive, sockpuppeting abuser like Gary Weiss violating in flagrant disregard of our conflict of interest policies, to import his "war" with Patrick Byrne to Wikipedia, or stopping massive disruption? I expect someone to remove this outside view. I urge anyone who does so be reverted and blocked. This is a good faith posting of my views based on the new information and the CONFIRMATION of this statement by Jimbo, by an Arbiter. A lot needs to be answered for. Related ANI thread here begun by another user over this. Lawrence § t/e 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Lawrence § t/e 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Majorly (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wow. This is an unbelievably bad sign. :/ krimpet✽ 15:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. "A lot needs to be answered for." — Fully agree. Jimbo Wales must have had excellent reasons for a strong statement like that. I for one want to know what exactly those reasons were. Away with all the secrecy, we demand straight answers for a change. User:Dorftrottel 15:33, February 13, 2008
5. Whitstable 15:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. I'm already seeing spin control of the sort "Yes, this connection is true and the higher-ups have known it for a while, but it doesn't really matter because Weiss didn't do anything all that bad, and his enemies are still evil." At least we're past the "We'll ban all of you if you so much as mention these allegations!" stage. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Absolutely, we need a broader inquiry. Cool Hand Luke 21:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Strongly. Everyking (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I urge everyone to read this section of this RfC's talk page for my feelings on this thing. We need more light, less heat on this. I understand the strong feeling this has enjoindered (and I had to come to grips with this long before anyone else has, except Durova).. but please read it. Thank you. SirFozzie (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:SirFozzie/Investigation#Updated list by FT2

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another comparison which shows how damning the few interleaving edits are: User:SirFozzie/Investigation/Sandbox#Section 13: Significance of so few overlaps by Cool Hand Luke Cool Hand Luke 07:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been an annoyingly persistent and disruptive controversy, and until a certified neutral party with notary at his side stands at whoever-it-is's shoulder and watches Mantmoreland and Samiharris log in, this isn't going to go away-- except one way.

Fundamentally this is a conflict of interest question. The easiest way to get it to go away is for the parties in question to cease editing the articles in question. If they are going to stand upon some supposed right to edit them, well, I think there are times where we have to get off our principled high horses and do what will better the community as a whole. At this point, we seem to be headed towards "not proven", which means that the cloud will continue to hang over the articles indefinitely. Other people can step in and edit those articles; if MM and SH have to edit them, then that's practically a concession of a COI. At any rate, it is a violation of the model of how this thing is being edited.

It is no secret that I find Mantmoreland abrasive and officious. That's really beside the point. I don't think we need to go through all the disciplinary machinery, to whatever conclusion, if he'll just step away from the articles.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Mangoe (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. I don't disagree that it starts with a WP:COI issue, but seems to have gone beyond that. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Correct. Sockpuppeteering would not be a problem without abuse, and a principle type of abuse here seems to be COI. Cool Hand Luke 21:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Avb 03:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

• I fail to see why one party should be treated any different to any other regarding a major violation of Wikipedia policy and rules; abusive sockpuppetry is a personal attack on the integrity of every other Wikipedian, and violation of WP:SOCK of itself has lead other parties, sometimes with just as impressive contribution histories, to be blocked/banned from editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question has been raised about the locus of the dispute (notwithstanding that this is also an editor behaviour RfC). I suggest that is between Mantanmoreland and Wikipedia; The Free Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit, with regard to articles relating to, and the interests of, Gary Weiss.

There is presently no way of telling whether those articles are the best and most neutral that this community can provide, because there are certain parties viewpoints that are not represented in those articles. It has not been possible to include those viewpoints, whatever the reliability of the source, since they have habitually been declared as being promoted by a banned user. Among the contributing activities of the said banned user is the use of sockpuppets to stack voting and to create the illusion of a consensus where there was none - and so rigorous has been the effort to deny the banned user the ability to edit Wikipedia that anyone expressing a view supporting or similar has been treated with suspicion lest they be editing on behalf of (or were in fact) the banned editor, and had their contributions minutely examined and often reverted.

It now appears that there is the strong likelihood that the prevailing apparently neutral viewpoint provided within the articles is one manufactured, maintained and protected by an individual using the same method of creating consensus by the use of multiple accounts. I say manufactured because notwithstanding the possibility that the viewpoint is the appropriate one, two or more accounts operated by one person may have colluded to give the appearance of impartiality where there was none.

The result is that there may never be a truly neutral article on Gary Weiss and related subjects. Material hostile to the article subject is already perceived as having a conflict of interest so severe as to negate the likelihood of it being used, and now the considerable doubt regarding the motives and impartiality of the recent major editors may reflect on future edits which reflect similar viewpoints.

In dispute is the community and those who would seek to use alternative accounts as a method of maintaining an article or group of articles in a manner not in keeping with the ethos and principles of Wikipedia.

Editors who endorse this view;

1. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Viridae^Talk 22:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. For all those who signed my statement but said they did not like the language; this is what most of what I had to say there looks like with the language I think you were looking for. As far as I'm concerned, it's two ways of saying the same thing. I was more blunt and direct; this is more careful. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Whitstable 23:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Avb 03:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.