Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: Dougweller (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Risker (Talk) & Roger Davies (Talk)

One proposed finding of fact discussion is getting long (and prompted me to research two evidence sections), so let's brainstorm this. There's a problem with COI edits and a small private ISP which appears to serve the university but is not affiliated with the university, and which serves other residents and businesses in the area. It is not the only ISP in town, yet it would be a good idea to think how to minimize any collateral damage to the ISP or to the surrounding non-COI community. A few things to consider:

• The rate of unlogged editing from that ISP appears to be very low on non-TM local topics.
• Does the ISP randomly reassign IP addresses throughout its customer base, or does MUM get its own range of IP addresses?
• Would a small ISP that serves at most 14,000 people be willing to work with WMF to accommodate a structure that would reduce impact of an arbitrated solution on its other customers?

Some of these questions are probably not answerable onsite. Yet they seem to be worth considering. At this time it's quite possible that the ISP itself is not aware of any problem. Thoughts? Durova⁴¹² 04:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not true that the ISP is owned by TM interests? I thought I read that in one of these discussions, but now can't find it; am I remembering that incorrectly? I wonder how difficult it would be to ascertain how many of the residents and businesses in Fairfield who subscribe to this ISP are not associated with TM. Woonpton (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If so then it isn't obvious from their website.[1] LISCO describes itself as a 1995 startup that serves 96 rural communities in southeastern Iowa. MUM appears to be one of the largest employers in LISCO's home county. Is there any evidence to link the ownership of one to the other? Best not to assume. Durova⁴¹² 05:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not assuming anything; I'm recalling a statement I thought I read somewhere in these discussions in the last few days that said that LISCO is owned by the TM organization, and asking for verification or refutation of that. Woonpton (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a lot to go by, to my knowledge. The LISCO site describes itself as a mom-and-pop and lists the name of its founder. MUM has about 1500 total faculty, staff, and students. LISCO claims 14,000 customers. So in the absence of any other information MUM seems to be a major client. Not necessarily anything more than that, though. Durova⁴¹² 07:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've searched through what would seem to be the relevant discussions and can't find where I read that LISCO is a TM-owned business, so I may have misremembered it, although I don't as a rule misremember data. However in searching, I came across a couple of relevant bits of information. In the SPI for TM editors, TimidGuy stated that there are approximately 2500 people living in Fairfield who practice TM, most of whom are not associated with MUM, and on the same page, David Spector mentioned that "there are many TM businesses in the area." (I would give specific diffs but don't know how to access the history of an archived SPI.) So the TM presence in the area isn't confined to MUM, and, while this is a different topic, I'm not sure I understand the distinction that's being made on the workshop between employees and followers; the advocacy for a pro-TM POV in the Wikipedia articles doesn't depend on financial connection here any more than it did in the Scientology case. Also, as a side note, searching on LISCO and MUM yields a number of employees of LISCO who are or have been associated with MUM. Don't know if that's useful or not, but just another bit of data I picked up along the way.Woonpton (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't take much digging to discover that Lance Yedersberger, who founded LISCO in 1995, donated $575 to the Natural Law Party (the political arm of the TM movement) that same year and went on to donate $7124 to the party between 1995 and 2000. This business might not be owned by the TM organization, but its founder and CEO could hardly be characterized as unallied with the movement. Woonpton (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a correct assessment - LISCO is owned by a member of the movement, but not by the movement itself. In addition, its offices are in an office park whose building was constructed according to the movement's specifications.[2][3] Other tenants in the building include at least one major business owned by the movement, Maharishi Ayurveda Products International aka "MAPI".[4] Also, the person listed as the "Finance Executive" of LISCO, Carl Zimmerman,[5], is listed as the "Controller at Maharishi University of Management".[6] He is also an officer of another company, Maharishi World Peace Vedic Organics, Inc.,[7], At least two of the other officers of that company are trustees of MUM, Bevan Morris and Robert Wynne. They are also officials of the Global Country of World Peace. Bob Wynne is also mayor of Maharishi Vedic City. So LISCO is closely connected to MUM and the movement.   Will Beback  talk  20:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that MUM also has IPs on a different network. In this edit, someone seems to be thinking they're using 209.152.117.83 (talk · contribs) but it suddenly shifts to 69.18.50.2 (talk · contribs), one of the identified MUM IPs.[8] The user says he'll ask "techies" about it, not something someone is likely to do at the Burger King. Here's the RBLS for that IP[9] which is not on LISCO but is also registered to MUM.   Will Beback  talk  20:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on filings at the Iowa Utilities Board, I'd estimate that LISCo has fewer than 1000 telephone customers, probably fewer than 500. In 2001, the IUB threatened to terminate the CPCN of the CLEC, LTDS, on the basis that it had only a single customer: its ISP affiliate LISCO. It ultimately didn't do that but warned that unless LTDS started actively signing up telephone subscribers, its CPCN would get yanked. In 2002, LTDS had only 20 telephone customers.[10] IN 2007 LTDS changed its name to LISCO.[11] The 2008 IUB Annual Report indicates that LISCO paid an annual assessment of $524.24, which is calculated at $1.95 per $1000 of assessable revenue.[12] That translates to $268K of annual utility revenue (524.24/1.95*1000), which at $30-$50 per month for a residential customer (ballpark estimate) would be at most 400-750 customers roughly. Commercial accounts would imply a much higher monthly revenue per customer, and a much lower customer count. Iowa Telecom appears to be the dominant telephone provider in Fairfield.[13] Fladrif (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Internet traffic from Maharishi U would show one of two IPs: 69.18.50.85 or 209.152.117.83. One of these is from Lisco, the other from Natel. Lisco is not closely connected to MUM or the movement, other than the founder practices TM. And it's not surprising, given Fairfield's demographics, that some other employees practice TM. But probably most of the employees don't practice TM. Lisco is one of many many companies started by people who practice TM and who moved to Fairfield and who needed a job. TimidGuy (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fladrif and TimidGuy, would you provide substantiation for your assertions please? Durova⁴¹² 17:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added refs to the orders and annual report. The rest is simple math.Fladrif (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting. Would be a good idea to add that as a subsection to your evidence. Durova⁴¹² 20:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. It's pretty tangential. I looked this stuff up because somebody wondered how many of LISCO's claimed 14000 customers (I have no idea where that number came from) were for telephone or cable service rather than ISP service. Probably fewer than 400 telephone customers based on the annual assessment (lowest priced residential phone package listed on LISCO website was %65). Maybe a lot fewer. Suggests that cable TV and ISP service is the bulk of LISCO's business. Not really sure it deserves a subsection of its own, or that its really all that relevant. Fladrif (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was me who wondered that and the statement is sourced to LISCO's website. The issue is subordinate to whether any action at all is worth considering; the primary question depends on behavioral evidence. One of the things to consider if the evidence reaches that threshold is how much collateral damage would be caused by a proposal. If LISCO serves 14,000 current customers then the proposal could take out most of a county in Iowa, but I'd consider the workshop proposal more seriously if 14,000 is a cumulative estimate of all the customers LISCO has ever had in 15 years of serving a campus community. No telling whether the arbitrators think similarly, but they'd be more likely to weigh that if it were in evidence. Durova⁴¹² 02:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that now. Thanks. LISCO says it offers service in 16 communities. Those are spread over several different counties in Southeast Iowa. The statement "has had as many as 14,000...customers" suggests that the figure is either outdated or cumulative. Clearly, the number of people taking telephone service is quite small. The issue isn't "tak[ing] out most of a county", as no-one is proposing that anyone be barred from editing articles unrelated to TM, which would leave over 3.2 million articles to edit. Fladrif (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're proposing is that all LISCO customers would be topic banned from the TM topic? Durova⁴¹² 05:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is precisely what I am proposing. Fladrif (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The underlying IP address of registered accounts can only be determined by checkuser, which is governed by the Foundation privacy policy. So the arbitrators might determine that proposal to be either unenforceable or outside their remit. A few questions come to mind. Your figures above calculated an estimated LISCO customer base upon an assumption of 100% residential customers at $30-$50 per month. Those figures are lowball. I contacted Iowa Telecom for information on rates for home service.

• Telephone plus Internet connection (land line phone only, 100 minutes of long distance per month, slowest non-dialup connection): approx. $68 per month after taxes and signup incentives for first year of service.
• Same as above plus most basic satellite television package: approx. $110 per month for first year of service.
• Cell phones and premium channels would raise that to $150-$200.

So, going with the $110 figure that means 203 residential customers would have generated the $268,000 gross revenues for 2008. But LISCO has at least one substantial client: MUM. What are the IT needs of the university? LISCO also has a handful of small business subscribers. So if some of the residential subscribers have cell phones and HBO, that's fewer than 100 residential clients. MUM has 47 faculty and 200 staff. All of the self-disclosed faculty in this arbitration case are LISCO subscribers. The way these numbers are crunching it's feasible that LISCO's residential clients are synonymous with MUM's faculty and administration.

Here's another way to test that hypothesis: find out the IP range of LISCO. With that information it would be possible to autogenerate data on unlogged LISCO IP edits to all of Wikipedia. We could aggregate that IP data and compare it against the edit distribution of self-declared faculty members in this case. Do you see what I've got in mind? Durova⁴¹² 18:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The $268K figures are "assessable revenues" - revenue from landline telephone service only, not cellular, CATV or ISP service. Telephone service is the only thing the IUB regulates, not CATV or ISP service. LISCO could easily have thousands of CATV or ISP customers, that revenue is excluded from assessable revenues. The only thing we can tell from the IUB filing is that LISCO has at most a few hundred telephone subscribers. It tells us nothing about the number of ISP subscribers.Fladrif (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the distinction. Would you know how to obtain the IP range of LISCO? I'd like to do that unlogged edits survey. Durova⁴¹² 19:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No idea how one would go about doing that.Fladrif (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will ask around. You see, the manual survey of Jefferson County articles turned up a very odd pattern. One thing that many users do is a little bit of editing about their local community. Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa (population 222) has unlogged LISCO IP edits, but no other town in the county other than Fairfield has any unlogged LISCO IP edits. It's easy to generate edit history data on registered accounts and see who's a single purpose account. With a range of IP addresses that's a little more laborious but it could be done too. So suppose we aggregated all the unlogged edits from the LISCO range and analyzed them the same way. Do the LISCO IP edits behave differently from the self-declared faculty members of MUM? Durova⁴¹² 20:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LISCO IP edits[edit]

I took Durova's suggestion, and have listed the edits of the LISCO IP Ranges I'm aware of. See /LISCO IPs. Cool Hand Luke 00:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for preparing that, but I'm not sure what useful conclusions we can draw from it. There was never any indication that pro-TM editors were the only people using LISCO. The CU evidence (if I understand correctly) is that all of the TM editors have used LISCO, and the public evidence is that most of them have used LISCO IPs in Fairfield. I also understand that some of the editors have used other IPs in other locations as well. I realize that privacy rules prevent those trusted with the CU tools to give divulge more information, but to an outsider it still appears that most of the TM editors have some connection to Fairfield.   Will Beback  talk  06:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a new section for this:

"I'm not sure I understand the distinction that's being made on the workshop between employees and followers; the advocacy for a pro-TM POV in the Wikipedia articles doesn't depend on financial connection here any more than it did in the Scientology case."

There's a difference between the neutral point of view policy and the conflict of interest guideline. If an editor acts non-neutrally, that's one type of problem. If an editor has a conflict of interest, that's a different set of concerns. The two concepts overlap to a degree but they aren't interchangeable.

To use a positive example: the Comedy Central Network had an employee who edited Wikipedia completely within policy. He disclosed his conflict of interest on his user page and never edited articles. What he did was interact with other editors on talk pages and he found out what those editors wanted to be able to cite in articles, then he made sure that information was available on the Comedy Central website. He could have put information into Wikipedia directly, but he never did.

With the NPOV policy there's no clear line between fandom and employment, but with COI there is--mainly because Comedy Central or Maharishi University of Management can't be held responsible for what unaffiliated people do. If an IP address starts replacing articles with Comedy Central Rules! Cartoon Network Sucks!, that isn't Comedy Central's responsibility if some random person is doing it. But it is their problem if their director of public affairs is the vandal.

The slippery slope to avoid is where we start making implicit double standards between normative and non-normative organizations. That fear was one of the most valid points expressed by the Scientologist editors a year ago. Replace "Natural Law Party" with "Republican": would you parse the information any differently? Durova⁴¹² 18:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict of interest guideline also covers people who have a strong relationship to a spiritual leader. WP:COI#Close relationships. It was watered down by user:Jossi, but it is still there. Anytime one has a relationship, either financial or other, that interferes with neutral editing there is a conflict of interest. That's diffeent from havin a mere belief, which one can set aside or edit around. The issue here is that these editors apparently have strong relationships to the movement which lead them to using WP as a platform for advocacy. In some cases that relationship may be financial, though I gather that the pay at MUM is so low that it's virtually volunteer work.   Will Beback  talk  19:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; real world understanding of conflict of interest does include other things such as close family relationship to someone who has a financial conflict of interst, etc. Mainly what I had in mind when writing the financial conflict of interest principle were the individuals who admitted to being MUM faculty, then stated they were editing Wikipedia from off-campus locations as if that made a difference. It's an argument I've seen before in other contexts--something Virgil Griffith called the Starbucks Excuse. There was a time when Virgil kicked around the idea of writing a tool to detect COI edits from organizational IPs followed by exact cut and pastes of the same text from nearby coffee shop IPs. The problem with attempts to subvert the COI guideline is that once light shines upon the matter it looks worse because it gives the impression of deliberate deception. Durova⁴¹² 20:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There definitely should be the same standards for all organizations. It should not matter if we're considering a for-profit corporation or a non-profit charitable, religious or educational instutution; an organization universally acclaimed as noble and benevolent, or one found in a RICO case to be a corrupt criminal enterprise; a "mainstream" organization or a "fringe" one espousing unpopular or unusual ideas. There have already been some arguments made in the Workshop that some of the principles and findings from the Scientology ArbCom shouldn't apply here because of alleged distinctions between the two organizations. These are distinctions without a difference. The same standards should be applied impartially and universally. Fladrif (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When this case was opening someone asked at my user talk whether the same standards would apply to the Vatican. That rang a bell and afterward I found the reference.[14] The Vatican doesn't seem to have blanked information from the biography of any Sinn Fein leaders more recently, but the BBC sure noticed in 2007. Conflict of interest is a real world concept; the best we can do is reflect it as accurately as possible in our guidelines and practices. Durova⁴¹² 20:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the distinction between COI and NPOV. You seem to be suggesting that this arbitration is limited to COI, in a very narrow sense of financial connection only. I'm not aware that that is the case; if it is I'll stand corrected, though it makes little sense to me to ignore the NPOV problem, if that's truly the intent here. I thought it was about a group of editors who are, and have been for years, editing from Fairfield and continually slanting the POV of the Maharishi articles in a pro-TM and non-neutral direction, an activity I have watched with dismay for two years. I'm not so much concerned about the COI problem as the NPOV problem (I don't really care which editors are employees of the organization and which are members or followers; what I care is that their efforts en masse have made it quite impossible for neutral editors to write neutral articles on these topics).

As to the question about whether I'd be as concerned about the CEO of an ISP who happened to contribute to the Republican party, that's a red herring I think. First of all, I didn't introduce that information to raise an issue about the ISP or the relationship of the ISP to TM; I introduced it simply because I thought it might shed some light on your original question about how many non-TM-related customers might be affected by a sanction. The information about Yedersberger's TM affiliation could possibly increase the prior probability, in a Bayesian sense, that many if not most of LISCO's Fairfield customers may be TM-affiliated, was my point, and my only point. But even if I meant it the way you chose to read it, the comparison you pose doesn't work. At any rate, I agree with Fladrif and the others who have weighed in while I was pondering my response. Woonpton (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the workshop deserves its own version of the Ninth Amendment: The enumeration of certain principles shall not be construed to deny or disparage others that somebody else might want to propose. It isn't quite fair to expect comprehensive input from someone who doesn't edit the TM topic but who filed related arbitrations in past years. The short answer is that the burden of evidence rests with anyone who supposes that LISCO is not an independent company. Rather than climbing too far out on that limb, it's worth noting how an arbitrator has hinted at another page that more evidence is needed about on-wiki conduct. Durova⁴¹² 03:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A new item, proposed by TimidGuy, is under Cirt's proposals and should be moved. I don't know if it's kosher for me to do it.   Will Beback  talk  19:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it. Dougweller (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ;) Cirt (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry. All this is new. I had a hard time figuring out where to put what. TimidGuy (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TimidGuy (talk · contribs) is a party to this case. Therefore, the "proposed" should be moved from Comment by others to Comment by parties. Cirt (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder to all editors taking part here that the Workshop page is not a vote. There is no need for or benefit to saying Support or Oppose, rather it is the rationale that is most useful for everyone. Thank you, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amory, although I understand that some WP votes are actually counted (such as arbitration votes) and some are simply examined for their content, I don't understand why you say that there is no benefit in starting a comment with Support or Oppose. It seems to me that expressing the overall sense of the comment is very valuable. In fact, if it were not for the fact that we all know which editor is pro-TM and which is anti-TM, I'd want editors' POV expressed in one word as a tag, too. I find it helpful to put my mind into one gear or another as I read what each editor is saying (on talk pages). Can you clarify or give a reference for why the use of the Support or Oppose prefix is not beneficial in a non-voting situation? David Spector (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very helpful if those proposing findings of fact would provide diffs and/or direct links to evidence supporting those findings of fact. Those diffs and/or evidence should appear on the evidence page in a broader context; if they aren't, then I would hope to see an explanation for that absence posted by the proposer of the finding of fact. Risker (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After extensive review of checkuser data, contribution histories, editing patterns and (in some cases) the actual edits of certain users, we have found no evidence of sockpuppetry on the part of any of the parties involved in this case. With this in mind, I do not foresee any arbitrator proposals relating to sockpuppetry, restrictions of ISPs or IPs, or anything similar. We recognise that a significant amount of work went into gathering information relative to this issue amongst those who have participated in this case, but unfortunately that information will not be helpful in resolving this matter.

From this, all participants should be aware of the following: As indicated before, if anyone has further evidence that is focused on editorial behaviour rather than technical findings, now is the time to submit it. We are already working our way through the evidence, so please ensure that you have submitted any evidence by Wednesday 10 March at 0600 UTC. It is quite rare that an arbitration case would rest heavily on technical editor-related information, and this case doesn't fall into this category.

The technical findings, combined with contribution histories in particular, lead us to believe that several editors should be specifically excluded as parties in this case. This would include all of the IP addresses (who properly aren't really parties anyway, as they could be used by multiple editors), as well as the following editors who have no recent TM-related edits:

• Haworth777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rbonthala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Soren0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Infomillionaire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Viyyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dumpala.dn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hassna.dibaba1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vuara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ruinia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EddieC Vito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We are considering how best to address the fact that these editors should not be considered parties to this case; we may simply strike their names from the list on the main case page, or we may formalise this with a motion. Nonetheless, while there was a basis to include them as "accounts of interest" in relation to the SPI from which this case arose, there is no evidence connecting these editors with the current dispute. Risker (talk) 05:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from a cursory look at the only one that might be relevant to keep is the WP:SPA account, Haworth777 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that TimidGuy belatedly admits to being the 76.76 sockpuppet[15][16], the conclusion that "there is no evidence of sockpuppetry on the part of any of the parties involved in this case" is simply wrong. To the contrary, there is conclusive proof of sockpuppetry in that instance at least, which the technical evidence would clearly confirm. This can hardly be characterized as being in the same class as someone occasionally neglecting to sign in; it was a deliberate attempt to pose as a new editor or editors and conceal that TimidGuy was the person making the edits.[17] Fladrif (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, did the ArbCom consider the issue of 76.76? I specifically asked that twice whether he had a previous account, and never received an answer. While TimidGuy openly admitted his employment at MUM, 76.76 took offense at a question of whether he was associated with it. Combined, it is apparent that he was creating a separate identity. 76.76 engaged in edit warring in the same articles where TimidGuy had been editing, a violation of WP:SOCK. While editing without logging in isn't prohibited, this wasn't a simple case of forgetting to log in.

Also, did the ArbCom consider the evidence I submitted privately concerning time of editing? I'll repost it publicly if necessary, as it gives the appearance that multiple users have shared the same connections or computers.   Will Beback  talk  02:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left Wikipedia in February of 2009 because of a couple things that came up in my personal life. I had no intention of returning. In late July I noticed that many errors and falsehoods had been put into the TM article. I made a few corrections without logging in because I had no intention of returning to editing Wikipedia, in part because of the constant abuse. One thing led to another -- I just kept noticing problems that needed to be corrected or addressed. I edited from July 31-Aug 17 without logging in. On August 24 I decided to continue in Wikipedia and logged in as TimidGuy, and have always logged in since then. There was no intention to deceive. I simply wasn't planning on sticking around, and in my mind, it didn't matter whether I logged in or not. If this was wrong, I'm happy to accept any sanction Arbcom feels is appropriate. And if banning me is necessary, I'm fine with that. TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there was no intention to deceive then can you explain why, when asked, you would not admit that you were a returning user? I was deceived and I presume that no one else outside of the Fairfield TM editors knew it was you either.   Will Beback  talk  20:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there was intent to decieve. The other Fairfield editors who defended 76.76 at COIN were clearly aware of the deception, and were in on it. Further, TG's admissions at SPI about his other two sockpuppet accounts raises questions that need to be addressed here, as it bears on his disruptive editing actions at Wikipedia. What were those two accounts? Where were the posts? What did TimidGuy Sock #1 do that it managed to get itself blocked after only THREE posts? TG says that his main account was never blocked. Blocks are intended to apply to the real-life editor and not to the nom-de-Wiki. Did he then use his main or other accounts to avoid and evade the block? Fladrif (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are making assumptions. In terms of other editors knowing who the sock was, I didn't. I travel extensively during the summer and do not have the same encompassing view of Wikipedia as I would have with the more constant vigilance I have when at home. As well TG was no longer around and I had no reason to think he would be. Looking back do the comments sound like TG . Sure now that I know its him. Did I at the time. No. Hindsight is 20/20.(olive (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

No, I am not making assumptions. I am drawing reasoned conclusions from the evidence. The evidence includes that, you and TimidGuy have posted information about each other that indicates that you know and communicate with each other IRL, and while your Wikipedia posts went down a bit in July 2009, they were at your usual normal levels in August 2009 when this dispute at COIN was in process [18], so your denial doesn't pass the smell test. Fladrif (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fladrif. Your "reasoned conclusions" are inaccurate.(olive (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

So you don't dispute the facts, just the conclusions. I'm glad to see that we're off the "assumptions" mantra. We shall see what conclusions ArbCom reaches from the facts. Fladrif (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Fladrif. I am ending a conversation with someone who makes assumptions, believes they are fact and then assumes that he can attack other editors with those "facts".(olive (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Which account or IP was blocked?   Will Beback  talk  19:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's my question. TimidGuy wrote at SPI

...And yes, I have used two different sock puppets in the past when I didn't understand the issues regarding them. Big mistake. One was inspired by Philosophus, who openly used a sock puppet to get involved in messy areas while leaving his other account pristine and whose use of a sock seemed to be accepted by everyone. I used it for three edits but not on any article otherwise edited by me. It got blocked after that third edit. And I created a second sock at one point for editing some technology articles, but it's long since been abandoned. TimidGuy (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

When I quoted an excerpt from this on the Evidence Page, TG got all upset that I had somehow implied that his main account had gotten blocked, and he was adamant that that had never happened, only Sock #1. Of course, that's nonsense. If TimidGuy got blocked as Sock #1, he got blocked. Blocks apply to people, not to Wikipedia ID's. Apparently he then circumvented the block by continuing to post as TimidGuy, or perhaps as someone else or an unlogged IP. The parties and ArbCom ought to know what TimidGuy's other socks were, why one of them got blocked after only three posts (it would take some pretty eggregious action for that to happen!) and whether or not he then circumvented the block. Fladrif (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor well known to Arbcom was trying to edit war a change to a core policy. He eventually got in trouble for doing so. I was among the editors who reverted him. I used an alternate account because he tends to retaliate. Since it was only the third edit by that account, it was obvious that it was a sock. An Admin didn't like the fact that I had used an obvious sock, blocked it, and encouraged me to instead use my regular account. I was contrite and asked whether that account could be deleted, since it was the only blot on my record. He didn't reply, but I can't now find it, so I think he may have done so. TimidGuy (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of the "well known" editor? What core policy was being changed through an edit war? What Admin? What sock? How is anyone to verify your version of this? Post the diffs, please. Fladrif (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding, based on comments on talk pages, that both TimidGuy and LittleOliveOil had admitted Sockpuppetry and COI. LittleOliveOil is said to have had on her userpage info on her COI deleted by an Admin to conceal this fact. Is this (alleged) evidence not admisable for some reason? Please understand this is not meant in any way to harass or embarrass these editors, but to simply know and understand what the facts are.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TG has admitted to using the 76.76 IPs, back in August. I'm not aware of any comparable admission Olive. Both users had previously admitted to being on the faculty of MUM. As for this three-edit sock, if TG is giving an accurate account then it's probably not important. What he did was improper (socks should not edit policies), but it sounds like it wasn't disruptive or sustained, although he doens't say when it happened or which policy he edited. I think this is like the legal threats TG made a couple of years ago - poor behavior but not worth considering in this case.

I'd still like to hear from TG why, while editing as 76.76, he refused to admit being TG when asked. He says he wasn't trying to deceive anyone but that was the direct result of his actions.   Will Beback  talk  20:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish that WP had a policy of editors (as opposed to read only readers) having to give their real name and affiliations, with some form of proof. This would eliminate SP and contentious IP edits. It would also be very interesting to me to find out who Fladrif, Olive, Kala, Timidguy, BigWeeBoy, etc. really are. I have a feeling some of these are famous opponents or proponents of TM. Can someone please explain to me why WP insists on anonymity for editors, then wastes time trying to find SPs? David Spector (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has to do with the legal attacks ( I just finished one that lasted 6 months with respect to my editing of Wikipedia, thankfully I have insurance which covered my legal counsel but not everyone is so lucky) and the death treats one receives if their identify becomes known. So yes I do not think this policy will change any time soon.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales has explained that one of the reasons for allowing non-registered users, despite all of the vandalism they cause, is that they include a large pool of relatively disinterested editors who don't have the same commitment to a cause as those who go to the trouble of registering and who provide the only counterbalance on some topics. It's perhaps counterintuitive to think that the IPs have something special to offer but I think he had a good point, especially regarding some thinly watched topics.

As for pseudononymous editing, there are many aspects. One point to remember is that Wikipedia is an international project. In some countries writing about delicate topics can be quite dangerous so the protection of a username is important.

That said, disruptive deception, whether from editors who use multiple accounts abusively or from people who either have greater involvement in a topic than they admit (in the style of Mary Rosh) or have less than they claim (Essjay), is a recurring problem on Wikipedia.

I agree with Jmh649 that significant policy changes aren't likely.   Will Beback  talk  11:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I speak for all parties when I thank Roger Davies for spending what must have been a lot of time and mental energy reading the case page and following the links.

The proposed decision seems to cover most issues one way or another. However I don't see anything in the principles, findings, or remedies about the plagiarism allegations.[19][20][21] In particular, the repeated plagiarism by Kbob seems to me to be noteworthy. To clarify, could Roger please say why this issue was omitted from the proposed decision? Is plagiarism no longer considered a problem behavior or was the evidence insufficient?   Will Beback  talk  20:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without comment on the merit of evidence regarding any particular editor, it seems like Roger's workshop proposals contain only half of the decision this case deserves. Plagiarism, improper sourcing, etc. are weighty accusations. They would be serious in any arbitration, and are especially so in a case where several of the participants are university faculty. Durova⁴¹² 21:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also see no serious attempt to deal with the central COI issues, the prior findings at COIN that the MUM faculty members have a immediate conflict of interest, the instructions from multiple admins to comply with COI, and the blatant defiance of those directives. Nor is there any serious attempt to deal with the many proposed findings and remedies suggested by multiple editors, involved and uninvolved, in this workshop. To simply recite that there are charges back and forth about various violations of core Wikipedia policies, without making any effort to assess the merits of those charges, is a derogation of the central function of ArbCom. If "the conduct so far has rarely been sanctionable" is as far as ArbCom intends to go with respect to findings, this has been a collosal waste of time and effort on everyone's part - including a waste of the Arbitrators' time - as it is inevitable that the matter will be back before ArbCom for another go-round and probably a new group of editors in a matter of a few months. Fladrif (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone wrote to me about this case, saying, "the conclusion appears to be that as long as one is civil and has determination Wikipedia can be used to promote what ever POV you wish." Is that the message the ArbCom wants to convey in this decision?   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]