This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Scope Focus Request

1) Regarding all the directions this could go, I would like to ask that everyone, please keep each finding, principle, and remedy as focused as possible.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This proceeding could involve evaluatation of lots of potentially poor behavior by lots of users, banned and unbanned. Starting with the alleged abuses of Mantanmoreland, those who've aided his abuses, we are looking at potentially a lot of high profile heartburn. So please, keep your comments focused, stay away from inuendo as much as possible (even when the cute turns of phrase burn to be spoken). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

1b) The scope of this case should be to determine whether Mantanmoreland has misused sock accounts and be limited to that only.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed--MONGO 02:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, though if the presentation of that leads in other directions the committee should follow them, but not at the expense of this first item. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Rocksanddirt here. I fully agree that this needs to be the topmost item in this case. OTOH, no evidence available to the ArbCom should be dismissed on technical grounds, and wherever this leads may also fall into the scope while the investigation unfolds. User:Dorftrottel 11:27, February 15, 2008

I do agree that we must not lose sight of this main issue, but there are several other areas that naturally arise from this that should also be looked at. For example, whether the perception of sockpuppetry on the opposing side has made it too easy for Mantanmoreland to get his opponents (some of whom may not actually be related to WordBomb) banned. —Random832 15:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed Principles

Sockpuppet abuse strictly forbidden

1) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden.

Comment by Arbitrators:

If the sockpuppetry allegation is proved, then based on what the two accounts are alleged to have done, the second principle from the Henrygb case would probably be the most relevant. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Avruch ^T 23:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC) (Note that this principle is copied from the established principles section from the past decisions page). Avruch ^T 00:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would add something to the effect of "creating the false impression of being independent of each other" or the general "used deceptively", as WP:SOCK calls it. User:Dorftrottel 00:53, February 15, 2008

Sockpuppet abuse strictly forbidden

1) The use of multiple accounts to vote or comment more than once in the same discussion, or to seek to create an illusion of more support for a position than actually exists, is forbidden.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed per Newyorkbrad's suggestion. (This remedy was adopted 8/0 in the Henrygb case). Avruch ^T 01:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the central issue. Mangoe (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets treated as one user

2) For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Avruch ^T 23:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)(Note that this principle is copied from the established principles section of the past decisions page). Avruch ^T 00:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree per guilty until proven otherwise. Maybe this could be tweaked to place some emphasis on use of common sense? User:Dorftrottel 00:56, February 15, 2008
  • I also disagree with it in principle, but this is in effect (no pun intended) the "meat" of WP:MEAT, so overturning it is beyond the scope of ArbCom's authority. Similarly-worded principles have passed in other cases where alleged meatpuppetry has been an issue. —Random832 15:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree as creating accusations which even if false are irrefutable. The current (mis)application of this theory is a source of much needless disruption. Mangoe (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical analysis, if used, must be sound

2) If statistical analysis is to be used for the purposes of identifying and/or sanctioning a suspected sockpuppet, where findings by Checkuser are inconclusive, the methodology used must be sound and reasonably conclusive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Avruch ^T 23:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. User:Dorftrottel 01:00, February 15, 2008

This opens the door to re-examination of a _lot_ of other blocks, more than it calls this one into question (at least this one had a methodology at all, which is more than can be said for quite a lot of "WP:DUCK meatpuppets") —Random832 04:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Checkuser evidence does not connect Mantanmoreland and Samiharris

1) A connection between the accounts of User:Mantanmoreland and User:Samiharris has not been established by checkuser. At least one account edits solely through open proxy IP addresses.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As I understand it, conventional checkuser analysis was not really possible in this case because one of the accounts edited through an ordinary ISP, while the other edited through proxies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is conventional checkuser analysis, and conventional checkuser analysis shows that the two are not IP-related, or, in RFCU-speak,  Unrelated. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I would say Cannot and not does not, but that may be semantics. Or perhaps, Checkuser evidence cannot establish or disprove a link between Mantanmoreland and Samiharris for technical reasons SirFozzie (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed Avruch ^T 23:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. User:Dorftrottel 00:34, February 15, 2008

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Mantanmoreland and Samiharris restricted to one account

1) Mantanmoreland and Samiharris are restricted to a single account, to be enforced by escalating blocks by administrators uninvolved in any Overstock.com related dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Avruch ^T 23:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• TBH, I find this one a bit problematic. If it can be convincingly established (via circumstancial evidence) that they are indeed sockpuppets then this doesn't apply. OTOH, if it is found that the accounts are unrelated, then why should Samiharris be subject to extraordinary restrictions? User:Dorftrottel 00:37, February 15, 2008

Well, they are either the same person or two different people. Since we don't know but there is a strong suspicion that they are the same, we are forced to treat them as though they are the same user (i.e. by not applying different editing restrictions). Since Mantanmoreland is confirmed to have used sockpuppets in the past (I believe) then the restriction in this case makes sense as a response to the accusation of abusive sockpuppetry here - which in my mind is not sufficiently substantiated by the evidence presented to merit a stronger remedy. Avruch ^T 00:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if they are the same user then we are asking a user who has previously been asked to stop socking and has, if they are the same user, clearly not done so. Would we then give the user another chance? Whitstable 00:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't conclusively established as the same user - but this remedy, combined with the open proxy remedy, will forcibly disclose future sockpuppetry by either user if there are two or the user if there is one. As to a second chance - asking someone to do something and having a particular type of behavior mandated by ArbCom remedy are two totally different steps along a spectrum. Avruch ^T 00:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could propose banning as a remedy for the case the accounts are sockpuppets. User:Dorftrottel 00:51, February 15, 2008

Mantanmoreland and Samiharris cannot edit via open proxy

1) Mantanmoreland and Samiharris are prohibited from editing via an open proxy IP address. To be determined via checkuser upon reasonable request and enforced by escalating blocks by administrators uninvolved in any Overstock.com related dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Everbody is prohibited from editing via open proxies, last I looked. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

We're looking at two basic scenarios here, and I don't see this as feasible in either of them. On the one hand, if these two accounts are operated by different people, then Samiharris had an understandable reason for choosing open proxies: to avoid having his actual IP address harvested when he follows links to citations. That's an actual concern in this case. On the other hand, if these accounts are socks of each other, then this restriction would be far from adequate. Durova^Charge! 12:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most likely scenario is actually a third: we don't know if they are one person or two people. In this scenario, a prohibition against open proxies is the only feasible method of revealing sockpuppetry between these two accounts. Of course, it won't help in comparing either of these two against a third if the third uses proxify.com. Avruch ^T 13:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed Avruch ^T 23:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, makes sense. User:Dorftrottel 00:46, February 15, 2008

Mantanmoreland and Samiharris prohibited

1) Mantanmoreland and Samiharris are prohibited from editing any article or article talk page related to Overstock.com or associated disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Avruch ^T 23:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I understand what dispute means. User:Dorftrottel 00:24, February 15, 2008

Edited slightly for clarity, any better? Avruch ^T 00:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very good. User:Dorftrottel 00:32, February 15, 2008

I think you need to maybe have a finding as to the locus of dispute (the articles, subject area, etc), and possibly the nature of the dispute (a real world one about stock fraud amongst other things). I think "overstock.com" is too vague. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not wrong - with a strong description of the locus of dispute, this remedy could trace back to it and be worded as "areas of dispute identified in this case." I think, though, that remedies typically stand on their own so that they don't rely on FoF's that may not pass. Creating a detailed locus of dispute is much more involved than what I have proposed so far - I may get to that if someone else doesn't, or propose a FoF based off of someone elses proposal with tweaked wording. Avruch ^T 00:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Morven recusal

1) Based on his comments on [1] an external message board, it is evident that Morven has a prior opinion on the scope of this case and should have recused.

Comment by Arbitrators:

"Recuse" is a reflexive verb; one recuses oneself. This motion is premature, given that Morven's said he'll recuse if asked by more than one arbitrator. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Since no mechanism exists to forcibly recuse an arbitrator, then the other arbitrators need a way to formally tell said arbitrator that his refusal is wrong. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he recuses, I will of course, strike this proposed motion. Cla68 (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and inappropriate. If two or more arbs ask him to recuse he has (reasonably) said he will. If no two arbs feels it necessary to ask him to recuse, then he can hardly be criticised by arbcom for declining to do so. Anyway, why propose a finding aimed at criticising someone before the event?--Doc^g 12:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Before the event? Not sure about that one, considering he first defended MML, and then changed his status to active, arguably precisely to participate in this case, of all? Doubtful, to say the least. User:Dorftrottel 12:34, February 15, 2008
  • If it is that obvious, then a number of arbs will ask him to recuse and the point will be moot.--Doc^g 13:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Principles

"Open Proxy" as a term of art

1) Any service which allows any user to edit Wikipedia without it being traced back to an individual subscriber in the event of abuse (whether by not logging such information at all, or by not cooperating with requests) can be considered an open proxy, even if (such as Tor) its method of operation is dissimilar from a proxy, or if (such as Proxify) its usage to edit Wikipedia is limited to subscribers who have paid a fee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

One could make the argument that since Proxify limits POST to paid users, it is not an open proxy. This is proposed in order to put that argument to rest. —Random832 17:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

WP:DUCK

1) Flimsy or nonexistent statistical analysis has been used numerous times in the past as evidence resulting in bans of alleged sockpuppets or meatpuppets.

1b) Flimsy statistical analysis, and assertions of statistical analysis where none at all has been made, have been used numerous times in the past as evidence resulting in bans of alleged sockpuppets or meatpuppets.

Comment by Arbitrators:

You'll need to base this one on evidence, though. Since it's happened "numerous times", it should be easy to find. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as a counterpoint to "Statistical analysis, if used, must be sound" - the standard for soundness has historically been abysmally low, and the evidence here is miles better than anything we've ever had or used before in any of these other cases. —Random832 13:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fully endorse. Obviously true and also very important. Incidentally, this very consideration may necessitate an eventual widening of the scope of the case. User:Dorftrottel 14:22, February 15, 2008

1b because it is nonsense to say that something nonexistent has been used. —Random832 17:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Open proxy checks

1) Any user specifically forbidden from using open proxies by any remedy passed in this case is subject to periodic checkuser examination every thirty days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - given the contentious nature of the underlying dispute, and the consequences that users are likely to face for requesting checkuser, it's not fair to make people stick their necks out by requiring a request before checkuser is run. —Random832 17:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Principles

Who's Who

1) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same geographic area are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. Editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of disruptive edits may be treated as a single editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood#Who.27s_whoSuggested as a way to narrow down things (whether Mantanmoreland and Samiharris linked) without getting into BLP information, such as a real life identity. SirFozzie (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The Duck Test

2) When it is not possible to determine whether two accounts are linked technically, comparing two accounts for similarities and differences in editing style, articles edited, and time of edits is a valid, if imperfect, method to determine, if they're linked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Suggested. Follows on from the first Principle above. SirFozzie (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

User:Mantanmoreland and User:Samiharris linked

1) Per the consensus of the community, the accounts of User:Mantanmoreland and User:Samiharris are linked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per the evidence in the investigation, and the resulting RfC. SirFozzie (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

User:Mantanmoreland has violated WP:SOCK previously

2) In 2006, User:Mantanmoreland used the accounts User:Lastexit and User:Tomstoner in a way that violated Wikipedia's policies on Sockpuppet accounts. After being warned publicly by then-ArbCom member User:Fred Bauder (specifically on the User:Lastexit account), these two accounts quietly stopped editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per the investigation, and Fred Bauder's words. SirFozzie (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

User:Samiharris and User:Mantanmoreland have violated WP:SOCK

3) The accounts of User:Samiharris and User:Mantanmoreland have violated Wikipedia's rules on sockpuppet accounts, for amongst other things, double participation on Request for Adminship, Articles for deletion, and generating artificial consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If the link between the two accounts is confirmed, this is the next logical step. SirFozzie (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

User:Mantanmoreland banned

1) For multiple incidents of Sockpuppetry, User:Mantanmoreland is banned for one year from Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Suggested. If the link is proven/confirmed by ArbCom, this is the 2nd time, over two+ years, that Mantanmoreland has been caught violating this policy. Especially considering the double-!votes, this is necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

this is what most other users in this position would get. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. User:Dorftrottel 16:59, February 15, 2008

User:Mantanmoreland restricted to one account

2) User:Mantanmoreland is hereby restricted to one account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Suggested.. to follow after a ban/block, SirFozzie (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: