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]

I tend to oppose this, because the issue of editing the disputed articles is coming ever to the fore. I don't want to see a scope procedural decision used in a maneuver to suppress consideration of the larger issues. Mangoe (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also tend to oppose this, especially in the light of further evidence that may be strong enough to change the way some are approaching this. Let it also be noted that Jimbo himself mentioned COI issues in his evidence. Whitstable 20:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the new evidence posted, I do not think limiting the scope is a good idea at the time. The primary scope should be the link between the two accounts, however. SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can safely follow Jimbo's lead regarding scope. Let's do so with discretion and respect. Durova^Charge! 20:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We must also consider the effect on Wikipedia of the alleged socking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense - Arbcom has always felt free to determine for itself what to consider. It is nonsense for anyone other than arbcom to decide its scope in this case. Arbcom knows full well that this is part of a larger picture. Evidence and proposals can be given about the larger scope. Whether Arbcom chooses to use it or ignore it or notice it and say they have decided not to go there at this time is up to them. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This should not be arbitrarily constrained. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per SirFozzie, LessHeard, Dtobias, et al. I think there is quite a bit more to look into than the very narrow question of whether M=S ,or even if M=W or S=W. ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom has happily narrowed its focus on whatever it wants to whenever workshop pages get too messy. I have no reason to suppose they will do otherwise in this case, so there's absolutely no need to advise them to do so. Relata refero (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is true but I think reading through the several opposes, arbcom members might learn that much of the community does not want the scope kept narrow. Rather, a (possibly significant) segment fact wants to see things like the allegations of long term knowledge of abusive sockery without doing anything about it, or things like where information comes from has bearing on whether it should be investigated, be looked into. ArbCom will nevertheless do what they think best of course but I do think there is such a sense among many. ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68 which contains some very serious allegations, given in great detail and with supporting diffs, which are considerably outside the scope of "is M==S?". I don't want to see a Nixon Era witchhunt but I do think that the scope does need broadening to encompass these allegations (which in my view are suggesting that there possibly were editors who were in effect "protecting" Mantanmoreland, whether deliberately or by accident, and who were in effect "suppressing", whether deliberately, or as a side effect of trying to counteract disruption of other sorts, or as a side effect of BADSITES (or philosophically related) policy work, this information coming to light. Is all this stuff true? dunno. Matters not. This does seem to me to need looking into. Arbcom will choose as it likes but I would hope that it will give some attention to these matters, and reject attempts to keep the scope too narrow. ++Lar: t/c 15:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion I think everybody agrees that at a minimum this should be included in the scope. But what else should be included? That should be specifically set out in other articles, 2) 3) etc. I'll suggest "1c) The scope of this case should include whether Mantanmoreland has misused sock accounts, since the warning by Fred Bauder." The "since" clause seems obvious to me -- why do we want to review what has already been noted by an arbitrator? Is the only allegation, since that time, related to Sammiharris? In any case we might want to list the alledged sock accounts. Smallbones (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Arbcom has always felt free to determine for itself what to consider.Newbyguesses - Talk 13:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scope corresponds to the evidence

2) There exist a variety of serious allegations surrounding the namesake of this arbitration case and a series of thematically linked articles. Those allegations by their very nature require different evidence. The availability and/or quality of evidence for any one allegation does not affect the availability and/or quality of evidence for any other, separate allegation. The scope of this case should therefore correspond to the availability and/or quality of the evidence for each of the separate allegations, up to and including but not necessarily limited to sockpuppetry, tendentious editing with an undisclosed conflict of interest, and directly related questionable behaviour of other editors, including but not limited to the use of administrative tools.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. User:Dorftrottel 14:00, February 17, 2008

Opposed much too vague - let's be specific if we are accusing people of something - otherwise it looks like a witch hunt. Smallbones (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Evidence and tried to be as specific as useful and necessary. It's certainly not my intention to instigate a witchhunt. However, it's just a preliminary attempt and I'd be curious to see a more specific alternative proposal from you. User:Dorftrottel 18:39, February 17, 2008

Unblock request

3) Request that WordBomb be unblocked in order to be able to publicly present evidence with the condition that he only edit pages in this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The people who have previously been acting as this banned user's amanuensis are certainly capable of continuing to do so. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, since evidence has been presented that his block may have been improper and made in bad faith. Also, he appears to be a party to the entire conflict. He is free, to be sure, to email his evidence to the ArbCom, but I believe he should be allowed to present his evidence publicly for the benefit of the community and to support transparency and openness of discussion. Cla68 (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with the caveats of zero tolerance with regard to anything other than the presentation of evidence, or where Wordbomb responds in turn to the responses to the evidence. With the clarification of the Committee and Clerk, any instances of incivility or hostility toward Wordbomb should be dealt with swiftly and severely. Further, should Wordbomb present evidence with disruptive content (other than the evidence itself) or violate these terms and be reblocked then the content may be amended unilateraly by the Clerk to remove offending material; if the unblock is granted to allow Wordbomb to participate it would be perverse to remove entirely the evidence should Wordbomb violate these stipulations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. At any rate, he's well aware that plenty of guns will be aiming at his cerebellum. So to speak. User:Dorftrottel 01:15, February 18, 2008

Support, I guess... since everybody who takes any position even vaguely resembling his has traditionally gotten tarred with "acting in proxy for a banned editor" or "spreading Bagley harassment memes", then why not get these ideas straight from the horse's mouth (or whichever end of the horse might be appropriate)? *Dan T.* (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uncomfortable without some sort of statement from the user that en.wikipedia norms will be adheared to - the user has every right to disagree with folks, but the statements made at offsite locations make me wonder if he'd be willing to stick to a dispassionate presentation of his evidence and thoughts on this matter and stick to our normal reticence regarding ordinarily private communications (email stuff to the committee that is 'personally sensitive'). User:PatrickByrne has indicated he's going to provide some evidence as well, I recommended he email some things to the committee and discuss what they might mean on the evidence page. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--G-Dett (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. This is an editor who resorted to blackmail and sockpuppetry in order to promote his agenda, has been denounced for personal attacks in multiple venues outside of Wikipedia by numerous sources, has a long history of personalising disputes, and has absolutely nothing to offer Wikipedia other than more of the same. He can email the arbs if he wants to be heard. Bending over backwards to be fair is one thing, this would be bending over so far backwards that our collective heads would be in a place where the light doesn't shine. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting use of the conditional in your final clause. When and who did Judd blackmail? I've heard Crum compare him to a rapist, and of course there's all the other sexually tinged hyperbole about "stalking" and so on; I daresay I've figured out the exchange rate of that increasingly worthless currency. But blackmail? Explain.--G-Dett (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks...he can email whatever he wishes to the arbitration committee.--MONGO 17:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Errrm Unless he has solid proof of Mantanmoreland's or Samiharris's identity, I don't see what he has to offer the discussion except a lot of disruption. I'm inclined to agree that e-mail is adequate for that revelation. Mangoe (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

That is the core issue if the link is made between the accounts, yes. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Support I would also add "to revert edits by an other account" or similar. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely R. Baley (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Centralized discussion requires trustworthyness from the participants, and transparency of process. Newbyguesses - Talk 13:24, 18 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:

This language is taken more-or-less verbatim from some prior arbitration decisions, but it really is something of an overstatement divorced from the specific context of those decisions. Abusive sockpuppetry by an established contributor is never to be presumed, but should be found based only on a substantial weight of credible evidence. (The qualification "by an established contributor" is not meant to reflect a hierarchy of respect for contributors who have been here for different periods of time, but simply to exclude blatant SPA's and throwaway accounts.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who governs the content of this page? It lists the opinion divorced from its context, which if it distorts the meaning of the principle is a significant problem. Avruch ^T 03:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First time I've ever seen it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]
• Oppose per Dorftrottel. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similar editing habits have never been a reason for sanction. If users seem to edit only to support each other, that's bad, but it's entirely different. -Amarkov moo! 02:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I copied this principle from the sort of "settled law" subpage to Arbitration. The opposition here would seem to indicate that this principle doesn't have much support (I'm not sure its a great idea myself) and so perhaps in this case the Committee will consider addressing this problem. Avruch ^T 02:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

". . .when there is uncertainty. . ." is too low of a threshold, cannot support. R. Baley (talk) 20:38, 16 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]

Of course, principles adopted in arbitration cases do not set precedent for other on-wiki actions. However, I agree with Random that requiring any particular minimum standard of evidence would risk calling into question any block made using evidence that does not meet that standard. All blocks should be based on evidence sufficient to support the block, but what "sufficient" is may be different in different cases and for different reasons. Setting a black-line standard does not seem like it would be helpful in the long term. Thatcher 23:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty much a trusim. Of course the methodology must be sound and conclusive; who defines that, though? -Amarkov moo! 02:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Thatcher that establishing a "black-line standard" is probably not a good idea, however it's fairly certain that this case will make reference to some kind of standard for WP:DUCK tests which will be referred back to in future cases of a similar nature. I think the Arbs should consider very carefully what they say in the case principles about standards for statistical analysis (and other components of the "duck" test) and the effect such standards would have on future (and past) sockpuppet cases.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any form of duck test uses rudimentary statistical analysis, even if there are no graphs or control sets ("what are the probabilities that a user posting X from IP range Y is not sockmaster Z? Low! Block him as a duck" is still statistical inference.) This proposal means outlawing simple duck tests. Relata refero (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. In those cases we're using folksy heuristics to estimate the probability of a match, but it's the same principle; this would outlaw WP:DUCK. Cool Hand Luke 05:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that WP:DUCK is not a policy or guideline, just an essay. I have nothing against stating the obvious conclusion, when it is indeed obvious. But people who don't normally work with stats might be overwhelmed by fairly weak analysis. Please remember that there are 3 types of lies 1) lies, 2) damned lies, and 3) statistics. This phrase is slightly overstated, but let's not call something a duck when all we know is that it's a vertabrate. Smallbones (talk) 18:30, 17 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]

Actually, I would use Unrelated for accounts that were clearly unrelated, such as editors in the US and UK, for example. In this case I would (and did) answer as  Inconclusive. Thatcher 23:47, 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

• Strike per Thatcher above and LessHeard vanU below. User:Dorftrottel 00:32, February 16, 2008

• Amend to oppose in favour of Daniel's proposal below. User:Dorftrottel 13:27, February 17, 2008

Oppose My understanding is that CU was inconclusive as one account was an open proxy. To borrow Guys comment, the verdict was "not proven" instead of "not guilty" - which is what this FoF appears to indicate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can not endorse (I oppose) because of the vagueness which can be misinterpreted. CU did not connect the accounts because it could not connect the accounts, due to one of the accounts consistently using an open proxy. R. Baley (talk) 21:17, 16 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.

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:

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

Indeed, but there is no provision for regular or periodic checkuser verification on other editors. The purpose of this remedy is to provide a mechanism for determining in the future if these two editors violate this policy. Avruch ^T 19:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(to Jpgordon) I don't think that's right at all ... open proxies are blocked when identified, but there is no prohibition against using them ... and there's been a specific determination that this is how we want to continue to handle things (wasn't that one of the cruxes of the CharlotteWebb case)? By the way, would a proxy service that provides anonymizing on a fee-for-account basis be considered an "open" proxy, or something else? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 16 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]

And one of the accounts has announced retirement, so what would that gain? Durova^Charge! 19:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In effect, would this put the accounts under continual CU surveillance? If no better remedy were available, this might not be a terrible idea—it would help the project block lots of open proxies if Samiharris continued to edit. However, I think the evidence is so strong that banning Samiharris as a surplus sock account is the bare minimum. Cool Hand Luke 19:12, 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

There is currently no formal protocol (that I know of) for checkusers to go back to accounts found to be using proxies and reblock them. Supposing that during a search of proxy IPs that I find user:Joe Smith, an editor in good standing, also edits from proxies. Should I then recheck Joe Smith's edits every few days to find and block as many proxies as possible? Thatcher 23:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a remedy tailored to these users. Why would you apply it to editors not a party here? Cool Hand Luke 23:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration principles tend to spread. There was great drama last year when Jayjg, while checking proxies for other users, found someone in good standing and blocked all their proxies so they couldn't edit. This remedy proposes doing that very thing. Thatcher 23:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe as a checkuser you can clarify - if (a) editing from open proxies is against policy and (b) you find someone, with whatever standing, who is violating that policy, what do you do if not at least (1) block the proxy and/or (2) block the user? Avruch ^T 23:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page on open proxies bans editing from proxies but not editors who use them. If I discover an open proxy I block it, regardless of who is using it. I do not recheck those users later to block their new proxies, if they have found new ones. I could, and it would probably be permissible, but I don't. It would feel like stalking to me. Thatcher 23:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recall some of the open proxy dhrama from last summer. I'm uncomfortable with this, but don't have a specific suggestion regarding it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Mantanmoreland should not be editing the articles on these topic, I think. No matter who he is, it is too disruptive for the site for him to edit the articles. Samiharris has left so I'm not sure a remedy is needed. I'll have to think about what we do about Samiharris if we are still not certain that the two are linked. Might support a topic ban for him also. I'll see how the evidence unfolds. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I think the diffs will show that my edits on all topics have been strictly in accordance with policy. Any disruption has originated off-site, from a pattern of disruptive edits and blatant POV pushing by socks of banned user WordBomb. WordBomb has responded to my edits by engaging in a sustained campaign to effectuate precisely the objective of this section. Reversing such edits was my primary task in the WordBomb-attacked articles. "Refusing to allow paid corporate POV pushers to control an article because they have a willingness to engage in 'dirty tricks' campaigns is always going to be the right thing to do."--Mantanmoreland (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Support The very very least if socking is proven. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mantanmoreland has engaged, in my freshly-formed opinion, in a protracted campaign to slant a particular set of articles and promote a fringe theory. Blaming this entirely on 'reverting' extremists of an opposing POV is a tactic of such tendentious editors that should be familiar to ArbCom by now. Relata refero (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are encouraged

1) The Committee encourages interested editors to develop a package of tools similar to those used in this case that can reliably identify possible sockpuppet abuse without resort to checkuser evidence. Such tools should use a broad sample of data and statistically sound methods, and be available for use in response to reports filed at WP:SSP.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Committee would only accept receiving such analyzed data for checking -being part of the evidence. The decision of bypassing the CheckUser evidence and adopting such a method should be discussed between members of the Community. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Here's the thing - the weakness of the methods that Cool Hand Luke used lies in the size and strength of the data set, not the tools he used. If, as Lar suggested, these tools can be packaged together in such a way that they can be used on a much larger data set and reused when needed... This would be an extremely valuable development in protecting our processes from abuse by sockpuppeteers. This partially addresses concerns both with other future blocks not receiving the same level of analysis as this case and the concerns recently raised by Picaroon. It is true that it should not take abusive and morally suspect activity by an outside agent to spur an investigation of sockpuppetry of this type, and the wider availability of a powerful tool helps keep such activity from becoming necessary in the future. I'll also point out that all data used by Cool Hand Luke is publically available - no private information was included, and so no ones privacy was violated. Avruch ^T 02:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Quick looks suggest that the "missing piece" is the ability to get contribution history into a format easily digestible in Excel.... CHLuke's spreads, which I requested a copy of, are clearer than he avers, he's too modest, and given the data already in Excel in the right format, could be used with some care and skill. The "missing piece" itself supposedly already exists, per CHL having said someone else did it for him using a tool that existed already. I just do not know who/where/what as far as that tool goes. ++Lar: t/c 15:27, 18 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]

As Jpgordon mentions above, one recuses oneself but since Morven puts a condition to his recusal, i have no alternative other than asking him kindly to recuse himself. The voice of the community counts more than the request of 'more than one arbitrator'. I would also agree with FT2 (and FloNight's?) recusals in case the community calls for it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Absurd. Another arbitrator, FT2, actively participated in the RfC and expressed an opinion based on the early faux "evidence" [2], and to my knowledge no one is asking for his recusal. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2's opinion appears to have been the same as the community's consensus. Morven's, strikingly, was not.

That said, I think Doc G makes a fine point below. If we can't count on the other arbs to ask for his recusal (if necessary), how can we count on them to arbitrate this dispute? I still think he should recuse, but this motion isn't necessary. Cool Hand Luke 22:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, so we only ask people to recuse if they disagree with us, yes? Not sure how that works. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't sections like this one reserved for Comments by parties? User:Dorftrottel 13:46, February 16, 2008

Perhaps because:

• FT2 is not on the wpcyberstalking mailing list that has made several showings in the evidence so far, with more likely.
• FT2 did not reactivate himself minutes before this arbitration began.
• FT2 did not express a strong opinion to dismiss the case for lack of a dispute (!!) in opposition to nearly ten times as many on the RfC—that is, his views are an outlier from the community's.

All that said, I stand by my statement that this should be a matter for the arbitrators. I think it would be wise for Morven to recuse, but I trust that more arbitrators to speak up if we delve even further into this private mailing list. This wpcyberstalking issue may have pointed implications for those who were on it. Cool Hand Luke 05:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 [struck per change of heart, see my oppose comment below]
  • 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]

• I think it's only important if the case strays pretty far from evaluation of mantanmorelands wikipedia activities. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, if any arb is going to be asked to recuse based on having made a prior comment in support of either side of this mess, then the recusal requests need to be across the board. Fascinating that while FT2 has commented more akin to the way Cla68 prefers, no formal request has been presented by Cla68 that FT2 recuse...nah...no partisanship here.--MONGO 04:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think FT2 should recuse himself, why don't you "even it out" and propose that? User:Dorftrottel 05:58, February 16, 2008

Perhaps because I'm not partisan? I see no reason for any arb to recuse here anyway.--MONGO 15:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. FWIW, sorry for the "even it out" part, that was clearly unnecessary. User:Dorftrottel 16:27, February 16, 2008

FT2's reason for not recusing himself - that he has basically just had a 24 hour headstart on seeing the evidence - is much more convincing than Morven's reason. That is a major difference that might explain it. Relata refero (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I see no reason why an Arb that has indicated a preference or a viewpoint relating to content or a contributor cannot be trusted to participate in the deliberations of the committee when examining whether Wikipedia rules and policies have been violated. I would go so far as to suggest it is healthy that there is an element of disparity among the committee, so that it can be noted that the review was not conducted with a biased body. This applies to Morven and FT2. However, if considered necessary then the proposal suggested by Morven - that they would recuse if requested by two or more other arbs - should be adopted by all members of the committee. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was Morven, "Mantanmoreland", and/or "samiharris" members of the wpcyberstalking list? What about FT2? If Mantan, Sami, and Morven were on that list, is that a potential conflict of interest, as it has been stated that the list acted as a support group for each other? Can someone who was on that list answer whether or not they were on this list together? daveh4h 19:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. We should prevent the impression of scientific jury selection and simply trust the ArbCom and its members. User:Dorftrottel 01:38, February 18, 2008

It is not an issue of whether or not we trust Arbcom. People are, in general, incapable of determining whether or not they are acting impartially. The ability to psychoanalyze oneself is not a requirement for being an arbitrator. -Amarkov moo! 01:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what should we do iyo? Ask the entire ArbCom to recuse themselves and settle the matter in a drinking contest, or similar? User:Dorftrottel 02:50, February 18, 2008

If someone thinks that an arbitrator should be recused, you can't say "why aren't you trusting Arbcom, stop failing to AGF!" I have no idea where you got the idea that I want the entire committee recused. -Amarkov moo! 03:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um. I said "We should prevent the impression of scientific jury selection and simply trust the ArbCom and its members", not "why aren't you trusting Arbcom, stop failing to AGF!" User:Dorftrottel 03:32, February 18, 2008

Okay. You're still saying that we have to trust arbitrators to decide whether or not they should recuse themselves. -Amarkov moo! 03:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Evidence may be put on the record, and AC members can and will tell other members their honest opinions if and when they think it'd better if someone recuse themselves. User:Dorftrottel 03:46, February 18, 2008

Biographies of living persons violations

2) Morven, Mantanmoreland, SlimVirgin, JzG, Phil Sandifer, Georgewilliamherbert, JoshuaZ, and David Gerard violated WP:BLP with comments about or directed at Overstock.com employees including Judd Bagley and Patrick M. Byrne.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The scope is whatever the Arbitrators make of it. That said, isn't the correct standard BLP, not NPA? They're not being attacked as contributers, but as living people. Cool Hand Luke 00:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. I'll rewrite the proposal with the correct policy. Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on evidence here [3]. I understand that on the actual Proposed Decision page these would need to be posted as separate statements for each account name. Cla68 (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the scope of this case.--MONGO 00:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of this case is not for you to determine. —Random832 14:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of admin tools

3) SlimVirgin, JzG, Dmcdevit and an unnamed oversight admin improperly used admin tools to affect content, both in the article and in the talk page, at the Gary Weiss article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on evidence presented here [4]. I understand that on the Proposed Decision page this would need to be broken up into separate statements for each account name. Cla68 (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the scope of this case.--MONGO 00:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, MONGO, we get it, you don't have to repeat it five times. You don't want admin actions covered in this case. Fine. You've even, rather presumptuously, proposed that higher up on the page. Must you try and hammer the fact that that's what you think into our skulls like this? Relata refero (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumptuously...is that a fact...well, I'm betting arbcom won't bother with these fringe issues.--MONGO 16:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They may not be fringe issues, but I don't think ArbCom is going to bestir itself either.

However, I'm not telling them not to. Which you are -er- presuming to do. Relata refero (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your edit summary they're not even named parties in this case - Arbcom has not historically felt the need to limit itself to judging the actions of the parties named at the beginning of the case, and it seems particularly unlikely that any of these users are unaware of the case's existence. —Random832 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not telling anyone anything, just trying to keep the scope limited which is traditionally the way arbcom does things anyway. It is rare when arbcom sanctions parties that aren't named.--MONGO 17:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the word 'telling', but my general point stands anyway, I believe. Relata refero (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of this case is not for you to determine. —Random832 14:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks on Wikipedia editors

4) Mantanmoreland, SlimVirgin, Crum375, JzG, and David Gerard violated WP:NPA with comments about or directed at several Wikipedia editors in relation to the dispute regarding content in the Gary Weiss article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on the evidence presented here [5]. I understand that on the Proposed Decision page this finding would have to be broken up into separate statements for each account name. Cla68 (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the scope of this case.--MONGO 00:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of this case is not for you to determine. —Random832 14:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support generally, although I don't believe naming parties outside of the alleged sockpuppets is of much help. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper blocks

5) David Gerard improperly blocked Piperdown and IP range 204.15.84.2.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on evidence presented here [6]. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the scope of this case.--MONGO 00:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of this case is not for you to determine. —Random832 14:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per MONGO; not related to the sockpuppetry allegations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:58, 19 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:

Per my comment/question above, wouldn't a fee-paid anonymizing service be a "proxy" but not an "open proxy" (since it is not, in fact, open)? Not that we should spend too much time on this issue—the question (if there is a question) is how we should handle editing from such accounts, not so much what to call them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Re jpgordon: Cla68 entered the entirety of WP:SSP into evidence, with commentary indicating that in his opinion it mostly goes towards supporting this kind of conclusion. He has indicated that more specific examples are forthcoming, and I am confident that this conclusion will be supported by that evidence (I may put together a few diffs from the recent Piperdown thing as well, as a case study) —Random832 21:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flimsy is a very loaded word. There have been cases where users were banned as sockpuppets per the duck test where the investigation was not as detailed and did not involve input from so many independent editors. Rewording and some examples would be nice here. Thatcher 23:15, 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:

We do check users sometimes if there have been problems in the past but not sure of a specific time frame for the checks. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

30 days was chosen based on my understanding of the period for data retention. —Random832 22:59, 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.

1A)It is rarely possible without technical evidence (such as a CheckUser) to determine with complete certainty whether several editors are sock-puppets, meat-puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the accounts rather than the identity of the accounts. 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:

Close but not sure this exactly says what we need it to say in this case. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, in this IPv4 Internet at least, CheckUser can't determine such matters with complete certainty either; it's more an art than a science. --bainer (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Added 1A, to see if this is a bit closer to what FloNight wants) SirFozzie (talk) 22:19, 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:

True, but more useful for carrying out forward looking remedies based on a active ruling (or other current situation) than past evaluations of sock abuse, I think. But we do make these determinations sometimes so might support here if there is no other way to determine the link. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Support. Sometimes common sense statements need to be explicitly spelled out. Noroton (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Absurd. Per a mass of faux statistics that were utterly meaningless. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friends, these are the same people. One of the old arguments was that their prolific communications and mutual denials of being the same people established that W, MM, and SH were three. However, It's pretty clear that MM was lying for years, and still refuses to admit his longtime deception. His assurances of not being SH count for absolutely nothing in my book, and a large catalog of traits match up perfectly. No one has been able to articulate how their styles are different, and I don't have access to these oft-mentioned secret emails. Therefore, no other conclusion is possible for me.

This trinity is one. Cool Hand Luke 07:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Doubting this is unfortunately unreasonable. User:Dorftrottel 21:22, February 15, 2008

Varkala. Thatcher 23:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Varkala? User:Dorftrottel 00:23, February 16, 2008

I think he's citing that link as proof that the two are linked (or at least MM and a RL identity) SirFozzie (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Varkala. There seem to be a few people willing to go along with the idea that maybe Samiharris was GW in real life but that Mantan is not. Thatcher 00:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I should check the evidence more often. But how does this affect any judgment as to the relation of the two accounts? User:Dorftrottel 00:48, February 16, 2008

I was obviously not clear enough. I seem to recall one or more people comment at the RFC or on SirFozzie's sandbox that they might believe that Samiharris was GW but not that Mantanmoreland is GW. The Varkala evidence invalidates that argument. I agree that by itself it does not speak to the question of SH vs MM. Thatcher 02:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are some who do not believe the Varkala evidence gives a strong indication that MM is GW. I don't think anyone has come out and said they hold that view, though, as the Varkala evidence does appear to show what it appears to show. Whitstable 02:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Varkala evidence (timing analysis + graph, plus writer's admission of his trip) is pretty suggestive for MM == GW. Given that it appears to predate SH's account, I don't know that the evidence directly suggests that. Other people's beliefs based on less stringent Duck Test analysis, that SH == GW, aren't as useful in tying the two together. It's a pretty damning smoking gun for one leg of a three-party real life connection analysis, but not the other two, necessarily. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most suspicious fact imo is just how Samiharris has left the building. User:Dorftrottel 01:01, February 16, 2008

Support In the absence of any evidence pointing to the contrary - no obvious disparity between the two accounts - together with the strong circumstantial evidence produced. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support If this isn't a duck, there's no such thing as a statistically-demonstrable duck. Seriously: if this evidence is rejected, I honestly cannot fathom how non-Checkuser sock-puppetry could be established without the users making exactly the same edits. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per LessHeard vanU and the preponderance of the evidence presented. Sarcasticidealist is right that if this evidence is rejected (and assuming that somewhat convincing exculpatory evidence is not presented in the meantime) then it would seem close to impossible to block for sock-puppetry sans Checkuser analysis. That would create serious problems I think.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced that this has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt. The lack of overlapping edits and "lipstick on a pig", as well as the meshing of interests in articles, is evidence of a higher order than in 95% of sockpuppet identifications I've seen. I'm happy to be with the overwhelming majority of the community on this one. (Also, per Cla68's evidence section, the obvious action was put on hold long enough because it was believed to be part of an off-wiki campaign. That stops now.) Relata refero (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mantanmoreland's identity

2) There is significant evidence to link the account of User:Mantanmoreland to the real-life identity of Gary Weiss, a financial writer of some renown.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Ok.. let's acknowledge the elephant in the room here. I spent a half hour trying to figure out how to word this without running near the BLP edge, and I can't figure out how to do it without losing the impact of the statement... SirFozzie (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Mantamoreland has a WP:Conflict of Interest

3) Mantanmoreland has used Wikipedia's policies on psuedonymity to edit articles that he had a conflict of interest on, without disclosing that Conflict of Interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Follows on from the above.. if the link to the RL identity is proven, he's fallen afoul of CoI: (not to the least, adding links to articles written by Gary Weiss, and even editing his own biographical article on Wikipedia. SirFozzie (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Furthermore, the current COI evidence understates the case. I'm hoping that someone with more history with Mantanmoreland can fill it in. For example, he didn't just edit Gary Weiss, but he wrote the initial version and defended it from unfavorable changes. In retrospect this still-deleted AFD is quite illuminating. Cool Hand Luke 20:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

User:Mantanmoreland has violated WP:SOCK previously

4) 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:

It was discovered after the fact. He denied the accusation but stopped so it was not a big deal. Do not see this as a huge issue as many users appear to violate socking policy and are warned then stop. We find it often by CU when looking for something else and if mild and old we ignore, if recent or more serious we explain the policy and tell them to stop. But it did make Mantanmoreland aware of the socking policy so there would no excuse to violate it later, if he did. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

This one should be noncontroversial. Cool Hand Luke 19:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straight from Fred Bauder. Durova^Charge! 08:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support Uncontroversial, establishes a history. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Clearly true and clearly very relevant to this case, even though the socking was discovered "after the fact" (not sure how it could ever be discovered before the fact).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per CU policy, ordinarily CU is not done unless there is a need to settle a question about an active case of abuse of multiple accounts. This is an important part of the policy that protects the privacy of users. If only an old problem is noted, then a CU is not done since there is no reason to deal with the issue. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, but Fred Bauder did a CU and warned Mantanmoreland about socking with the User:Lastexit account while it was still going on. Thus the CU was totally proper and we are not dealing with sockpuppetry discovered "after the fact" (as in weeks or months after it had stopped) but rather "sockpuppetry in the past for which the user was warned at that time." I assume you're not saying otherwise, but I just want to make sure there is no confusion about the fact that Mantan was warned about socking while it was still going on - not months after it had stopped - and that Fred's RfCU was entirely proper. I don't think your previous comment really applies to the Mantan/Last Exit case.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is an aggravating factor that ArbCom should consider if it finds against Mantanmoreland. Complementing it is the mitigating factor in NewYorkBrad's "Tu quoque" proposal below. Explaining mitigating and aggravating factors in the final decision would be especially useful in this case. Noroton (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mantanmoreland was warned by Fred Bauder. This establishes a history of untrustworthiness on the part of Mantanmoreland, yet the user has continued to deny any wrong-doing. Newbyguesses - Talk 13:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

5) 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:

If the link is confirmed then this is true as they both advocated for the same issue many times on site and off (not going to get more specific about the last point.) FloNight♥♥♥ 21:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Support Uncontroversial, dependent on the abuse of alternate accounts being proven. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:49, 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.

User:Mantanmoreland banned

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

If the sockpuppetry is proven to be true I could support a site ban in this case as he would have violated the trust of the community in a serious way. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Agree with FloNight. Durova^Charge! 05:32, 16 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

OTOH, not convinced at this point that this is the best or only possible solution. Momentary procedural oppose. User:Dorftrottel 06:32, February 18, 2008

Support In the absence of "indefinite, with a minimum of 1 Year". LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the accusations are found to be true. If Mantanmoreland is upfront about his sockpuppetry and promises not to engage in it again then a one year ban would be appropriate. If not then an indefinite ban might be a better option and a proposal to that effect would be desirable.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The remedy for such deceitfulness, if proven ought to be block or ban, for at least a year. This is fair, since the other user who participated in this battle is long gone, blocked or banned.Newbyguesses - Talk 13:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mantanmoreland restricted to one account

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Absolutely. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Support A very strong enforcement suggestion would indicate both the will and seriousness of this proposal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia, in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Conduct that does not contribute to this goal—including but not limited to importing real-world disputes into Wikipedia, harassing other editors either onsite or offsite, or unnecessarily creating or contributing to what is sometimes referred to as "drama"—detracts from the project and is extremely disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorse with caveats: some people use drama as a synonym for dispute resolution. Needs a distinction between dispute resolution and dispute escalation. Durova^Charge! 04:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally. If you permit me to be absurd, "drama" is the most commonly-used word for this concept, so should be used per WP:NAME. ^_^ Cool Hand Luke 07:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support I would replace purpose with aim, since the community is failing in the former (otherwise we wouldn't be here) but striving toward the latter (again, otherwise we wouldn't be here), but can live with this wording. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One should keep in mind that it takes two (or more) to conduct a dispute or to generate drama, and a fair, even-handed application of this principle should apply to all sides of the disputes and drama-fests involved. Applying it unevenly, to condemn and suppress one side of a dispute while giving protection to the other, only increases the drama and encourages disputes to fester. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To play devil's advocate, Dan, suppose someone comes to this case and trolls me. I attempt to engage the person in polite discussion, but every reply of theirs is a borderline dig. So I continue participating at this case and stop replying to that person. Eventually someone calls that ridiculous and blocks them. Do I have to get blocked too, just because they didn't drive me off the case? Durova^Charge! 22:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think so as long as you kept your cool and didn't start attacking that person back in similar manner. If you just calmly and fairly continued pursuing the case, there would be no cause to block you; if you were making digs and personal attacks right back to that other person, and making edits designed to denigrate or suppress his POV (which might have validity to it even though he's presenting it in an obnoxious way), then you might be considered to have been dragged into the mud with him and some sanction against you might be deserved. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Without an atmosphere of mutual respect, the project suffers.Newbyguesses - Talk 13:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Noroton (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

2) The policy on multiple accounts addresses situations in which the same individual edits Wikipedia from more than one user account. The use of multiple accounts is permissible in some situations. However, abusive sockpuppetry—such as 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:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally prefer "tolerated" to "permissible". It may be allowed but should not be encouraged. --bainer (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some prior decisions have used a "while discouraged" wording. I can interpolate that if desired. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment Why has no one mentioned double voting? If the accusations of this case are substantiated, that deserves mention. Durova^Charge! 04:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction, Dortroffel. Durova^Charge! 05:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

"Illusion of more support for a position than actually exists" should probably be interpreted to include double voting. — CharlotteWebb 04:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"such as the use of multiple accounts to vote or comment more than once in the same discussion" - or am I missing something completely? User:Dorftrottel 05:09, February 16, 2008

Perhaps the current version was chosen to address "double voting" as fully as possible without actually using the word "vote", lest we regress into a debate over whether or not particular discussion formats ought to be described as "voting", and to cover processes which, while resembling a vote, aren't believed (in theory and/or practice) to be democratic. — CharlotteWebb 05:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support If this is a general principle being given, should not "gaming" 3RR be included? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could add any number of examples, but I used "such as" to restrict it to the ones that (if the allegations are credited) are most germane to this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Clearly spells it out, especially useful in a decision that will be widely read by people with varying familiarity with policy.Noroton (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluating sockpuppetry

3) In determining whether two accounts are sockpuppets of the same individual, administrators, the community, and the Arbitration Committee may consider all relevant evidence, including checkuser findings, contribution histories and patterns, similarities or differences in online mannerisms, and any other available information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I'm not endorsing hacking into people's e-mails or the like. If I use this in the final decision I will add a qualifier. (For what it's worth, I believe that when pointing out that a basically uncontroverisal proposal has an ambiguity in the wording, a less strident wording than "strongly object" might be used.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Strongly object Is this to include hacked e-mails per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine? Is this to legitimize other insidious means? Requires a baseline of fair play. Durova^Charge! 04:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think NYB means on-wiki and publicly-accessible evidence, but maybe that can be explicitly stated? Cool Hand Luke 07:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not good enough. See the Bluemarine case: suppose I hack your e-mail and post excerpts. Now it is on wiki and publicly accessible. Yecch. Durova^Charge! 08:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Perhaps—elaborating on Noroton—"information deemed reliable and ethically gathered." Cool Hand Luke 19:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how ardently some people wanted to consider hacked or spoofed material in the Bluemarine case and in the Elonka RFA, I believe strong objection was necessary. Remember also that the offsite publication of an out-of-context e-mail by Jimbo was one of the immediate causes of this RFAR; we had been hoping to settle the matter at the community level. Durova^Charge! 22:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support. We cannot just dismiss and ignore available evidence. User:Dorftrottel 04:31, February 16, 2008

Support providing Durova's concerns are addressed - possibly with the term "legitimate"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support providing Durova's concerns are addressed -- I suggest "information deemed reliable" as a substitute for "available information". Noroton (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The amendment to add "information deemed reliable and ethically gathered" as a requirement is favoured. Newbyguesses - Talk 13:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Ethically gathered" troubles me, it smacks of rules of evidence. I'm all for ethics, but if reliable information unethically gathered tells us that a user is up to no good, do we ignore it for evidential reasons? We are not a "court of law", whilst we want to be fair, if we are sure someone is doing things that damage the encyclopedia then we should act, we are not here to defend their "rights" as no-one has a "right" to edit this privately owned encyclopedia. Reliability should cover most of the instances we have in mind here, as leaked e-mails are notoriously unreliable.--Doc^g 15:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Determining sockpuppetry

4) Abusive sockpuppetry by established contributors is not to be presumed, but is to be inferred based only upon a substantial weight of credible evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorse Durova^Charge! 04:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To address LHvU and Mangoe, I don't read Newyorkbrad's principle as a prohibition against collecting evidence. It's more a matter of how one parses evidence. Durova^Charge! 01:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely my problem, but I cannot reconcile the wording with the wording of WP:AGF - that there should be the presumption of good faith unless there is evidence to the contrary; if there is to be no presumption of sockpuppetry without evidence (that would be someone declaring that they operate another account to support themselves) then there may be a constraint on investigating the possibility of alternate account abuse without otherwise suspending that assumption.

NYB is a smart fellow, and has an admirable grasp and application of the language, and will likely find an improvement in the phraseology that will address this concern - so I don't intend to do much more than offer myself as an example of the general readership who sometimes does not understand. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a reasonable standard, and "substantial weight" has some necessary flexibility. Cool Hand Luke 07:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

CommentOppose I am having some difficulty over the meaning of "...not to be presumed...". If SirFozzie had not presumed to believe there was a possible case for sockpuppetry he would never have commenced his investigation, and he and CoolHandLuke would not have found the instances of possible evidence of abuse nor presented them in the manner they did; thus there would not be the substantial weight of evidence that is being examined to see if it is credible. WP:AGF requires us to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary, but that evidence is sometimes only found by the suspension of good faith (although it is hoped that bad faith is not a factor.) I am now registering an 'oppose' pending resolution of my concerns, being previously 'comment'. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this proposal was for concluding there is abusive sockpuppetry in a case, and therefore applied to the arbitration committee deliberations or the deliberations of similar forums. (The standard for looking into it is, to put it one way, being reasonably suspicious and that's for each individual editor to decide. WP:AGF applies in the absence of solid reasons to suspect, and specifically calls for suspending the assumption of good faith in just those circumstances where suspicion kicks in.) Since one issue in this case is what standards of evidence are ultimately needed for concluding there is abusive sockpuppetry, it's important that ArbCom give some explanation of what its standard of evidence was. This sentence would help do that. Noroton (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am still having difficulty, but I shall revert to my original intended term Comment and strike through the Oppose. My inability to comprehend the intent of the term in context should not prejudice its use if everyone else understands it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LHvU isn't the only one who is having a bit of trouble with the wording. Presumption isn't exactly the right word here. Aren't what we saying is that we want to start from the assumption that people with established editing histories should get the benefit of some doubt in these issues? Mangoe (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right to anonymity

5) Wikipedia users may generally choose whether to disclose their real-world identities on Wikipedia or to edit anonymously. In practice, many users choose to edit anonymously. It is believed that allowing anonymous editing substantially increases participation. Revealing the real-world identity of editors who choose to edit anonymously is ordinarily considered a serious infringement of privacy and a threat to the well-being of the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I use this in the final decision I will reword slightly per Durova's point (though this wording is adapted from the MONGO decision and has caused no dispute or confusion although every word of that decision has been under microscopic scrutiny for well over a year). I think that the combination of the qualifiers plus principles 6 and 7 address Mangoe's point, though I'm open to further wording suggestions. If one suspects that (for example) a disruptive editor of a BLP is the subject of the BLP and therefore has a conflict, there are various ways of handling the matter, but immediately posting on wiki "I believe that User:X is John Jones" is clearly not the right course (although posting that in one instance if one is a newer editor unfamiliar with our policies can sometimes be a forgiveable one-time mistake). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Strongly object. Wikipedians have a right to pseudonymity, not anonymity. This is fundamental to GDFL. Durova^Charge! 04:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, I have believed for over a year that the subject of a certain BLP article is a long term vandal, and there are not various ways of handling it. The BLP issues have prevented me from constructing a community ban proposal and even though there is a prior arbitration case, the Committee ignored my request for review. Durova^Charge! 22:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word "normally" is doing a lot of work in this proposal, but the exceptional circumstances are spelled out below. Cool Hand Luke 07:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Durova makes an important distinction, but I think most people would still agree with the last sentence above. Maybe this principle should be broken down accordingly. — CharlotteWebb 04:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with CharlotteWebb, Durova's comment is an important distinction, but should not overide the seriousness that the community feels regarding user v. real names issues. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the chief author of Wikipedia is in the real world, I think this is overstated as stands; and indeed, this is exactly the sort of case that tests the limits of anonymity. We have accusations that a certain editor on Wikipedia is a person who has a manifest conflict of interest in editing the articles in question. If that identity can be substantiated, it is to the benefit of the project that it be revealed. If it can be substantiated, and we act against revelation of that knowledge, then our reputation will deservedly suffer. I'm not saying that the evidence in this case is substantive-- my impression is that it isn't, thus far. But as the various MONGO/BADSITES cases show, we run the risk of spawning a bad principle even if it isn't used in the final decision. Mangoe (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support in light of NYB's further comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of interest

6) Editors are urged to exercise caution when editing in subject areas as to which they may have a conflict of interest. Steps to ameliorate any conflict may include disclosing the nature of the conflict, suggesting changes on talkpages instead of implementing them directly, or taking special care to ensure that edits adhere to all Wikipedia policies including maintaining a neutral point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Good. Talkpage discussion—submitting proposed edits to impartial users—is the ideal check on COI. Cool Hand Luke 07:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support Useful. IF Mantanmoreland is found to be in violation of WP:COI, then this helps to show just how far he strayed. Noroton (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, although I would go one step further and add something here or maybe as a separate principle regarding reverts. User:Dorftrottel 13:20, February 17, 2008

Support. Unless a COI-conflicted editor proves themselves capable of approaching a(n) NPOV, they hinder work on the articles they are involved in. Newbyguesses - Talk 13:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymity and conflicts of interest

7) Wikipedia's policies allowing anonymous editing while discouraging conflicts of interest create a tension that necessarily is imperfectly resolved. Issues arising in this area must be addressed with a high degree of sensitivity to the competing concerns.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Hand Luke's memory is good: the proposal is adapted (with some rewording) from a principle unanimously accepted in the Attack sites case. To Mangoe, although the situation you describe touched on a number of issues, but I don't believe that conflict-of-interest per se was one of them (not to turn this thread into a discussion of that year-old situation). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is this tension that makes this case and other cases necessary. Both interests need to be balanced and decisions made that follow the Foundations privacy policy and established Wikipedia customs and policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment Without prejudice regarding the merits of the current case, I'll offer a formulation related to this below. Durova^Charge! 04:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. This statement looks like an old friend. It's appropriate here. Cool Hand Luke 07:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yes, this tension is an issue in multiple subject areas. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. We've been burned before. Mangoe (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NYB, I was thinking more in the general terms of people whose identity proved to be an embarrassment to the project when it was revealed. Mangoe (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in favour of Durova's variant below. User:Dorftrottel 13:11, February 17, 2008

Tu quoque

8) Violations of Wikipedia policies or other standards of proper behavior by one editor or individual, however serious, do not excuse violations by another editor. However, in appropriate circumstances, provocation or the like may be considered as a mitigating factor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

• Strongly endorse Online communities that fail to uphold this degenerate into Usenet. Durova^Charge! 03:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Ditto. Important, and relevant to this case. Cool Hand Luke 07:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Endorse Considering one of the early defenses (not by any of the named parties) was "So what? Look at who he's facing..." SirFozzie (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Strong support LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is a mitigating factor that ArbCom should consider IF it finds against Mantanmoreland. Complementing it is the aggravating factor in Sir Fozze's proposal #2 above. Explaining mitigating and aggravating factors in the final decision would be especially useful in this case. Noroton (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qualification: In light of persuasive points made below by Relata (23:05), Mackan79 (at 17:01), and G-Dett (at 17:34), any mitigating factor should be spelled out somewhere (probably an addition to the evidence page). For instance, Mackan79's evidence would need to be countered if the WordBomb war is used as a mitigating circumstance. If not, then any ArbCom decision that provides only a vague reference to mitigating circumstances would hurt the reputation of ArbCom -- and Wikipedia. If no mitigating reasons are detailed anywhere, it would be best to state just that in the decision or not mention the subject at all. Noroton (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Concern: I worry that if this proposal is adopted, it will be easy for this to descend into another Wordbomb-bashing fest, which I for one am bored of, and also - no doubt more importantly - think is actually quite external to the main business at hand. Wordbomb was banned quite some time ago, and the disruptive and tendentious behaviour of these accounts (and the consequent divisions, extra-loud policy debates and arbitrary adminstrative actions that have plagued our community) continued. I simply do not see how this is strictly relevant to a pattern of behaviour that might have started before wordbomb got here and has continued after he was booted out. Relata refero (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and don't give me Piperdown. I think we're all having doubts about Piperdown now. Relata refero (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, well-worded and very important. User:Dorftrottel 13:07, February 17, 2008

Agree with RR's concern. Per the evidence here, I think a case for mitigation is very difficult to make considering Mantanmoreland's sockpuppetry preceded any related factors. It would also be one thing if the accounts were used solely to protect a BLP or something similar, but if we are assuming the COI (as this would seem to do), then the negative edits on other articles should be seen as much more problematic. I understand giving credit to long-term contributors, but doing so on this basis seems to me a continuation of a position that is no longer viable, at least without a clearer analysis of how this applies. Mackan79 (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly qualified support, with reservations per Mackan79 and Relata refero. In general, yes, provocations should be taken into account. In the present case, however, I am concerned that the community's default assumptions about the timeline of reciprocal provocations are incorrect. Mackan's contribution to the evidence page is extremely important, and should be closely reviewed by everyone commenting on this proposal. Mantanmoreland was socking extensively on Wikipedia to pursue an outside agenda, violating core content and behavioral principles, and abusing community trust before Wordbomb even arrived here. If Samiharris is found to be yet another Mantanmoreland sock, this latest abuse should not be seen as a response to WB provocations, but rather as continuous with Mantan's established pattern of deception. Finally, I would add that given the dedicated shoot-on-sight admin-vigilance shown toward WB socks, suspected WB socks, and so-called "Bagley memes," and moreover the overall top-down support shown for Mantanmoreland as an editor and for a favorable Gary Weiss BLP, there really can be no conceivable excuse for Mantan to create yet another illicit sockpuppet.--G-Dett (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This seems fair, even a principal of natural law.Newbyguesses - Talk 13:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial support - the first sentence yes, the qualifier, no. There is no excuse for poor behaviour (particularly in admins, but this is a general point). If you can't act responsibly and/or rationally, step away from the computer until you can. Neıl ☎ 13:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is a restatement of a widespread legal concept used by judges to assess punishment after conviction: "Mitigating Factor - A fact or circumstance associated with a criminal act that, while not an excuse or justification, may reduce its severity and result in a lesser sentence.[7] We're not throwing people into the hoosegow here, but we're still dealing with people, not 'bots.Noroton (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Integrity of content

9) The English Wikipedia is now one of the ten most visited websites in the world and often the first search engine hit when researching a topic. The ongoing growth and visibility of the project makes it all the more important that article content adhere to the highest standards of reliability and integrity. This is especially essential where article content relates to living persons or to ongoing real-world financial or other controversies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the comments offered by Noroton et al. and will tweak the wording a bit if I use this in the proposed decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorse, obviously. Durova^Charge! 03:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Cool Hand Luke 19:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think this issue is only going to get larger as time goes on. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page-rank isn't relevant. We should adhere to the highest possible standards whether the Whole World Is Watching or not. — CharlotteWebb 04:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page rank is indeed relevant, it makes Wikipedia the most important place on the Internet for anyone who wants to pursue an agenda. This much is obvious to me from the increasing viciousness of disputes over the last year and a half. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Guy. I'd like to add that in my recent reading I notice that the NY Times post used/not used in the Gary Weiss article attempts to explain naked short selling - by telling its readers to read the Wikipedia article. That is almost ironic. We owe it to our readers to get things right, especially when it comes to financial issues. If we aren't getting things right, we shouldn't give the false impression of consensus that we are. Relata refero (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. People often misunderstand the purpose of NPOV tags, but alerting readers to disputes is one of the main reasons we have them. Cool Hand Luke 19:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. We don't use tags as content disclaimers in articles. The tags are maintenance tags to draw every potential editor's attention to the shortcoming. Every potential editor just happens to coincide with every reader, at least on unprotected articles. User:Dorftrottel 13:04, February 17, 2008

Support LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Perhaps a minor point: I disagree with the wording "to ongoing real-world financial or other controversies." I would de-emphasize "financial" by rewording it, "to ongoing real-world controversies, including financial ones." And I completely disagee with Relata's comment "especially when it comes to financial issues." There are certainly controversies less important than financial controversies, but it's also extremely important to remember that there are real-world controversies far more important than the financial ones. It's just too easy to come up with more important controversies involving politics, violence, war, terrorism, abuse of government power for me to let this pass. I suppose I'm objecting more to the way that NYBrad and Relata wrote their words than to a substantive disagreement, but the wording should be more exact to reflect where this conflict stands in the scheme of things. Noroton (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spend too much of my on-wiki time dealing with controversies of the sort you mean, and its actually this case that has made me wonder if my priorities were incorrect. I can't help wondering what is likely to have a more unpleasant RW effect, an absurdly OR-y version of history or a current political controversy, or a small, targeted article that might affect where a lot of people put their money. In the end, I don't suppose there's any clean answer, and its a matter of opinion. Relata refero (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and note that suppressing one side of a dispute as "harassment memes promoted by a banned user" and giving high-level protection to the other side is not the way to go about achieving such a balanced, objective presentation. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candor

10) When serious concerns regarding user conduct are raised, editors are expected to be truthful with the community and with the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to comments below, in drafting this set of principles, citing WP:AGF was going to be proposed principle #1. I omitted it partly because the section was getting too long, and partly because it's subsumed for purposes of this case in the proposal that abusive socking should not be presumed. Frankly, AGF could be cited in pretty much every decision the committee hands down. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorse with some concerns regarding the wording, which might be construed as legitimizing invasion of privacy as a method of inquiry. Yet when a user's voluntarily disclosed evidence reaches a threshold of credibility, it is fair to raise questions with an expectation of reply. Durova^Charge! 04:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important. Cool Hand Luke 07:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support SirFozzie (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It always surprizes me the level of self deception that folks go through. I truly think that many of the folks whose statements to the arbcom are simply not born out by the on wikifacts are mostly deluding themselves and do believe what they are saying. They are still wrong, but they believe they are on the side of righteousness. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an argument for "assuming good faith", which would be a helpful principle in this case (and in the majority of other ones). Omitting from the final draft as "too obvious" doesn't make it any less applicable, contrary to popular belief. — CharlotteWebb 04:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that is a good point. I also think that too many folks like to link to the guideline on assuming good faith without actually doing it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be upheld very strongly. Lying to get yourself or your friends out of trouble is a very bad thing. Not that people should assume others are lying, but people who are found to have lied need to get more than a minor handslap. -Amarkov moo! 21:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I should prefer to have "and required" added after "expected", so that potential sanction for failure is implicit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support strongly. The entire truth and nothing but the truth. Everyone of course assumes this at every turn and with everyone, which means that exploiting AGF is all the more serious a violation of our community's code of conduct. User:Dorftrottel 12:59, February 17, 2008

Support. All editors are expected to be truthful at all times. When a user has become involved with a problem or dispute, they should be reminded that truthfullness is even more required of them. Newbyguesses - Talk 13:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Proposed principles

Pseudonymity and conflict of interest

1) Editors who exploit Wikipedia's option of pseudonymous editing in order to circumvent the conflict of interest guideline do so at their own risk.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Without prejudice regarding the merits of this case, my volunteer work has often dealt with the tension between these two elements. The use of pseudonymity to skirt the conflict of interest guideline is inadvisable because the ultimate consequences of exposure outweigh the benefits of deception. Durova^Charge! 04:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer CharlotteWebb on the talk page. Durova^Charge! 22:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Pseudonymity v. COI is one of the great tensions in Wikipedia, and the arbitration should certainly include this caution. Cool Hand Luke 07:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hits the nail on the head. SirFozzie (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support. Well-worded. User:Dorftrottel 04:41, February 16, 2008

Yes. And try as folks might, many cannot overcome their conflicts of interest without substantial self policing (i.e. self impossed topic bans - such as for myself I stay away from US politics absolutely as much as possible). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur: Don't count on your anonymity. Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"At their own risk" is an interesting way to put it, as it is (perhaps deliberately) ambiguous as to whether such "circumventing" actually violates policy. Indeed the arbitration committee would be wise not to answer that question. But since policy reflects actual practice (rather than the converse), this principle could be clarified, without even pretending to interpret policy, by examining it from a practical standpoint: ...do so at their own risk [of what?]. — CharlotteWebb 14:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of having their contributions being viewed prejudiciously unrelated to the content - the "how many other lies have they told?" scenario. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Transparency is best. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must be missing the reason why violating COI could be a good thing in some circumstances, which is how I read the sentence. Noroton (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Some people put their own competing interests ahead of Wikipedia's interests. They think that's a good thing for themselves. And short term, that can have some benefits for them. It also runs the risk of blowing up in their faces. Durova^Charge! 01:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the way it's written because (a) the concern here should be one of principle (Editors SHOULD NOT use the fact that Wikipedia has pseudonymous editing to circumvent WP:COI.); (b) the sentence is worded as practical advice (Hey, there's a risk for you here.), and especially when we're involved with subjects close to business and finance, we should avoid use of the term "risk". In finance, just as in war, risk is something to be managed and calculated -- sometimes you take it, sometimes you don't. We don't want editors doing this regardless of risk. The prohibition is absolute, so the statement should reflect that. If we want to add, Hey, it could also blow up in your face, to suppliment the absolute statement, no harm in that. No one is forced into a dilemma between anonymity and COI: Anyone can create a separate sockpuppet account, announce their COI on that account, use only that account to post only to the talk pages with suggestions of what should be in the articles where the COI exists. No harm, no foul, no risk, no violating WP:COI. Unless I'm missing something.Noroton (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought all use of Wikipedia was at your own risk. It's not clear to me what this means but I don't like what it implies - "if the mob declares your editing to be a conflict of interest you're fair game for lynching". Anthony (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, other arbitration decisions regarding the disclosure of real world names, etc. place serious constraints on that. So does WP:AGF. The greater risk is of offsite consequences, as in the weeks of worldwide headlines that followed the WikiScanner last summer. What this proposed principle means is that this site and its volunteers don't assume responsibility for managing the risks that people create for themselves when they deliberately dodge our conflict of interest guideline. Pseudonymous editing doesn't generate a free pass to evade COI. Durova^Charge! 02:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Proposed Principles

The Five Pillars WP:FIVE

1) A number of core policies and guidelines WP:ENC, WP:NPOV, Free content, a code of conduct exists (WP:AGF, WP:NPA), and no fixed rules.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)--Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Articles are not 'fine'

1) Based on evidence from Relata Refero Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Relata_Refero, and Mackan79 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Mackan79, the articles at the center of this dispute show examples of tenditious editing, promotion of a particular point of view, and restriction of reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The evidence on this is fairly convincing, and this seems an important point to make since several users have repeatedly asked for evidence of disruptive or tendentious editing by the Mantan and Sami accounts.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is the crux of the matter. Relata refero (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid so, but I'm open to arguments outlining inhowfar this perception may be mistaken. User:Dorftrottel 13:51, February 16, 2008

Support Even if they are there has been no mechanism allowed to test them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of Mantanmorelands Opponents

2) Based on requests either instigated or supported by Mantanmoreland and or SamiHarris a number of editors have received administrative "abuse." Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)--Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same as directly above; but I'm open to alternative explanations, ideally one that takes into account the good-faithed (!) perception of this as shared by myself and, as I understand it, several others and outlined by Cla68. User:Dorftrottel 14:00, February 16, 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.

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Proposed Principles

Candor to ArbCom

1) When serious concerns regarding user conduct are raised, editors are expected to be forthright to the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I oppose any tacit approval of mocking the community's trust by actively lying for years. It's one thing to hold your tongue, but NYB's proposal correctly highlights "truthfulness," and does not create an expectation that users must immediately and fully disclose anything at all. I fail to see what's wrong with NYB's "don't lie about important stuff" proposal. Cool Hand Luke 19:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is revised version of NYB's #10 principle. Truthfulness to the community can be difficult while trying to remain pseudonymous in the face of a rash of inquiries from the entire Wikipedia community. OTOH, editors coming under scrutiny should not only be honest when dealing with arbcom, they should be going out of their way to inform arbcom of the facts of the matter in order to avoid wasting everyones time. John Vandenberg (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now.Comment(per FloNight below - I still cannot support this wording. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)) Firstly, I should wish to see "required" as part of the language (same as previously with NYB) and I feel that the duty is to the community generally, not just the ArbCom. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your concern. But sometimes the explanation can not be made publicly without revealing personal information that the community as a whole has no need to know. For example, in some cases the person knows the other user but not have their permission to reveal their identity. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As worded it appears that there is a "right" to be economical with the truth to the wider community, in a manner that concerns can be disregarded. I take your example, though, as being something which might be appropriately withheld from the larger community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is right. Users can withhold private information, certainly, but we should not tolerate active deception. AGF is built on an assumption that people will behave in good faith. Mantanmoreland has not. Cool Hand Luke 20:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppetry and Offwiki interaction

2) In the face of accusations of meatpuppetry, parties accused are expected to accurately inform Arbitration Committee privately of all offwiki interaction they have had with each other.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed John Vandenberg (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We met is a pizza bar in Detroit in the first four occasions, the conversation was stilted. It was not till after we started sleeping together, we discovered out joint love of wikipedia. However, I think it was just after our ninth date (to a cinema in Trenton, New Jersey) that we discussed our mutual fascination with Moldovian nationalism and revisionist history. Will that do, or do you want more accurate information?--Doc^g 21:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doc makes the point amusingly. What I think the ArbComm needs is an understanding of their relationship(s) and any common strong interests/conflicts of interests. But ArbComm knows better than any of us who aren't on ArbComm. GRBerry 22:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opppose as worded. Informing of "all offwiki interaction they have had with each other" is patently absurd as Doc implicitly points out. I understand the thinking behind this, but there are serious, serious problems with forcing volunteers on a web site to reveal information (even to a limited group of people) about their real-world interactions with other volunteers. This would need to be toned down considerably and I'm not sure it would be workable at all.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Proposed Principles

The use of alternate accounts to violate the principles of WP is an attack on Wikipedia

1) The abuse of alternate accounts is a personal attack on the integrity of every wikipedian. Use of socks is the action of someone who does not believe that the community should be allowed to use consensus to determine the content of articles, does not care that consensus is the fundamental tool for ensuring good article creation, and that certain viewpoints are to eradicated from the encyclopedia without recourse to any of the rules, policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Socking is the tool of an individual or group in contempt of the ethos and principles of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

ProposedLessHeard vanU (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An ingratiating and pleasant attitude is no defence

2) Taken from WP:NPA, comment on content and not contributor; it doesn't matter that one party is "nicer" than another, it is the negative or positive effect on the encyclopedia that matters.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Civility is overrated. User:Dorftrottel 20:01, February 19, 2008

Proposed findings of fact

Mantanmoreland is a puppetmaster

1) That Mantanmoreland has created and maintained alternative accounts for the purpose of promoting a viewpoint over a number of related articles, and to help remove alternate viewpoints in same in violation of WP:SOCK.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mantanmoreland has attempted previously to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry

2) That Mantanmoreland has previously retired abusive alternate accounts when discovered (and in one case warned) for the purposes only of being permitted to continue to edit articles, rather than acknowledgment of wrongdoing, and has then created further alternative accounts to continue the same abuse.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There should be a finding similar to this. In my view, one of the things weighing against Mantanmoreland is that he has never admitted to his behavior, let alone taken responsibility. Even now he has not apologized for his previous socking. In light of the convincing evidence that he's lied about his identity for years, I would at least hope for a half-hearted "sorry," but the user is entirely unrepentant. This is a cynical abuse of our AGF policy, and if the user is blocked, it should be partially for this reason. Cool Hand Luke 06:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Up until the last sentence is true now, the last sentence needs a finding of linkage to work, but in general, agreed. SirFozzie (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. User:Dorftrottel 20:09, February 19, 2008

Naked Short Selling, Gary Weiss, et al are hideously compromised

3) The result of both the editing by Mantanmoreland and various socks and the disallowing of certain parties or viewpoints to contribute to a group of related articles (and their frequently disruptive attempts to include such viewpoints) has resulted in content which may never be fully free of accusations of bias and unreliability. Whatever future edits that may be considered there is a likelihood of them being unfavourably compared to the position preferred by one or another past interest group.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 16 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.

Mantanmoreland be banned from editing Wikipedia

1) Mantanmoreland has cynically abused alternate accounts to maintain a viewpoint within a group of articles from possible amendment by community consensus, has set aside discovered puppets without showing remorse, has created and activated new accounts to continue their campaign, and has shown no indication of acting at all times in accordance with Wikipedia rules, policies and guidelines. This account should therefore be permanently banned from editing Wikipedia as being incorrigibly disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Too strongly worded. Believe me when I say that I understand your frustration with the situation. It was been a source of conflict for so long that the community is very weary of the dispute. But we do not require apologies or remorse, just for the user not to violate policies after we are certain that they understand the policy. Any significant violation after a warning will be the reason for sanctions. Maybe you can reworded it with less inflammatory language. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I commented in my summary that I was being deliberately harsh to allow the full range of possible responses, to find what the level of language might be most appropriate. If everyone is too careful (a comment made previously about my tone) then the firmness of the decision may be diluted by the politeness of the language.

On the other point I am of the opinion that Mantanmoreland does fully understand the policy, has understood the policy, and has cynically disregarded the policy. It isn't frustration you are hearing - I have no input or opinion on the articles - but anger. I fully understand that it is inappropriate tone for the arbcom to consider using but it is there for adaption by more temperate opinions. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose On grounds of the language used: The ArbCom decision wording should be dispassionate. It should tamp down emotions, not enflame them. Calm language reminds readers on both sides and on no side that the committee considered the case carefully and was striving to be fair. That way side that loses will find it easier to accept and the side that wins will have fewer chest-beating and crowing opportunities. Perhaps more important, this kind of language would diminish the reputation of ArbCom itself. (I have no opinion on what should be done to Mantanmoreland if the decision is against him.) Noroton (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support on principle that "If everyone is too careful then the firmness of the decision may be diluted by the politeness of the language." — That said, the proposal is of course (and deliberately) too strongly worded. User:Dorftrottel 12:46, February 17, 2008

Naked Short Selling, Gary Weiss et al are deleted and salted

2) This long term disputed area of Wikipedia requires cauterisation, being the focus of much ill feeling and having the potential of a great number of BLP concerns. The nominal notability of the articles is not so great as to have them remain as a battleground fought both on and off WP.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Content decision. Per custom ArbCom does not make content decisions and doubt that we will change this practice in this case. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Jaw drops. In the first place, these topics probably do deserve articles. I can see requiring that they be rewritten from scratch free from COI, or even permanently protecting them, as someone has suggested. However, this is not a proportional response. Cool Hand Luke 06:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I do think that the articles in question would be best served by a group of neutral editors tearing it down and starting from scratch, but that's article content, probably not going to be considered in this case. SirFozzie (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the same reasons I gave in the "Mantanmoreland be banned" proposal just above. Noroton (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as "fixing" the problem by making it worse. Mangoe (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; cutting off the nose to spite the face. What's needed is NPOV treatments of these subjects in accordance with our policies, not suppressing the entire subject matter. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think deletion is a valid course of action, but Naked short selling appears to be a notable concept and a new article could be created at that title. —Random832 00:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a content decision, but uncertain I don't see this as a content decision. I see it as a decision to eliminate a battlefield. If this is justified, it is because there is reason to believe the articles will continue to be a battleground such that the value of having an article is exceeded by the costs of the battle. Is there reason to believe it? I'm not sure - there is a risk that those who edit with any POV will be accused of being sockpuppets of WorldBomb or Mantanmoreland (depending on what POV their edits seem to display), and we've had past problems with inappropriate accusations based on edits to these articles. So I come down to thinking maybe. But if it is adopted, it either needs a time limit or a time limit then putting the unsalting decision into DRV's hands. I think this is more likely to become a remedy if behavior following this case leads to RFAR/Naked Short Selling, etc. GRBerry 05:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have the essence of my point - it isn't the content but the fact of the articles existence that may still be the cause of future disruption. Neither NPOV or AllPOV may ever satisfy either faction; thus the potential for disruption remains. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Content decision definitely outside arbitration scope. User:Dorftrottel 12:48, February 17, 2008

Support. The arbcom. are entitled to make any decision which is in the best interests of en.wikipedia. Hosting these contentious, yet barely significant group of articles is not in the best interests of en.Wikipedia. Newbyguesses - Talk 13:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oppose Aside from the fact that this content based, this is a very bad idea. If we've had serious problems with a specific set of articles we don't just delete them and keep them deleted. We improve them. To do this would go against most of what this project stands for. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Checkuser findings

1) Checkuser, a tool which permits certain appointed users to view the IP addresses of users in circumstances allowed by the checkuser policy, cannot disprove sockpuppetry. This is in part due to the existence of proxy servers (including open proxies and Tor). Rather, it can only comment on the technical likelihood of two accounts being operated by the same person ("Checkuser cannot prove innocence, it can only provide strong indications of guilt"). In all situations, behavioural evidence—including contribution histories and patterns as well as similarities or differences in online mannerisms—should be considered in tandem with the technical evidence when determining whether accounts are to be considered sockpuppets, and also when determining what enforcement action should be taken.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree; common sense. Durova^Charge! 05:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sums it all up nicely SirFozzie (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Daniel (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Mackensen (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense per Durova. User:Dorftrottel 12:50, February 17, 2008

Support.--G-Dett (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very much so. Further, I almost wish people wouldn't say "confirmed" in findings, but just say "extremely likely"... obvious cases sometimes aren't actually what they seem. (but we realise that "confirmed" really means "the evidence seems pretty overwhelming"...) ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicions of sockpuppetry

2) Prior to making public suspicions of sockpuppetry, users are asked to evaluate the likelihood of the community response to be dramatic and hence cause drama. In particular, public announcements of suspicions of sockpuppetry involving controversial users and established users, including administrators, often cause unneeded dramatics which disrupt the building of the encyclopedia.

When a user reasonably suspects that a user, where the above would apply, is involved in sockpuppetry, the Arbitration Committee asks that said suspicions (and evidence) be kept private and referred to the Committee's private mailing list, either using email or via a Committee member, for consideration. The evidence presented, combined with evidence collected by the Committee itself (including checkuser results), will be analysed and a consensus decision of the Arbitration Committee reached on the issue in due course. The Committee, during this period, will consider instigating discussion with those accused if they feel it will benefit producing the correct final outcome.

Administrators are reminded not to take preemptive action (specifically blocks) based on evidence which is covered by this principle, as it moots the minimizing public drama justification (see also 'Responsibility'). Should the Committee reach the conclusion that the sockpuppetry policy has been breached, enforcement (including blocking and formal probation) will be executed by a designated representative on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, most likely a Committee member.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

For future use? Sure. For this case? Considering the CheckUser in question told us to take it to AN/ANI... Oppose. SirFozzie (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The intention of this principle is, in a similar situation, a public RfCU would never have been filed; rather, the case would have been referred to the Arbitration Committee for evaluation. Daniel (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, the sockpuppeteering/COI probably would not have been discovered if we had followed this proposal. It took community collaboration to come up with the evidence we now have. Several admins, including Jimbo, tried and failed to uncover the connections we've found here. Indeed, Mantanmoreland appears to have been on the minds of plenty of private mailing list users. Collaboration is the wiki way. Cool Hand Luke 10:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Daniel (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not keen on the RFCU becoming public at the time, I felt the private investigation should have run its course. I may have been wrong on that, (it certainly seems that way now) as CHL points out... going public may have been the impetus to get forward motion on this, especially since the CU was not going to be able to establish matters due to proxy use, and since individual CUs do not typically have the time/resources to carry out the exhaustive analysis done by SF, CHL, and many others... so perhaps this is not a good idea, although some discretion, and thought to minimising dramah, certainly is advisable. ++Lar: t/c 15:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the particular circumstances of this case, it is clear that the checkuser tool as such was incapable of providing any closure to the question, no matter how long we kept it under our hats. Thatcher 17:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

[To come]

1)

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.

[To come]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Arbitrators' relationship with Mantanmoreland and Samiharris

1) There are active arbitrators that participated (or are participating) in a private list called wpcyperstalking. Mantanmoreland and Samiharris have also participated. This list is described as "a support group and sounding board for victims."[8] Considering the described support group nature of this list, arbitrators that are (or were) members of wpcyberstalking should recuse, to at minimum give the appearance of impartiality.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree with LVHU below. As I said in response to Cla68's similar proposal, we should trust the committee on this. If we can't trust the majority of them, there's no point in pressing this issue anyway. Cool Hand Luke 23:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. I've never done this before, so I don't know if it can be called a "finding of fact" but I ask that it be despite any bureaucratic mistake I have made. I especially ask the arbitrators that participated in this support group if they believe that they can be objective in this case and be a support group for Mantan and Sami. If they can, I commend them, but I also wonder where they acquired their super human powers.  :-)daveh4h 18:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this would actually go under the requests, motions, questions stuff at the top, I think. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree. Participation in the list is not reason to recuse unless we are not assuming good faith that they know when they are unable to be impartial or open to the evidence. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (per detail given by Daveh4h - I have little knowledge of the grouping) If Mantanmoreland/Samiharris are not the (only) supported victims then the other parties are co-participants. If the percentage of active Arbs in this grouping is low then we can trust that the internal workings of the committee will compensate for any bias, and if the percentage is high... well, then there is the potential for the claim of bias one way or another depending on whether Arbs recuse or not. Might as well go with the status quo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm largely indifferent on this, but inclined to oppose the proposal as indiscriminate. User:Dorftrottel 01:33, February 18, 2008

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:

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:

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:

QUESTION TO THE ARBITRATORS: Considerable work has gone into presenting evidence in this case. Some participants here, and some people elsewhere have objected to the nature of that evidence. Even more evidence has come in, perhaps as a result. We are now at a point where even more evidence could be researched, something that could involve considerable time on the part of several hardworking Wikipedians who also have other things to do in their lives. At this stage it would be useful to the participants if arbitrators could suggest whether there is enough evidence to make a decision, whether more evidence would help you, and if so, what kind of evidence would be especially welcome. Cool Hand Luke has offered on the talk page to do more of the difficult, time-consuming statistical research. Alanyst has provided some quite a lot and for all I know, might be persuaded to provide more. Would they be wasting their time? After all this effort, inquiring minds want to know. Noroton (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a question that breaks down into parts, depending on the scope. There may be sufficient evidence for proposed finding A but not yet sufficient evidence for proposed findings B and C. Still, hearing from ArbCom that "we have enough on A and C" might be very helpful. (this question may need refactoring, not sure where it belongs, probably on some talk?) ++Lar: t/c 12:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't want to refactor the question because I want to leave it open-ended, for arbitrators to respond to in any way they want, if they want. I don't want to shape the discussion for the arbs any more than I want spend time hunting for more evidence the arbs may not need, and for the same reason -- it's a waste of time. I submitted this question under "General discussion" and it has since been put under its own heading; given the instructions at the top of this Workshop page it seemed an appropriate place to put it, but I really don't care if an arbitrator or clerk decides to move it to a talk page or elsewhere. I just wanted to make sure arbitrators read it. I mention CHL and Alanyst, by the way, because I might piggyback on their valuable work for my much-less-valuable-if-useful-at-all look into the first words of edit summaries. Having said all this, I realize the verbiage in this case is the size of a thick novel (or a dense, heavy textbook), so I think we outsiders should be patient. By the same token, it would be disturbing if the ArbCom decision indicates that not enough evidence was presented when the offer to provide more evidence is, ah, staring at them right at the bottom of the Workshop page. My comments are entirely my own, by the way, and I speak for no one else, although CHL makes a somewhat similar the same point on the Evidence talk page. Noroton (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the question needs to be broken into parts (how would we know what parts to break it into), I just think the answer does. That is, "we need more evidence over here and here, but on this other matter we're OK" is a more useful answer than "we need more evidence". That's all. 19:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC) ++Lar: t/c

Precisely. Cool Hand Luke 20:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully call upon the arbitrators to rule at earliest convenience if it be the case that, given the long hours of work already put in, that the evidence is overwhelming against MM/SH, and that therefore no user need expend more energy on exhaustive examination of diffs and timing and writing style, etc. Can we stop short of statistically correlating every one, please, of 77 million or so edits made last year? Given the weight of evidence already presented, surely every reasonable level of proof has been obtained, and those left unconvinced are simply those who will refuse to be convinced no matter what. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION TO THE ARBITRATORS: Considering this from my evidence and Squeakbox's offer here, is it in order to request the arbitrators to consider and advise presently, or at their convenience, whether the 600 emails are now "dead letters", and we can stop wasting any further of our time discussing them? Newbyguesses - Talk 00:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]