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:

Generalized vagueness is not sought. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

There is a clear focus at arbitration, on matters affecting the editorial process and article content in future, which need attending to. There are certain past and offsite issues raised that probably do not. There are a few wider issues that may be considered. And if it happens that the Committee decides to review the effects of these, and finds they have led to other non-hypothetical and damaging present-day on-wiki issues, then it would be worth knowing it. In brief, there is a focus here; it extends beyond the simple question "is there a sock relationship", but topics are less likely to be significant in a dispute resolution sense the further outside that focus they fall. In other words, we'll see how we feel on it when the evidence is assessed, and come to an internal consensus. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Oppose, but doubt much else will be fruitful to discuss I've been mulling this over at least since it became clear that my suggestion to delay or decline the case was going nowhere. That recommendation included in its reasons for declining that AGF essentially dictates the conclusion with regard to those who protected Mantanmoreland and his favorite articles from scrutiny - unless someone provides clear evidence that they actually knew Mantanmoreland was abusing Wikipedia. My currently preferred wording for the effect of the behavior of the administrators that were protecting Mantanmoreland is that they were enablers. Enablers are often unaware of the consequences of their behavior and may even be harmed by it themselves. My intended connotation is that they have indeed been harmed themselves, both directly in harms to their reputations and indirectly in the general harm to the encyclopedia. So I consider their behavior within scope, but unfruitful to discuss unless someone has found a smoking gun indicating that they were knowingly protecting an abuser. GRBerry 06:04, 21 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]

I for one would not object to evidence from whatever person it may come, or whatever view it may support, provided it is relevant, and factual, and intended to further dispute resolution rather than perpetuate a squabble that is ultimately no concern of this community's. The standard advice to anyone who has previously been blocked or banned anmd who finds themselves wishing to submit evidence, is to submit it by email, and it will be posted on their behalf by a committee member or clerk. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is free to submit evidence to the Committee by email, via arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org, at any time. --bainer (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

That is absurdly unnecessary, because each and every element of his corporate smear campaign, financed by and undertaken on behalf of Overstock.com, has been repeated in this arbitration, making a mockery of both NPA and BLP. Since his boss Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com, has posted in this arbitration as User:PatrickByrne, and allowed to post a link that is contrary to EL, NPA and BLP, this unblock request is more and more resembling a sick joke.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

On second thought, mailing is perfectly fine. No potential gain from letting him edit these pages. And if there is, the ArbCom can determine it on viewing any evidence he mails to them. User:Dorftrottel 04:53, February 20, 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]

Support May as well get the claims from the source, it's not as though he can really do much damage as everybody will be monitoring. Whitstable 00:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Regardless of whether or not he was right, his behavior was unacceptable. There may be some who argue that the ends justify the means; I am not one of them. Thatcher 06:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Cmt "The people who have previously been acting as this banned user's amanuensis are certainly capable of continuing to do so." — Is that an arbitrator saying that?? User:Dorftrottel 06:47, February 20, 2008

note wikt:amanuensis, Amanuensis. —Random832 14:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment -Mantanmoreland 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. And Mantanmoreland is posting free as a breeze to this arbcom. (Thanks Guy, except for the intemperate tone which I resile somewhat from, you are sometimes quite perspicacious.) Newbyguesses - Talk 10:31, 21 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:

Any evidence should be that. Special emphasis here would set a barrier to what is often the most reliable evidence (used properly and with scrutiny), as it is a very individual measure what is "sound" or "reasonably conclusive". The theory's fine, but I think the wording's going to be problematic. A different approach might help to capture the sentiment you're after? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

WP:DUCK is not policy

1) The essay WP:DUCK is not policy. The essay does not represent a consensus on the standards to use to establish sockpuppetry in cases of suspected sockpuppet abuse.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It's not only not policy, but it is a phony issue here. My edit history is completely unlike Samiharris', and he and I have both engaged in controversial articles in entirely separate areas of the encyclopedia. Instead, the witch hunters scratch around for "evidence" based on a fevered hunt for similarities in commas and spaces between dashes. But even that falls flat because Piperdown has the same characteristics. The only thing that "walks like a duck" is the sheer hate emanating from some of the editors involved in this.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comment shows quite clearly that you are claiming flaws in the evidence simply because that is the only rhetorical strategy available, not because you bothered to look at the evidence. Had you read the Methodology you wouldn't have made such a blatantly false claim. The Piperdown similarity comes from a method that "remove[s] all non-alphabetic and non-whitespace sequences (punctuation, digits, symbols)". That particular methodology does have its flaws, as I've posted below, but you demonstrate that you haven't identified flaws in the evidence. You aren't convincing anyone. GRBerry 03:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this arbitration case is not to "convince" the witch hunters to put down their nooses, but to submit evidence to ArbCom. Piperdown clearly is listed as among the top four results out of thousands and thousands of users even after removing "Overstock related" terminology[1]. That's not a "blatantly false claim," and stop misrepresenting the facts. I wonder if you even looked at those numbers. If you were engaging in a serious quest for the truth and not trying to burn me at the stake you would acknowledge that those numbers are meaningless and move on.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a blatantly false claim. You claimed "similarities in commas and spaces between dashes. But even that falls flat because Piperdown has the same characteristics." That claim is blatantly false because the methodology for the Piperdown comparison explicitly removed punctuation, which is what "commas and spaces between dashes" are. If all you are going to do is lie to the committee, you are better off keeping silent. The committee has in past cases taken a very dim view of editors that lied to it, and the rest of us are realizing that you are just wasting our time. GRBerry 14:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I had confused one meaningless "dazzle 'em with charts and numbers" for anther. Thanks for pointing that out. I stand corrected that the "statistics" deal not with spaces and dashes but with substantive stuff (words) and Piperdown still comes out way up there with me and Samiharris, out of 3629 editors examined. That makes the whole exercise even more ludicrous than I had thought.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, to see whether folks agree. Avruch ^T 22:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The essay is not marked as policy. I note that it doesn't even describe meaningful standards - all it says is "When facing an entire [[WP:SOCK|flock]] of ducks, it might be best just to use the [[WP:BLOCK|blunderbuss.]]" It gives no guidance and describes no standards for evaluating whether a flock of ducks is present. Having reviewed WP:SOCK and WP:SSP, I see no links to any documented standards. Since we do, in fact, regularly block sockpuppets on behavioral evidence, and such blocks are rarely even challenged, it is clear to me that there is a policy (in the sense that actually followed practices are policy unless they conflict with foundation imposed policies). The effective currently enforced policy appears to be "if at least one admin is convinced enough to block, then sockpuppetry is considered proven until such time as another admin can be bothered to both review and challenge the block. At that point discussion should occur, and the burden of evidence is on those arguing that sockpuppetry doesn't exist." That effectively is the duck test as currently documented - If that is in fact our unwritten policy, as soon as an admin says "I'm ready to block", sockpuppetry is proven. In this case, that point was reached days ago when he the thread discussing a community ban opened. GRBerry 22:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman, closed a week ago, does give us three data points the ArbComm has already decide on for what constitutes evidence of sockpuppetry, as well as how blocks are to be reviewed after the fact.

1. "Evidence that a user is familiar with Wikipedia editing conventions (such as the use of Wikitext markup, edit summaries, and core policies) is, by itself, insufficient basis to treat the user as a sock puppet."
2. "Since administrators are strongly discouraged from reversing one another's blocks" ...
3. "Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of unblock requests are wholly without merit, those who choose to review them are expected to carry out an impartial, evidence-based review."

Not very detailed guidance, but that is the best I know of. GRBerry 02:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'll try to provide a little bit more guidance in this decision, if we can. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Mantanmoreland of 14:56, 22 February 2008. Can you explain why in context this evidence is no good, then, considering that if it was "ludicrous" we would see more hits than you, Samiharris, and Piperdown? If it were absurd evidence, why aren't more users showing up there? Taken in context with your proven history of puppetry this is a tough pill to swallow. Lawrence § t/e 16:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY TO MANTANMORELAND:-

This statement, which was entered into evidence by Durova at 21:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC) , and your deceitful response there (to the accusation), is damning of your credibility, or lack thereof.[reply]

Mantanmoreland denies that he was ever even warned for sockpuppetry before this case, despite an unambiguous checkuser result and warning from Fred Bauder regarding the Lastexit account. Failure to acknowledge or address this directly does considerable damage to Mantanmoreland's credibility.

I believe it only a natural human reaction to detest bullies and liars. The overwhelming preponderence of evidence presented to this arbcom, including your weaselly contributions, the blatant agenda-pushing of your edits as Mantammoreland/SamiHarris/Tomstoner/Lastexit and so forth, together with the combative and abusive tone of your interactions with editors with whom you are in, apparently, a real life conflict, as well as those neutral editors, seeking to resolve this matter fairly, indicates beyond reasonable doubt that you, sir, are both a liar and a bully. Stop your act, it is psychopathic (leads to injury for all concerned).

I believe this to be an accurate and fair statement, and more than amply supported by the massive evidence of sock-puppetry and other duplicity that has been presented to arbcom. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. This is an excellent example of the kind of violent, hysterical personal attacks to which I have been subjected in this corporate-sponsored witch hunt. BLP and EL and CIVIL are notable in this case for being totally disregarded in the evidence and workshop pages. This is really a disgrace.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This needs clarification: I made that statement as a comment here at the workshop, not as formal evidence. Newbyguesses, would you be willing to tone down the part about bullies and liars? It doesn't help to turn up the heat. If there's a rational explanation for this situation then I want to maximize our chances of getting it, and if none is forthcoming then I wouldn't want to leave this proceeding vulnerable to criticism about its fairness. Durova^Charge! 00:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's unfair, so much so that I'm not sure I wish to participate in this anymore. I've been subjected to violent personal attacks and abuse and the offenders, sometimes administrators, have received not so much as a warning. This is a joke.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, enough already. Are you Gary Weiss? Did or did not Fred Bauder warn you off of sockpuppetry? Are you Samiharris? Give us a straight answer so we can stop wasting our time. Lawrence § t/e 00:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No (Weiss) yes (Bauder) no (Sami). If you want to stop wasting your time, then don't waste your time.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing sockpuppetry in absence of checkuser evidence

1) In the absence of checkuser confirmation, evidence that convinces a consensus of established editors and administrators that sockpuppetry has occurred is a sufficient basis for administrator action.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, to see whether folks agree. Avruch ^T 22:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current effective policy is that "evidence that convinces at least one administrator that sockpuppetry has occurred is a sufficient basis for administrator action" The key difference is that no consensus appears to be needed in current policy; any admin can act based on their judgment. My sense is that 75% or more of blocks get no significant review or discussion; the block log shows several hundred blocks done every day, but I don't know what fraction involve sockpuppetry. GRBerry 22:51, 20 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]

Analysis by Cool Hand Luke and Alanyst

2) Analytical evidence presented by users in this case establishes a plausible link between users Mantanmoreland and Samiharris.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by Parties

No "analytical evidence" has been presented. If it was evidence, Piperdown and I would be socks. And yes, re below, I appreciate your constant references to "strands in the rope" with the noose dangling below. You've made that point before, and your repeated use of homicidal imagery is noted.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact you're quite mistaken. The reference is not to a noose, which wasn't in my mind (but is now - cheery image... thanks) but to a statement made in a legal case I was researching a couple of years back, where the prosecutor stated that evidence must be examined individually, then taken together... one piece alone rarely provides a smoking gun either way, but many pieces together act like strands in a rope, the fact that many pieces of evidence independently point to the same or a similar conclusion renders the conclusion more likely. No one piece of evidence has the gravitas to support a conclusion, but many topgether, may do so.

You will also note that this is a case where the wikipedia policy of asssuming good faith would have been appropriate. The imagery has been merely your (mis) assumption. I am glad to correct it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. Piperdown and you got into edit conflicts all of the time, and he edits at different times of day. Yes, he's second in one particular study, but you and Samiharris are among the best match on every study. Many strands make a rope and so forth. Cool Hand Luke 03:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know it was a homicidal image. I don't think it is; I thought it was a good metaphor. In the future, I'll substitute with "many sticks make a bundle," or something similar. (Of course, that metaphor probably implies I'm trying to beat you or burn you at the stake—at least to metaphor witch hunters like yourself.) Cool Hand Luke 03:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Piperdown and I got into edit conflicts and there are similar major dissimilarities between myself and Sami in the subject matter of our edits. They are being ignored, which is what makes this a withc hunt.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please post evidence of these major dissimilarities, preferably without ignoring the evidence here (Varkala: your still-unacknowledged COI), here (Nov 2007 joint decline), here (joint action/POV), here (no collisions), here (very similar—top 1%—editing patterns, and no collisions), here (sock themes), here (same writing traits), and here (the circumstances of Samiharris' departure). Many sticks, and you're the one asking us to ignore the forest.

(Note: this section contains no homicidal allusions that I'm aware of.) Cool Hand Luke 04:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a forest. This is meaningless statistics added to warmed-over antisocialmedia.net. User:PatrickByrne is here to give an official stamp to your witch hunt. Why not let him present the case?--Mantanmoreland (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't his case. It's a good faith concern from many members of this community. Neither of you should be editing these articles, and they've been a battleground long enough. Cool Hand Luke 05:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This case is very much Byrne's case. The original checkuser was commenced by Judd Bagley[2], acting on behalf of Byrne. Bagley has been pushing this case enthusiastically from off-wiki. Byrne's participation in this arbitration makes official what has been obvious for a long time. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 05:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is evidence invalidated based on who supports it? The impetus is on you to prove all these people gathering evidence wrong, or else the community may end up taking action irregardless of the AC and/or your supporters here. Lawrence § t/e 05:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "impetus" is on the witch hunters to prove that their necktie party is justified. Since the contribution histories of both myself and Sami have been conveniently ignored, and the witch hunters have found "proof" in trends that show the opposite of socking, such as not editing in cahoots with each other, there is scant to respond to.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I would like to be able to agree with you, I can't based on the preponderance of evidence, and based on your proven history of abusive puppetry. Add in the fact that the editing histories also align on subject matter between you, Sami, the known puppets, etc. with Weiss's known interests and travels (the India connection, DTCC IP addresses/possible COI) it's becoming an insurmountable tangle. I'm simply saying you need to present evidence and a defense beyond shaking your fist at Bagley and Byrne. Lawrence § t/e 13:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Things have reached a threshold where it no longer convinces to see an argument based either solely or primarily upon so-and-so pursued the same line by unethical means. Wikipedia's function is to be neutral in disputes. After legitimate evidence reaches a critical mass, it must be called plausible unless direct on-point rebuttal demonstrates otherwise. What we see instead verges on the ad hominem fallacy, and is supplied in place of material that might provide substantial refutation. For example, please show us where the Mantanmoreland and Samiharris accounts exhibit different editing philosophies. Be specific and express it with diffs, not handwaving assertions and links to disputes where one account was active and the other one wasn't. And explain, please, why the two accounts appear to have colluded to circumvent normal consensus input at several articles last summer. I am very open to persuasion. By the close of this case, inevitably, I will have to apologize to somebody. The only question is who. If you provide the appropriate basis I will deliver that apology to you publicly. Durova^Charge! 08:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another point comes to mind: Mantanmoreland denies that he was ever even warned for sockpuppetry before this case, despite an unambiguous checkuser result and warning from Fred Bauder regarding the Lastexit account. Failure to acknowledge or address this directly does considerable damage to Mantanmoreland's credibility. It casts a shadow over the Tomstoner questions and over the Samiharris situation. In each instance, when confronted with evidence presented in a credible and reasonable manner, the putative sock account retires and Mantanmoreland stonewalls. That doesn't wash; this is exactly the sort of gap that makes the sock research plausible. Durova^Charge! 21:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. In context I meant that I was never warned over editing behavior (warring, 3RR and such) not that ancient history to which you refer. Please don't make a mountain out of an anthill.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then please answer the questions: did you operate the Lastexit account and/or the Tomstoner account? If not, then please offer a plausible explanation. This arbitration case is about possible sockpuppetry. A checkuser-confirmed past instance of socking has direct relevance. That much ought to be obvious, and ought to have been addressed in your own evidence long before now. Durova^Charge! 21:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

Proposed. A plausible link in this case is I think as far as I would go. I realize I'm in the minority in my skepticism of some of the evidence proposed so far - I think Alanyst's evidence is much stronger than Cool Hand Lukes, at least insofar as it analyzes behavior by a much larger data set. I still believe that the results could easily be influenced by (a) the subject matter of the pages they edit which overlap (b) the tone and linguistic "environment" (i.e., what others say and how they say it) of these same pages. It is plausible as well, in my mind, that if these two editors began editing in a similar area and didn't have an established "voice" on Wikipedia, their terminology in edit summaries and in describing editing actions could be mimicking observed behavior of others. Avruch ^T 22:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More or less agree "plausible link" or "possible link" are reasonable terms at this point. Alanyst has done good work, and when I have time, I'll comment on his sandbox page. Avruch's point a) could probably be adjusted for, but point b)could be a possible explanation that we might never be able to examine. I think the best we can say of the work before Alanysts is that it is "vaguely suggestive." Smallbones (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we differ on how strong it is, but I think we both agree it is circumstantial (up till the time flip trip to india, etcetera). SirFozzie (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Durova's excellent comment above. User:Dorftroffel 13:35, February 22, 2008

Proposed remedies

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

Mantanmoreland and Samiharris restricted to one account

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

The question of remedies will very greatly depend on what's found or concluded when the findings of fact are agreed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Tending to agree. With regard to Samiharris, we often do not provide a remedy for an absentee user. But we do allow that if they reappear (or recommence via a new account) the case can rapidly be opened again for an extension of remedy against the new, now-active user, which is far simpler than a full new case, or else dealt with by the community by opening a section at ANI upon reappearance. See for example Wikipedia:Arbitration guide#Types of request. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:47, 20 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]

Availablility of logs and history data in tabular or XML format would help. But the question asks for "standard tools" and the problem is, there may be none. But if some user develops them, then see what happens. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:10, 20 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 [3] 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]

My own disclosure on this case can be found here. At this time, I haven't looked into COI issues and implied neutrality of Morven, and I am unaware whether others have done so, except to the extent they have discussed it.

On a side, the comments below to the effect "FT2's opinion matches the community consensus but Morven's doesn't" is deeply flawed. Arbitration requires an ability to look at the evidence neutrally and without fixed preconceptions. It would not matter in fact, whether the preconception matched the community's view, or differed from it. A fixed bias would be a problem of whichever kind. Users should not give one person more or less leeway than another for such reasons. The standard to apply is roughly, that an arbitrator would usually decide to recuse if there are issues which would prevent them assessing and deciding the case neutrally, or if the perception is such that it will be hard for a reasonable uninvolved/impartial person to believe they can truly consider the evidence neutrally. That is a decision they are usually expected to make for themselves, since it is based on their own inner view amongst other things. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:17, 20 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" [4], 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]

Dec 2007 disclosure on that, too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:52, 20 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:

If this were relevant, a more likely finding would be that <list of major contributors> and a number of other users edited the articles in breach of WP:BLP. In a lot of cases there were actions by users that we don't wish to minimize, exclude, or endorse, but equally, the case did not revolve around them and should not become a coat-rack to drag in every editor who contributed to the problem spiralling. See for example this finding of fact in last month's IRC case, where although edit warring is a breach of policy, there was no need to itemize every editor who enabled it. (General comment on standard wording approaches; the case evidence is still being done). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Agree with the coatrack argument. Durova^Charge! 03:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on evidence here [5]. 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]

If it can be demonstrated that those users' involvement has worsened and/or prolonged the issues surrounding those articles, they should be named as parties. User:Dorftroffel 08:33, February 20, 2008

Then again, deliberate attempts to compromise WP would have to be proven. I don't see this here. User:Dorftroffel 21:36, February 20, 2008

[striking my comments. FT2's coatrack argument is valid. User:Dorftroffel 23:27, February 21, 2008]

If this is taken up as regarding article edits, then most of the above haven't edited the articles as far as I know of (I can't think of having done so myself, but I haven't reviewed my or the articles edit history completely... to be 100% sure). It's hard to BLP violate in talk space. NPA ... maybe, but the "victims" have left the building. If we're bringing down the general level of polite discourse then we have a potential problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not so hard, you've done it on the talkpage associated with this workshop. Relata refero (talk) 05:09, 22 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:

As stated way above, we look forward, and whilst some matters in the evidence are current and recent, some of the issues this relates to date from 2006 and almost a year ago in April 2007. They may support a view on the edit history of the article, but we are unlikely to reopen cases that old if the community at the time did not do so. That's not related to this case and should not be taken to minimize or condone any improper action; rather our communal aim here is roughly to aim for a means of final dispute resolution (from a Wiki perspective at least) going forward. That may at times involve reopening or considering some past matters... or not. It depends. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on evidence presented here [6]. 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]

I'll be submitting some comments at talk that may be relevant to this. Durova^Charge! 03:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on FT2's statement: I think that there is a very very strong consensus here and at the RfC that the effect that this has had on the community is to poison the atmosphere a great deal. Unless some form of closure is granted, the Committee is not doing its job, which is resolving the disputes. Previously uninvolved editors are spending time here hoping for closure, and I'd like to think that the Committee will not fall back on "the community did not re-open the issues at the time". Even if they weren't at the time, it is clear that that was a grave and grievous error, and the community's certainly re-opened them now. Relata refero (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Yes, I used oversight on an article that is apparently now involved in an arbitration case a year and a half later. You'll have to excuse me for removing an egregious piece of vandalism posted there by a troll which potentially endangered one of our editors. I guess that pretty self-evidently makes me, the oversighter who responded to the request, "helping Mantanmoreland and Samiharris in protecting the Gary Weiss article from containing any information, no matter how well cited from reliable sources, that might not reflect positively on the article's subject." That's not just a monumental assumption of good faith, it's an outright lie. Next time I am subject to a paranoid trollish accusation in a case that I have nothing to do with, you could at least do me the courtesy of letting me know on my talk page. I can say that usually when an arbitrator asks me for help regarding CheckUser in a case, as I'm looking over the evidence page I don't expect to find myself accused of violating Foundation policy based on speculation. What an insult to my work here. Dmcdevit·t 05:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down and read the evidence. You're not directly accused of any of that, and if you feel the wording improperly implies you are, ask politely for it to be changed, assuming good faith of the other contributor.

And using words like trollish and paranoid is part of the problem, OK? Relata refero (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And for your information, the way that normal human beings respond to evidence at an ARbCom they believe misleading is to present evidence that it is mistaken, by creating an evidence section on the /Evidence page. IF you have a denial to make, make it there. And believe me, everyone who's ever been mentioned at an ArbCom thinks its irritating. And it is an "insult" to anybody's work here. Try and behave like the common herd, please. Relata refero (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're giving advice on Arbitration to a former Arbitrator? Thatcher 13:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a pity he appears to need it. Perhaps he is unaccustomed to being mentioned in one? Relata refero (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can you tell me to read the evidence and then say that I'm not directly accused of anything. This very proposal says that I "improperly used admin tools to affect content." I don't see how your comments are helping; this proposal is paranoid and insulting, and you think it is more important to tell me not to use such words, for some reason, than to condemn it. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for it, but let me point out that the exact proposed finding is: you improperly used your sysop bit to affect article content. You certainly used your sysop bit to affect article content; if you believe that use was proper, two lines on the evidence page would have sufficed. The evidence page certainly documents improper use by several admins; you deleted a couple of revisions, and we are not to know what was in them without your statement about it. If you were as interested in assuming good faith as in having it assumed of you, you would have made your position clear on the evidence page, and waited for this proposal to be altered by the proposer. Or you would have discussed it with the proposer on his talkpage, as some other editors have done.

And it is pretty appropriate to tell you not to use the words. I think you know as well as I do that they were a little more intemperate than necessary. And I'm not going to "condemn" every proposed FoF I disagree with, especially when on this occasion all I knew was that I didn't know what you did. Now I do, and if what you were removing was an unsourced edit linking MM to a RWI, then I'm sure the proposer of this FoF will alter it. Relata refero (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not use my sysop bit "to affect article content." I used it a single time simply to remove vandalism more than a year ago. That the fact that you can find that in the logs means that I am suddenly under suspicion, or rather that I am simply assumed to have engaged in abuse, says more about you and Cla68 than it does about me. Dmcdevit·t 19:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're skating perilously close to rudeness, so I suggest you pause and breathe for a moment.

You deleted something. We don't know what - that's certainly "affecting article content". There was a great deal of demonstrably inappropriate behaviour by several different administrators at that point and on that article. Under such circumstances, mentioning that certain versions were deleted by you is certainly relevant.

I personally would not have added your name to the FoF without some indication as to what precisely you deleted. I think I've made that clear already. However, given mismanagement and panic all round, I am not surprised that someone else has made the assumption that what was deleted - how the article content was affected - was not "simple vandalism". (What was it, anyway? You haven't confirmed my supposition that it was an unsourced linkage of MM to GW. That's a best-case scenario, and I have freely assumed it.)

You now have made a statement that it was vandalism. I have at length explained to you that it appears almost everyone involved used admin powers somewhat inappropriately, or at best in a ineffectual blind funk, at some point. I don't see why you should be so offended if someone (not me) chooses to assume that your admin action, sitting there right in the middle of all the other stuff, was part of the same process.

And finally the vaguely insulting "..says more about you.." What part of anything I have written sounds like I've made up my mind? This is an arbitration, you know, and I have an open mind. Descending on it from on high sounding offended that anyone isnt being blindly trusting in a matter thats gone to ArbCom is a somewhat surprising attitude for a former arb to take. Relata refero (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is a massive failure to assume good faith and instead to believe that "the powers that be" knew in 2006 that SamiHarris and Mantanmoreland were GW and were actively engaged in covering this up. As this case shows, the technical evidence is entirely inconclusive, and obtaining credible circumstantial evidence required the massive inputs of a number of highly motivated editors. The situation in 2006 was that a corporation had taken on a vendetta against a certain journalist, and a representative of that corporation was harassing an editor whom he believed to be that journalist, with sockpuppetry and making privacy-violating edits to the article. Even today those sorts of edits are unacceptable in article space. And, under the circumstances at the time, it was entirely reasonable (in my view) to discount the views of the harasser and protect the harassment victim. Were we played? Maybe. Was the harasser correct in his underlying factual assertions? It seems likely at this point. But the ends do not justify the means and Wordbomb poisoned his own well through his behavior. To ascribe the resulting year and a half-long drama to a conspiracy to hide the truth is ludicrous revisionist thinking that ignores both the difficulty of actually proving the case and Wordbomb's responsibility for derailing any potential earlier investigation through his outrageous behavior. Thatcher 13:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your view was that it was reasonable. It now appears that it was wrong. Could we have fixed it at the time? Possibly. Could we fix it again if something similar happens? Well, that depends on what lessons are learnt, right? To say that a bunch of people behaved pretty badly in terms of refusing to listen to alternative views - and I don't mean those from the other, banned, "side", but from users in good standing - is hardly ludicrous revisionist thinking. Get a hold of yourself, people, this is precisely the kind of thing we don't want on a workshop page. Relata refero (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the proposal here doesn't allege a cover-up, or that the "powers-that-be" knew, or that there was a conspiracy. It alleges "improper use". Dont set up straw men. And while I personally think this may go too far, there was certainly an enormous amount of ineptitude and bad faith on display on both sides at the time. I mean, Talk:Gary Weiss makes for absolutely shocking reading. Relata refero (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest. The ArbCom has access to deletion and oversight logs. Let them look at whatever is there instead of speculating. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you responding to my post immediately above, or to the concept of the proposed FoF in general? Because if the former, your statement doesn't really follow..Relata refero (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Thatcher: As another of the apparent misconceptions here, I think it is worth addressing the suggestion that Bagley is just an arm of a corporation going after a fair critic. Those who have said this might reconsider the evidence here, along with the fact that GW is a very public critic of Overstock.com and Patrick Byrne. I believe from some perspectives, a corporation or CEO investigating this type of criticism, or indeed this use of Wikipedia by a public critic, would be seen as more than reasonable. As I understand Bagley states that he actually did not join Overstock until after he started looking into this (which incidentally Bagley alleges is a situation extending beyond just Wikipedia), but all the same. Mackan79 (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Thatcher, (To ascribe the resulting year and a half-long drama to a conspiracy ), and I have not joined in any hounding of persons for mis-use of the bit; there is a saying that given the choice between imcompetence and conspiracy, incompetence is the most likely by far. We do not want to go there. I am not commenting on individual failure, or bad luck, or getting caught up in a storm two years ago, that still is snaring fish in the net. But if some kind of systemic failure to cope with a particularly irksome matter such as this case is identified, then the Arbcom and the community are entitled to debate and obtain all possible advantageous remedies which can be agreed and ruled, and so once and for all find out what went wrong and fix it. Newbyguesses - Talk 17:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the point of Cla68's proposals taken as a whole is (a) Wordbomb was right and (b) a bunch of rotten admins and arbitrators covered it up. If the issue was mere incompetence (failing to respond to a legitimate concern) then there would be no point in posting proposals accusing misuse of admin tools. My contention (see below in Brad's Tu Quoque section) is that Wordbomb poisoned his own well. He posted potentially libelous content to Gary Weiss. (There are clues to this in talk page posts, although the content itself has been oversighted.) When he was asked to stop, he repeated the posts on his talk page. He was here less than 18 hours, and other than a single feeble attempt at mediation, made no attempts to engage any of the normal dispute resolution processes. Given the information available at the time it was reasonable to conclude that he was only here to harass another editor and that the blocks of first himself, and then of Piperdown who picked up the torch, were reasonable. Even now, when it seems likely that the allegation has been proven, you have to be willing to excuse an awful lot of abusive conduct in order to claim that the blocks and oversights here were abusive and wrong. Wordbomb poisoned his own well. He acted on the philosophy that the ends justified the means, and the means were what got him banned. Now, if you think it is regrettable that it took so long for someone to dive into the poisoned well and do a reasonable, independent rational non-abusive investigation, we can talk about that somewhere else. Maybe Wikback. How to properly deal with allegations that may be true and that may have content and conduct implications but are made by abusive banned editors. I have a hard time calling "incompetence" on the fact that no one did a proper investigation for 15 months. We are all volunteers, and if no one wanted to be associated with the claims of an abusive editor and sockpuppeteer by doing an independent investigation, that's life. I could spend my every waking moment helping out with various deserving causes on Wikipedia, but I do what interests me at the time to the best of my ability. But it is my view that the original blocks, bans and oversights, given the information available at the time were reasonable and neither abusive nor incompetent. Thatcher 18:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the reason none of us did this for so long was because of the behaviour documented in Cla68's section, and the things that happened to those who did meddle. Relata refero (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing happened to me (I answered the request even though it was clearly filed by a Wordbomb sock) and nothing has happened to Sir Fozzie or Analyst or Cool Hand Luke. I suspect there was rather different behavior by accounts that were banned in the past for raising the issue and the accounts that have raised it now. Thatcher 19:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, Thatcher. Read the end of Talk:Gary Weiss and tell me that again, if you can. Relata refero (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Mostly, we'll see how it comes out in the wash) Nothing happens to editors administrators who challenged the status quo. I understand the quick reaction to protect editors on the project (as much as is possible) against people outside the project who try to insult/tear people down. But it appears that at least in a case or two, legitimate editors got caught in the "crossfire" and that most regular editors would be too intimidated (or have too much sense) to venture anywhere near, articles associated with this case. This, and the NPOV of the articles has been my concern with this whole situation. R. Baley (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even today those sorts of edits are unacceptable in article space. - yes, but he remained blocked even after he had pledged to keep it out of article space, based on a fairly novel interpretation of policy that ignores the existence of the conflict of interest noticeboard. —Random832 19:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the COIN did not exist at the time. Thatcher 19:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I did. Relata refero (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Thatcher, re To ascribe the resulting year and a half-long drama to a conspiracy to hide the truth is ludicrous revisionist thinking that ignores both the difficulty of actually proving the case and Wordbomb's responsibility for derailing any potential earlier investigation through his outrageous behavior. Thatcher 13:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC) and

[Wordbomb] was here less than 18 hours, and other than a single feeble attempt at mediation, made no attempts to engage any of the normal dispute resolution processes. Thatcher 18:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how these two statements of yours aren't completely contradictory? Or are you claiming that [BannedBomb] caused all this trouble in eighteen hours, while Mantanmoreland caused no problems with years of sock puppeting? And that the eighteen months of hell apparetly caused exclusively by [Wordbomb], in a mere eighteen hours does not suggest massive incompetence. If I have understood it, that is what you say.Newbyguesses - Talk 09:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wordbomb edited as... Dozens of identified sockpuppet accounts after the first account was closed (see and ). He additionally created a website ( antisocialmedia.net ) which is partly dedicated to stalking and outing Wikipedia editors, and participated actively in threads on ( wikipediareview.com ) making various comments, threats, and boasts about disruption of and attacks on Wikipedians he felt had done him wrong. That the original account only lasted 18 hours is irrelevant. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

He's talking about how he should have been handled before being indefblocked. Relata refero (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was indefblocked for violating our policies repeatedly after being told not to and agreeing not to and apparently understanding that doing further would lead to an indef block. Posting "MM is GW" over and over again was/is against policy, and he was told that, and him posting that didn't help convince anyone that it was true. How he behaved in the first 18 hrs was as inappropriate, but less extreme, as what followed.

If his point is that we failed to handhold him through "how to make a complaint of COI against a pseudonymous wikipedian without crossing the line from concerned citizen into sociopathic stalker" then I plead guilty, personally. I made no such help (though, I don't recall paying much attention at the time), and I don't think anyone else did. But we shouldn't have to - human beings are supposed to know that going that psycho is socially and ethically challenged and unacceptable, even in the face of apparently unreasonable people. Arguing that it's out fault that we didn't take him seriously, when he was abusive from effectively edit 1, is unreasonable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George, these types of comments are not well considered. He was not indef blocked for violating our policies; he was indef blocked two hours after he agreed not to post further, and had not posted further. Of course his first edit wasn't reasonable from a Wikipedian's standpoint, but you are ignoring that he was not a Wikipedian at that point, and that he agreed not to post further. You are also ignoring that a public critic using multiple accounts to negatively influence a company's Wikipedia article is a very legitimate issue for a company to investigate, even assuming he was sponsored by Overstock, which is most likely inaccurate. If there are reasons why you characterize this as "sociopathic stalking," I think it would be much more helpful to discuss your reasons rather than continuing to repeat it from page to page. Mackan79 (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Relata refero: 09:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC) He's talking about how he should have been handled

and Georgewilliamherbert: 09:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC) He was indefblocked , he was told that

Are you discussing here Worbomb, and his prospects for being unbanned? I was not discussing that topic, I was asking Thatcher to explain how it is that [Wordbomb] can be entirely to blame for this mess, when Mantan had been socking for years.Newbyguesses - Talk 10:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wordbomb, both as the named account and by all the things he did after that first account was blocked, poisoned his own well, and bears a significant responsibility for creating an environment in which it was reasonable to see his pursuit of Mantanmoreland as harassment. The does not excuse sockpuppetry by Mantanmoreland, which of course started before Wordbomb, but it is sufficient to explain why sockpuppetry and conflict of interest charges againt Mantanmoreland were not pursued until now, without invoking admin malfeasance to hide the truth. Thatcher 12:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully only half-agree. I agree that WB did harass him, on- and off-wiki, in a manner that is thoroughly incompatible with policy. But the suspicion wrt to COI on Mantanmoreland's part has apparently been out there for quite some time now. Reason enough not to vigorously defend MML's actions and persecute dissenting voices at every turn — at the very least it's a poor excuse if I've ever seen one: Policy-violating behaviour does not automatically render each and every concern invalid and malicious. And most of the evidence that makes it all but a hundred per cent certain that something has been afoul all along has been theoretically available — for someone inclined to find out — which cast serious doubt on at least some of the actions experienced users continually performed on Mantanmoreland's behalf. User:Dorftroffel 13:18, February 22, 2008

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 [7]. 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 [8]. 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]

Oppose per MONGO. Doesn't really belong here, but definitely merits dedicated investigation sometime soon. No matter how much of an insufferable fool Piperdown may arguably be, blocking like Gerard did is not on. This and other actions of his necessitate thorough enquiry. User:Dorftroffel 16:57, February 20, 2008

Irrelevant even if true. That DG made a questionable block of disruptive editor doesn't matter. Even if the ArbCom decided that this was true, I fail to see how a single block is relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a WP:AN discussion of lifting this block that closed without consensus in January. Mantanmoreland and Samiharris both posted repeatedly in opposition. That block review becomes yet one more consensus discussion that needs to be revisited if we conclude those two accounts were sockpuppets. Given the scanty to non-existant standards for declaring a sockpuppet at the time it was done, I can't conclude that the block was outside policy at the time it was issued. The failure to treat Mantanmoreland even handedly for the two evidence pages is depressing, but hardly surprising given the amount of enablement support that MM was receiving. GRBerry 03:16, 22 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]

Agree with Newyorkbrad. The issue is "systems that allow users to post to the wiki whilst concealing their IPs". It covers some proxied ISPs as well as open and paid proxies and other methods offering that capability. The exact name doesn't matter. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:53, 20 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]

Points made specifically to offset other points, as "positive" and "negative", aren't as helpful as proposals that balance the two. The common theme between this and the other proposal is that statistical and other evidence is not precise, but taken together can be compelling. It can also be misjudged and incorrect at times, and is prone to biases such as confirmation bias (what you see is what you expected), and therefore perhaps more than other forms of evidence, needs a high and competent level of scrutiny and consideration by users capable of such analysis, before being ruled upon for communal purposes. Ideally, it should also not just be based on one sole item (unless very compelling by itself), but include some form of clear corroberation via multiple evidences (the more the better).

It's also worth noting that the communal standard for accepting a sock/meat relationship for wiki purposes and therefore deciding how to handle accounts that appear to be editing in common, is historically somewhat closer to "strong likelihood" than to "beyond legal doubt". It is a statement that two or more accounts seem to be editing as if in common and may be treated as doing so for wiki purposes. Wikipedia is not a court of law; balance of probability and balance of risk/benefit are often factors around which a communal consensus will form. In choosing that consensus, users generally seek a course of action they feel best benefits the writing of a neutral encyclopedia and the appropriate running of the community doing that writing. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:00, 20 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]

Revise, but basically correct We routinely see claims about "edits in the same style" with no specification as to the style, no scrutiny as to the comparison sample, et cetera. All those claims are claims that an analysis has been done without revealing any portion of the analysis. As such, they should be treated by reviewing editors as flimsy to non-existant analysis, but we can't say for sure they were statistical because not even that much data was disclosed. I think people would have a very hard time providing a significant number of examples of analysis done as well or as publicly as this has been - and with a statistics training, I know that it is flawed, but I also know that it is better than any other analysis I've seen presented on Wikipedia. The only cases with higher rigor are checkuser results confirmed by multiple checkusers, and admitted sockpuppets, such as Guy's admission about his. My challenge is the converse of jpgordon's - if this is wrong, it should be easy to point to lots of examples of better analysis done on Wikipedia. GRBerry 15:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon recusal

2) Jpgordon should recuse from this case as he has demonstrated the belief (which has nothing to do with reality) that a banned user is solely responsible for this, and that perception is extremely likely to color his judgement of the core allegations of this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Jpgordon's own statement on this workshop page is all the evidence this needs. —Random832 15:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys will run out of arbcommers if you keep asking various ones to recuse. Maybe you forgot this is a workshop page, where proposals are made and various editors offer their take on such proposals?--MONGO 15:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "you guys"? Are you not one of us? User:Dorftroffel 16:28, February 20, 2008

Better no judges than biased judges is one of two possible attitudes on this, and the one I tend to agree with. FWIW, the majority of arbitrators hasn't so far called editors in good standing meatpuppets for a banned troll and sockpuppeteer. If and when someone stoops to such an impertinent level completely out of the blue, it is about time for them to consider their role as arbitrators in general, and most definitely in the case where they made such an egregious personal attack. Absolutely intolerable. User:Dorftroffel 16:28, February 20, 2008

Oppose. I don't see the point, since it is unlikely to effect the decisions by the Committee. In this instance I hold the moral highground because I know exactly how much WordBomb has influenced me in forming my viewpoint in relation to possible socking by Mantanmoreland, SamiHarris and others - and my thoughts about a variety of related WP articles. If a Wikipedian - and a member of ArbCom, at that - wants to demonstrate my superior integrity and their ignorance, by making biased and inaccurate comments, for view by the community and wider media, then under my principles of free speech and transparency I see no reason to stop them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 20 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]

Open proxies used for editing may be (and routinely are) blocked by any administrator if implicated in abuse. A change in the current handling towards tighter control would be more a communal policy decision. So although such proxies are routinely closed, it seems the current norm is that editors may edit in good faith (and non-disruptively) through them unless and until they are blocked by an administrator. So a routine check for abuse is not completely unreasonable.

However, there are two reasons why such a remedy is redundant. Firstly, the editor/s concerned have a clear focus on specific topics and articles. Future edits -- whether genuine, or via socks, or proxies -- will surely acquire great attention, as (in common with many other niche pages) there is not exactly a stream of traffic seeking to edit war on them, and newcomers will rapidly be noticed. Secondly, CheckUser policy allows for the tool to be used for the benefit of the project. Since open proxy editing is currently prohibited due to its disruptive potential, if evidence arose that a user was editing through open proxies, this would count as a clearly valid use of the tool and would not need a separate ruling to cover its use for the purpose of checking for violations of that norm. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC) (Amended - with thanks to Relata refero)[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]

I didn't mean to imply that it wouldn't be a legitimate use otherwise (Arbcom has no power to authorize illegitimate uses of the tool) - this proposal is simply to make sure that the checks are done, without requiring users to make the requests (since by making such a request a user is exposed to retaliatory measures) —Random832 15:22, 20 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]

Maybe not nailing things precisely, but close enough that I hope the arbitrators consider this seriously. Who's who findings have been included in a number of arbitrations where it's impossible to determine with absolute certainty which human being(s) control particular accounts, but where common sense points to an unacceptable level of offsite collusion. Durova^Charge! 03:30, 22 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]

People have to form a working hypothesis. Our default hypothesis is AGF. At some common sense point evidence can accumulate to the point where we abandon that. Individual demarcations of that point vary substantially, yet one of this site's functioning principles has been that absolute airtight proof may be unobtainable. Durova^Charge! 03:33, 22 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]

Good Faith

3) Wikipedia cannot assume that people "Should have known" about the facts of an issue beforehand, and in such cases should Assume Good Faith unless proven otherwise.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is an attempt to rein in some of the "Admin Abuse" folks. They had good faith reasons to take Mantanmoreland at his word that he wasn't sockpuppeting, or wasn't the person he's believed to be. If every admin took unilateral action based only on gut feeling, the admin ranks would be decimated within weeks as people took actions that turned out to be wrong despite their "gut feelings". Is there solid evidence that proved that admins KNEW (not suspected, KNEW) that MM=SH=GW and still protected him? Present it, and then consider action against that administrator. Otherwise, we devolve into taking action against administrators who took action on the facts of the case based on information available at the time. SirFozzie (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Nobody bats .1000. Reasonable people can weigh circumstantial cases differently; it's better to err on the side of caution. Durova^Charge! 20:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

While I agree, there does appear to have been a distinct lack of assuming good faith amongst some of the admins involved. That said, I'm hard pressed to see that anyone was egregiously misusing their admin tools, thought I do feel like a number of users have been 'tarred' with the wordbomb brush unfairly. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse.Nobody could disagree with this as written. As I said right at the beginning, the fact that Jimbo may have suspected at one point that MM=GW and nevertheless didn't block him because he didn't think that was a good enough reason is a very good thing.

Note: That doesn't mean that administrative decisions that are over-reactions or just plain bad are necessarily excusable by accepting that people took them in good faith. Relata refero (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to say is, Relata refero.. like with what Dmcdevit was complaining about.. we can't go back and retroactively state that "This admin took a good faith decision based on the facts as they were known at the time... but it was proven wrong later, so let's get em!". We need to AGF unless there is reason to suspect that they DID know better at the time. Some of the comments in other sections made me worry about that. SirFozzie (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I've given anyone the impression that I'm interested in "getting" anyone merely for being wrong, then I apologise.

But that is not the same as asking for, if possible, some answers or accountability in the matter of how they went about being wrong, how much they questioned the possibility that they were wrong, and whether or not they chose to assume good faith of one set of established users at the price of assuming bad faith of other established users. Am I wrong in thinking that? And if I am, how can we as a community improve on the abysmal behaviour that came about through anger, divisiveness or (in my case, and others) avoidance? Relata refero (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to take this to talk, Relata? I'll answer your questions on this issue to the best of my ability, and maybe that will help. Durova^Charge! 21:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, with SF's permission for the move of the block of comments...Relata refero (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be starting that shortly. Durova^Charge! 03:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUCK is Common Sense

1) While the page WP:DUCK is not marked as policy, comparing editors via editing time, style, and mannerisms is the only way to measure the link between two accounts when technical evidence is not available.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed to counter the "WP:DUCK is not policy, therefore this is all invalid" argument. If there's no way other than checkuser to identify sockpuppets, then there's a LOT of blocks that need undoing. SirFozzie (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Endorse. The essay WP:DUCK is a record of the rationalisation of how sockpuppetry is determined in the absence of specific CheckUser information; that is, it describes practice. However, to appear evenhanded, I would comment that WP:TROLL is not policy either... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 22 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]

Note that the proposal doesn't identify these accounts as sockpuppets of each other, but simply states that there's a linkage. Per my own evidence, a conservative reading of the edit histories justifies a baseline minimum assertion of offsite collusion that circumvented normal site processes to affect article content. Unless I've missed something, that analysis has not been rebutted. So I can support this wording without reservations, although I'll leave it to others to evaluate more radical formulations. Durova^Charge! 03:39, 22 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]

In the logical series [(A=B), (B=C), (C=A)] if any two statements are true the third must be true, so it's not really a 3-legged stool (which falls down if one leg is missing). There is probably some fancy name for this property that I do not remember from High School. Thatcher 13:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transitivity, which is a property of any equivalence relation. alanyst ^/talk/ 13:46, 20 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:

Not yet certain if it needs a formal "finding". It may possibly suffice for wiki purposes simply to note as in this case, that "A number of editors, including X and Y, have various degrees of real-world involvement with the topics in question".

At the moment, I'm not aware of any greatly compelling need to say more. Remembering that we are setting a background to a dispute, with a view to reducing editing problems, not seeking to solve an off-wiki squabble. The latter is beyond us and outside our scope. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It speaks to the Candor proposals other people have made. Apparently, many people on both sides of the conflict have asked MM if he could prove he wasn't Gary Weiss. (In some cases it was to better shield him against these very same suspicions). MM has apparently told one and all that he was not GW, both on-wiki and off-wiki. To have this point of data confirmed would be important in evaluating all his other statements. SirFozzie (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Yeah, of course. This speaks to COI issues as well as candor. In reply to FT2: We're not trying to resolve real-world disputes, but we are trying to keep those disputes from impacting the reliability of Wikipedia. This dispute unfortunately has hurt us. Cool Hand Luke 21:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I agree, though there's plenty of information to conclude that mantanmoreland has abused the community without it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond reasonable doubt and also decisive to the scope of this case. Well-worded btw. User:Dorftroffel 17:14, February 20, 2008

I support the terminology "significant" rather than the more contentious "conclusive", providing the good faith acknowledgement that there may be undisclosed evidence that could prove otherwise. However, I remain uncertain how this is germane to what is still a sockpuppet enquiry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But is it? The according scope proposal above has received considerable opposition. User:Dorftroffel 21:48, February 20, 2008

It is consistent with my approach to this matter - if not most - that it is about sockpuppetry and its effect on WP. If MM = GW then sanctioning MM for sockpuppetry and other WP abuse (and ensuring that future socks are blocked and MM further sanctioned) then if it is true that MM is that individual then GW is effectively removed from editing those articles. Therefore the question is unimportant; since an uninvolved GW may edit those articles providing they comply with WP:COI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without conclusive evidence one way or another, I think we should not write about this on-wiki. RL reputations are at stake. Let's focus on MM's editing behavior, which is bad enough as it is. Avb 17:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the section below, Avb, on why it is an issue here. SirFozzie (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also #Pseudonymity_and_conflict_of_interest. User:Dorftroffel 17:14, February 21, 2008

Thanks folks. I had seen those and much more - I've been following the case in depth. Please read my comments in that light. Avb 17:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI is an issue here, the evidence for that is simply staggering. User:Dorftroffel 17:32, February 21, 2008

Yes, but the COI does not prove it's GW. He certainly has disciples. At the other end of the spectrum (far-fetched, to be sure): I would not put it beyond certain people to set GW up. The MM=GW line of reasoning is more speculative than the MM=SH line of reasoning, more prone to problems such as harm to RL reputations, and less promising in terms of ending the disruption. Decisions whether accounts are sock/meat puppet are usually made on the basis of editing patterns, and MM and SH's patterns have been compared exhaustively. This is regular WP process, and remedies based on "SH = MM puppet" seem inescapable. However, we have no GW editing pattern. All we have is an editor with a clear COI and off-wiki rumors spread by a banned user. YMMV, but I am currently against pursuing the COI aspect without conclusive evidence as to MM's purportedly being controlled by GW. This is not a court of law, just a bunch of wikipedians trying to keep Wikipedia neutral. I would agree that MM makes it look like GW is editing his own bio and related content. If I were GW but not MM, I would be furious at MM and ask Wikipedia to put a stop to his editing GW-related content immediately. If I were MM but not GW, I would quietly disappear as the drama is backfiring and damaging my hero. If I were GW controlling MM, I would cut my losses and retire MM and any remaining puppets straight away. Dreaming on... Avb 18:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with avb here. I think there is enough evidence for 1) finding that mm has abused community trust over a long period (enough to likely justify a full site ban), and 2) MM has such a coi/pov with the whole topic of finnancial short selling and people related to it that he should likely be topic banned from it, regardless of number 1. The actual identity is, I think, a bit less important. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect to AvB, is there any evidence that would convince you of a COI? Do we need video proof?

Do you really think that an Overstock official might have edited from an out-of-state IP for two years, planting a subtle false clue by editing Varkala four months before Weiss travelled there, and then pulling all-nighters during October 2006—all while defaming representatives from Overstock—just so that two years later the Wikipedia community might ban him, and give the real W a pernicious reputation for COI editing on Wikipedia? I think this explaination strains credulity, to put it mildly. Cool Hand Luke 17:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mantanmoreland 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:

Comment. I suppose this answers my question above. If motive is required then this would suffice, but the technical evidence suffices for the allegations of sockpuppetry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this could be combined with #Pseudonymity_and_conflict_of_interest? User:Dorftroffel 17:35, February 21, 2008

Or rather: Imo, this FoF and that Principle should be seen in each other's context. User:Dorftroffel 17:39, February 21, 2008

Mantanmoreland had a definite conflict of interest, and that was the motive for the sock puppeting. Newbyguesses - Talk 10:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) *Users are discouraged from editing their own entry, not forbidden. Fred Bauder 21:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)-[DIFF]Newbyguesses - Talk 14:08, 20 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]

This case and its prior matters has caused widespread stress to well meaning users, and widespread problems to the community. These disputes in turn, for a long time, have impacted upon the encyclopedia that the community has created and seeks to write neutrally. If some user, or users, have wilfully perpetuated and furthered these problems for their own ends and agenda by use of deliberate puppetry, they will have done a grave disservice to the community. This specific series of disputes and the offsite attacks they led to were bourne - unwillingly and very reluctantly - because of a communal belief the core editors have edited in good faith. If it turned out that in fact the issue was perpetuated by gross breach of trust, then it may be that a ban would be appropriate of some duration. Also crossref WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:44, 20 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]

Considering Mantanmoreland's skill at socking, I think it might be better if his account was merely given rigid topic bans. I think we should hold remedies. I wish the committee could post a draft of findings, however. Cool Hand Luke 21:18, 20 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]

Concur. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

Either as a follow-up or as a minimum baseline, justifiable in light of refusal to acknowledge past confirmed sockpuppetry. Durova^Charge! 03:44, 22 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]

"... or causing unnecessary distraction of resources into disputes not worthy of the time..." (Can drama be defined by the way it draws resources into frictional, wasteful activity?) Either way, broadly endorse. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:38, 20 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]

I would like to note that what is commonly referred to as "drama" is not in fact a synonym for dispute resolution, as it includes such things as ANI threads, which are not part of the dispute resolution process. There is a substantial overlap, though. —Random832 15:27, 20 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]

Concur, and also concur with both the above proposed amendments. "Is tolerated, though discouraged, ..."? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:38, 20 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]

If by "gaming 3RR" you mean "reverting with multiple accounts, in a way that would be an obvious 3RR violation if done with only one account", this would be another means of creating "an illusion of more support for a position than actually exists", which is included in the principle above. However, I believe the more (most) common meaning of "gaming 3RR" is "making the fourth revert slightly more than 24 hours after the first revert". If the latter is what you actually mean, it should be mentioned as a separate principle. — CharlotteWebb 14:25, 20 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]

Content to stand by the original wording. Taking evidence into account is not the same as seeking to obtain it by means of hackery or the like (as Newyorkbrad says).

That said, this is not a court system; we are aiming for as full an understanding as can be reasonably achieved. In the very few cases where improper evidence does become a focus of communal discussion or needs to be considered, it is often pointless to pretend the material does not exist. Fortunately, we (like most users) are able to understand that some matters were not intended to become public, and to take that factor into account in judging how to read them or the weight to be given. Also, hacked material can be faked more than wiki evidence, and the presence of hacking already suggests strong motives to resort to highly unethical means. The norm is they are deleted or oversighted. Ironically, improper evidence often demonstrates the hackers own biases and fanaticisms, and thus rebounds on them and heavily reduces any credibility they may have, more than it shows any grave wrongdoing on the part of the abused party. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:38, 20 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]

Why not just follow the Arbitration policy? "Evidence is usually only heard by the Committee if it has come from easily verifiable sources - primarily in the form of Wikipedia edits ("diffs"), log entries for MediaWiki actions or web server access, posts to the official mailing lists, or other Wikimedia sources. The Committee reserves the right to disregard certain items of evidence or certain lines of argument, most notably if they are unverifiable". Daniel (talk) 10:41, 20 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]

Merge into a more general proposal about evidence of puppetry (see #WP:DUCK) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:38, 20 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]

Rather than argue words or use a less familiar term, try this: "Wikipedia users may generally choose whether to disclose real-world information about themselves on Wikipedia or to edit without doing so. In practice, many users choose not to identify themselves publicly, or limit the information they provide. It is believed that allowing this substantially increases participation. Unauthorized revelation of real-world information related to an editor who has chosen to edit without this disclosure is ordinarily considered a serious infringement of privacy and a threat to the well-being of the project." FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:38, 20 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]

In reply to FT2, the problem is that the formulation implicitly gives an advantage to editors who have an actual conflict of interest and choose to conceal it, over editors who have a corresponding conflict of interest who choose to disclose theirs. That dilemma has been one of the most salient criticisms against Wikipedia - it has arisen before and will almost certainly arise in the future. Why enshrine that problem in an arbitration precedent? Durova^Charge! 03:51, 22 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]

Unbalanaced Pseudonymous editors are expected to either 1) avoid areas where they have a major conflict of interest or 2) disclose that conflict of interest (but not their real world identity) to other editors active in the same area. Pseudonymous editors that do neither should expect to be invited to discuss whether they have a conflict of interest and how to appropriately handle it. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to handle conflicts of interest. GRBerry 15:14, 20 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]

Support with trimming down. "... Steps to ameliorate any conflict may be found at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest." FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:17, 20 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]

Tension between various priorities is inherent, no harm in acknowledging the reality that some might not have taken fully into account. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:17, 20 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]

Something to this effect but the focus doesn't work well for me - its about provocation may be a mitigation for an improper act, which focusses on an assumption users will be provoked and will do improper things. We should be encouraging the converse, that generally speaking (and other than extreme cases) self-management is sought and expected even if provoked. Self management may mean dispute resolution, asking for help from uninvolved users, or whatever, but that's generally what's expected. We had a precedent for that direction in a case not long ago, I'll try to find it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:17, 20 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.[9] 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]

Support, However, based on the evidence presented, and linked above, by Mackan79 it is clear that Mantanmoreland's violations were the initial provocation. So mitigation here should be read as mitigating WordBomb's initial behavior and in no way should be read as mitigating Mantanmoreland's sockpuppetry. The massive, apparently unjustified amount of administrative support given to Mantanmoreland is reason to believe that there was no mitigation at the time Mantanmoreland created the SamiHarris sock. GRBerry 15:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I was not active in the original dispute, but the question I have is, which reasonable, in-process steps did Wordbomb take to address the alleged abuse? I know he was eventually blocked then banned for posting "Mantanmoreland is Gary Weiss" to the Gary Weiss article itself, which is generally disallowed as a self-reference and constitutes harassment even if true; and that afterwards he used sockpuppets to pursue the point and sent the now-famous hidden tagged email to SlimVirgin to see who would open it. Did Wordbomb ever try and pursue his conflict of interest claim through the proper channels in a reasonably-behaved manner, and what was the reaction. (Although this is really off-topic and the answer should probably go on the talk page.) Thatcher 16:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can briefly respond that while I don't know the full chronology, WB has stated that he emailed two other administrators with his concerns after he was blocked. He has stated that he later emailed Morven and Fred Bauder. I am not sure exactly when either of these occurred, but think it tends to show an attempt to appeal to the site's processes. As I noted in my evidence, WB was also blocked after he agreed to stop posting his allegation, and his talkpage was protected apparently for repeating the allegation on his own talk page when asked to explain himself. Obviously more context would be necessary to see exactly what went wrong, but it seems to me the public evidence shows that Wikipedia's processes served poorly in addressing his concerns, much more than WB could serve to then justify MM's actions. Mackan79 (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope you see my point. He did these things after he was blocked for harassment. Posting "User:X is really Joe Smith" is harassment even if it is true and even if User:X is editing Joe Smith (famous person). What did he do before being blocked to try and call attention to this problem? Thatcher 17:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, oversight probably limits the history available to review now. But that said, the WordBomb account was created at 23:12, 6 July 2006 and indefinitely blocked less than 18 hours later at 17:04, 7 July 2006. In between that time, he made in process attmpts to start mediation and to discuss repeatedly article edits with Mantanmoreland. So a new user, here for less than 24 hours, engaged in good faith dispute resolution and got blocked indefinitely with an edit summary of "libellous edits to an article; attempted to "out" another editor". What more do you expect an editor to do in 18 hours? GRBerry 18:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, how about waiting more than 18 hours before going off the rails? Thatcher 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in defending this fellow's behaviour, but I don't understand that. He was banned indef in 18 hours. Who went off the rails, precisely? Relata refero (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<-- <sigh> Wordbomb was blocked for posting "Mantanmoreland is really Gary Weiss and has been editing this article" to Gary Weiss (plus unsourced negative information about a lawsuit, apparently). He was told to cut it out, and instead posted the same thing to his talk page. Now, that's harassment of another editor, even if it is true. (Consider the principles above on the tension between the conflict of interest policy and the privacy policy and allowing editors to edit pseudonymously.) There are many ways to address conflicts of interest that do not require publicly and defiantly posting personal information about editors. And I'm sure you would agree that any account less than 18 hours old is going to be on a very short leash regarding personal axe-grinding. (Suppose a brand new account began posting information that you were related to Narendra Modi and also posted unsourced negative information about Modi, which you removed, leading to talk page harassment. Would you really support a lengthy investigation before blocking?) The point here is that there is a right way and a wrong way to approach these sorts of issues. I would feel differently if he was an established contributor, had more time invested in the article(s) at issue, and had demonstrably tried to engage the various appropriate wiki-processes for dealing with conflicts. But unless he edited previously with other accounts, he seems to have spent less than 18 hours here before deciding he had to "out" an editor. As far as I can tell, and based on the information available at the time, his actions were blockable harassment and he was dealt with appropriately. Thatcher 19:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a reasonable couple of points, except:

Rather than deciding, I think he came here intending to out an editor, and I don't intend to defend him, as he's as much of a POV-pusher as the other chap. The point is, that like any newbie, we can't be sure he understood our cultural horror of such a happening, or would have internalised the particular nature of the compromise we make between CoI and pseudonymity - to know the right way and the wrong way. (Again with the caveat that there's no telling if this one would have chosen the right way even if it had been pointed out to him.)

Sure, remove the edit, block the guy for a period, protect his talkpage if he idiotically reposts it there, and explain policies to him with a certain minimum patience, and direct him to arbcom-L or the appropriate secure venue, or unblock him if he has accepted that he understands our prohibitions. Are you seriously telling me that you think the way it happened was more appropriate?

And, on a related note, I would feel more shocked if it was an established editor.. Relata refero (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

remove the edit, block the guy for a period, protect his talkpage...and explain policies to him with a certain minimum patience, and direct him to arbcom-L To the best of my knowledge that is what did happen. He was blocked and told he would be unblocked if he dropped it. He kept it up. Eventually he traded emails with SlimVirgin in which he used a technical trick to try and capture the IP addresses of anyone who read them. Then he posted attacks on various Wikipedia editors on his blog. I was originally responding to GBerry's statement that mitigation in the the tu quoque principle should apply to Wordbomb and not to Mantanmoreland, because it was really Wordbomb who was provoked. I believe I have successfully pointed out (and you seem to agree) that this is nonsense. Thatcher 18:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm as absolutely as unwilling to accept that anyone has any mitigating factors to plead as you are.

I'm also unwilling to drag this out, so I will merely note that I don't think that your summary includes anywhere the crucial things: patience and demonstrating to a newbie that WP has procedures that could take care of what he may have perceived as a massive CoI problem. I've been reading Wikiback and I don't see anyone referring him to arbcom-L; I see people behaving in a manner that may seem rational if inept to us but is quite capable of leading even a non-paranoid outsider to assume there's some sort of coverup going on. I also don't understand what "kept it up" means other than posting it once again on his talkpage. Still, as we broadly agree that nobody can complain as such about mitigating factors, we can move on. Relata refero (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I continue to disagree with Thatcher. It is clear than Mantanmoreland was abusively sockpuppeting before WorldBomb was created. As shown in evidence Mantanmoreland was already abusively sockpuppeting in February 2006, while WorldBomb did not come here until 5 months later, in July. The available parts of WorldBomb's talk page history and the attempt at mediation reveal that both Mantanmoreland and Lastexit were attacking WorldBomb, so Mantanmoreland was abusing the sockpuppets to create a false appearance of consensus in attacking WorldBomb. WorldBomb did go off the rails - but it was after Mantanmoreland's abuse began, so iall Tu quoque mitigation in this case mitigates WorldBomb's actions, not Mantanmoreland's. The amount of that mitigation may be insignificant in the greater scheme of things, but it is crystal clear that absolutely no mitigation attaches to Mantanmoreland because no violations by another editor preceeded his violations. GRBerry 18:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to pile on, but the blocking admin also did not remove the edit, which as I can tell had already been removed two hours prior by Mantanmoreland and/or Lastexit. The critical edit I've pointed out here also happened two hours before he was blocked, and denotes his "concession" in the edit summary. He was then "indefinitely blocked." Each part of this is subtly but significantly different from the scenario RR lays out. Mackan79 (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<--I agree that Mantanmoreland is not entitled to claim Wordbomb as a mitigating circumstance since he was using sockpuppets before Wordbomb. I object to GRBerry's suggestion that Wordbomb is entitled to claim Mantanmoreland's sockpuppetry as a mitigating circumstance of Wordbomb's behavior. If Wordbomb was attacked, it was because in his 18 hours of activity he demonstrated himself to be biased and aggressive, with a predetermined agenda. He was not an innocent newbie who was accidentally steamrolled by the Mantamoreland-Cabal axis. If Mantanmoreland is Gary Weiss, then these two have been going at it tooth and claw off-wiki since before Sept 2006 and seem likely to continue well into 2008. Such battles are not welcome on Wikipedia no matter who the battlers are. It is regrettable that it took so long to address the behavior of Mantanmoreland (I think that Wordbomb's aggressive sockpuppetry and other unsavory tactics made it easy for Mantanmoreland to portray himself as a sympathetic victim). But that does not mitigate or exonerate Wordbomb's behavior. Thatcher 22:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on some points, but I think this is fair about part of the reason this has gone unresolved. All the same, I hope other factors more in Wikipedia's control will be seriously considered, including attempts to control the issue with sharp rhetoric even after long-standing good faith contributors began to raise concerns. Mackan79 (talk) 23:48, 21 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]

Do not agree that a particular topic should be highlighted as "especially", just because the case touches on that topic. (If the case was about a clinic involved in malpractise, would it say "This is especially essential where article content relates to... ongoing real-world medical or other controversies" other times?) Rewrite last sentence: "This is especially essential where article content relates to living persons or to ongoing real-world disputes and controversies.". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:17, 20 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]

Sure. When a publicly held corporation, in this instance Overstock.com, delegates a corporate official (Judd Bagley a/k/a User:WordBomb) to a full-time stalking campaign against editors and administrators they deem unsympathetic, that inherently compromises Wikipedia. In this instance, the CEO himself engages in that campaign in this very arbitration case. Since this is a witch hunt initiated by Bagley and actively promoted by him off-site, that extraordinary action is greeted with a "thank you for contributing" by some editors here.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 04:07, 22 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

NDA has nothing to do with creating the false appearance of consensus and stability in an article. Relata refero (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Strongly oppose - The ongoing growth and visibility of the project makes it all the more important that people not obsess about negative or positive publicity. I would oppose the Board spending any donation money on the employment of consultants, and marketers and spin-merchants. Attempting to manage publicity, which this proposal would lead to, is the death of integrity. WP articles should be popular because of the integrity of the site, a goal in itself. This proposal concentrates upon some contest to get to the top of the listing or something. Integrity shoud be sought as an end in itself, and rigged popularity contests prove nothing. Newbyguesses - Talk 10:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of that follows... Arbcom doesn't dictate policy to the Foundation Board, nobody's talking about hiring PR people for BLP issues, I don't think your comment about turning it into a contest is true either. Where did this all come from? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I understand we are discussing Integrity of content which I do, of course, support. However, the wording of this proposal is backwards, at least to my understanding. Eg.

[A]rticle content [that] adhere[s] to the highest standards of reliability and integrity [is] more important than the ongoing growth and visibility of the project. Why get hung up on flexing muscles in some fight to be the biggest site? Who cares that Wikipedia is now one of the ten most visited websites, or the five most visited, or the five hundredth most visited in the whole wide world and often the first search engine hit when researching a topic (woopdie doo)? That is how i see it.

Reply to Guy - 09:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC) - Page rank is indeed irrelevant.

Reply to CharlotteWebb 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 - I concur heartily with this sentiment. Newbyguesses - Talk 12:33, 22 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]

Something on deception/untruthfulness is useful. As drafted this is a little off-target for me. I've tried to capture the underlying principle a bit more so, at 10.1. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:17, 20 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]

Candor (2)

10.1) Wikipedia's editorial approach relies upon trust, integrity, and mutual respect. When legitimate concerns are raised, editors discovered to have been wilfully untruthful or misleading, or who have deliberately subverted the system in full knowledge of communal expectations, may lose the good faith that ordinarily applies, and will often be sanctioned considerably more harshly than would otherwise have been the case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Likely able to be shortened but captures the actual sentiment better for me. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be in your own section? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Fool me once, shame on you...let's not be fooled three times. Support entirely. This is compatible with NYB's 10 proposal, as Rocksanddirt notes, and I support both. Cool Hand Luke 21:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. In particular, consideration is due to the drain upon the community's trust in the system and to the editors whose hard-earned reputations are compromised as a result of the exploitation of their good faith. Durova^Charge! 03:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• I think both 10 and 10.1 are valid and maybe should be worked into the proposed decision. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain if the sanctions should be applied any differently, but certainly the potential for rehabilitation is considerably reduced if deliberate and systematic violation of WP principles, while maintaining a proper veneer, is proven. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 20 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:

Worth stating, though perhaps merges in with other "do this at your own risk" such as untruthfulness and deception (see Newyorkbrad proposal 10) and general proposals related to privacy of personal identity (also see above). I take the points made by Noroton on board, and they're right. But if I understand Durova, this isn't about "do this/don't do this", its about "if you do this, its on your head". Perhaps could be reworded to cover both? "Wikipedia allows and encourages its editors to edit pseudonymously. A corollary is that editors are required to use pseudonymity within policy and with integrity. Editors who improperly exploit Wikipedia's option of pseudonymous editing in order to circumvent the conflict of interest guideline do so at their own risk." Again, can very likely be brevified further if anyone wishes to try. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Support. The phrase "at their own risk" is a reasonable attempt to describe this aspect of the problem of COI. Newbyguesses - Talk 12:41, 22 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]

Support. Is there a TLA for the Free content policy? See also, No firm rules. Newbyguesses - Talk 13:12, 22 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

Concur. The matter of personal abuse instigated at the request of sock-puppets will not go away. Civility, in fact, is an over-riding principle which may never be ignored. This issue, if unaddressed here, will take up future arbcoms till it is. Newbyguesses - Talk 13:12, 22 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

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]

I wish I didn't have to agree. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:01, 20 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

I wish I didn't have to agree. especially with CHL's point about accepting responsibility for his actions. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

That's the deeper problem. Mangoe (talk) 17:59, 20 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)

Gary Weiss was completely rewritten by the famously neutral editor Cla68 in November 2006, and except for addition of some innocuous biographical details has remained fairly stable since then.[10]. Naked short selling is an esoteric subject that gets little editing from anybody, except for occasional incursions by the WordBomb crew. Except for one witch hunter's recent demand, having never before come close to the article, that "academic studies" be included, no one is suggesting specifically that there is a damn thing wrong with that article either. Like all too much in this workshop, this proposal indicates that the editors doing the proposing haven't bothered to look at the edit histories of either contributors or articles.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per my response below to GRBerry - it isn't a matter of the content, and I have no opinion whether the version preferred by you is the best possible or not - the articles are evidently a battleground, and Wikipedia is not a battleground. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Comment:Speaking as Witchsmeller Pursuivant, I would like to direct the parties' attention to this diff pointing out that the GW article has hardly remained "stable". Also that the diff of the "rewrite" cited above has the edit comment "removed quote" which is actually all cla68 actually did. Also that a "lack of academic studies" is not by any means the only thing wrong with Naked short selling. Relata refero (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

(no proposals)

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]

This would seem to be in accord with checkuser policy, meta:Checkuser policy, and so it has my support.Newbyguesses - Talk 14:43, 20 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:

See 'Durova' clarification. Arbcom is not the Wikipedia Police, nor does it have resources to cover all sock cases that might occur. I suspect what's meant is "in exceptional cases users should privately refer the matter to checkusers for advice or rechecking, prior to publicly indicating an allegation is being made". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

There's no good way to do this. With Runcorn/Poetlister we rolled up our sleeves, worked long hours very quietly, and brought the fruits of our labor to ArbCom, which correlated information and deliberated and reached a decision that made many editors and administrators very frustrated because they weren't privy to any part. Obviously my own decision last fall was wrong; I make no defense of it. What people called for then was openness, and in this case we have openness. This is a circular path in which every approach is wrong. Durova^Charge! 03:45, 21 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]

yes, obviously, per Thatcher.

particularly per Daniel: 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. - agree, at this time of post, not this matter i wish to further as an attack on admins in general, if that is the way some take it. respectfully, Newbyguesses - Talk 14:56, 20 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."[11] 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:

Informal comment by FT2

As an administrator when the above case broke, I had no prior view on the list. Mostly as I hadn't known of it (always a good way to not have a preconception). I gather that it was set up in good faith, because of stalking issues which had genuinely and seriously both scared and upset well regarded users, and in recognition that such users needed a way to talk about their situation. Arbcom discussions since end December make clear that these were not trivial. A handful of users have indeed had their spouses constantly phoned, obscene phone calls, falsified allegations called anonymously to their workplaces... genuine, classical, stalking. And threats of abuse, including plausible threats of violence to themselves, their children or spouses. And a number of cases of online harassment, which are distressing and frustrating but hopefully fade after a short while. Such matters are rare - thank goodness - but the few times they happen, they are traumatizing, and no means existed to handle them. So I'm quite prepared to believe that the list was founded for such reasons, and became a trusted list of participants that some users felt it natural to turn to, in seeking to identify stalkers and other habitual reincarnators. One user who joined it last fall, to seek advice and reassurance related to a stalker, apparently left shortly after, citing grave disappointment with the nature of list dialog. Sadly we know the rest - and the comments on-wiki suggest that it also developed a damaging side (or various users acted very poorly through to completely inappropriately on it in terms of discussion and use of judgement) which ultimately led to a mis-blocking, considerations of a confidentiality/privacy policy, and an arbitration case. I may be entirely wrong, but that's the impression I get. I'm inclined to reason that membership per se of a mailing list where the parties would have posted on their view, may have influenced some people, but not others. Some update their views easily based upon new information. For example in this (wiki) community many users read the parties' posts for one or two years, considered them Good Editors... and yet have shown no trouble reassessing that completely from scratch or changing views, the moment evidence suggests otherwise. The RFC was full of statements to that effect, from many users and administrators. A number of people exposed to one sides view and to seeing one side as "good people" for a long time, have had no problem at all demonstrating that they were open to change based on evidence in this case. There may be specific evidence to show an enduring bias by some user, or admins, or even arbcom members. There may also be evidence of a close connection and strong prior views or involvement, so that even if neutral, there would be a serious question mark. These are things one might bear in mind. But simply "being on a list where this was discussed"... I am not sure that alone, without further indications, mere presence on the list would show more than that they were on a mailing list where these users talked and were perhaps discussed. I wouldn't assume that means bias, without checking, I'd be inclined to note that arbcom members are expected to self-manage and self-assess COI, and might well ask them to appraise it carefully for themselves though. There probably is more I'd do in practice, especially if I had specific concerns about specific people. As it stands, mere participation in the list with nothing else, doesn't seem to be sufficient, but that is roughly my thinking right now, and at this point. Last, this should be read simply as a personal comment, rather than any kind of formal statement, at this time. It's "first thoughts on the matters discussed".

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disruptive sockpuppetry

1) Disruptive sockpuppetry, and sockpuppetry in violation of our policies, is a bannable offense. Lawrence § t/e 16:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Obvious. Lawrence § t/e 16:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Mantanmoreland is Samiharris

1) Based on rather blistering evidence posted by Alanyst here, he compared Mantamoreland and Samiharris vs. all 3627 editors who had edit counts between 1000 and 2000 during 2007. Mantanmoreland and Samiharris were "direct hits".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Similar to my proposal above, except providing a link to the evidence rather then community consensus. No problem with it. SirFozzie (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly meaningless "dazzling em with number." All this means is that people who watch each others edits closely tend to use the same language. When you go to the data[12] you see that User:Piperdown "scores" remarkably similar to myself and Sami, and he is a champion of WordBomb. In response to Sarcasticidealist below, even with Overstock-related terms removed, Piperdown still ranks right up there with me, Samiharris and another chap. This means that either A) Piperdown is a sockpuppet of myself, or B) This data is meaningless. If Piperdown were targeted in this witch hunt, I am sure that this meaningless "evidence" would be used against him. Cool Hand Luke's rejoinder below, his repeated hysterical personal attacks ("refactered" but then reiterated below [13][14]) and name calling, is typical of the tactics being used in the witch hunt that he and others are pursuing. Even if I were already strapped into the electric chair as he fondly wishes, WP:NPA would still apply. As an administrator, he should be aware of that. As a single-minded, emotional witch-hunter, he happily disregards that principle.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I'm not your maker, so I shouldn't be making judgments about your salvation, but you remain a unrepentant sockpuppeteer and a liar—you lied about your COI for years. Cool Hand Luke 03:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with GRBerry. I think that such a proposal should link the the community consensus and the many pieces of the puzzle, including this study, Alanyst's previous study, the editing time data, history of abuse, fact that Mantanmoreland is a [refactered per GWH] liar who is now arguing in favor of a user who "retired" with nary a fight, ect, ect. This coffin has plenty of nails. Cool Hand Luke 02:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Nail in the coffin. Lawrence § t/e 16:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the continued absence of any testable evidence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, is this comment in agreement or disagreement with my proposal? Alanyst's evidence is basically the equivalent of DNA forensic evidence. With this, we have Mantanmoreland/Sami/Weiss by the proverbial short Gil Grissoms. Lawrence § t/e 17:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is agreement - although recognising that evidence may yet be forthcoming which would alter my opinion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to User:Mantanmoreland's comment above, he should have another look at what happened with the data once they were controlled for words directly related to the overstock issue (i.e. in order to find similarities in language in edit summaries, rather than just similarities in subject matter). A louder duck than this, I've never heard. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Mantanmoreland's response to Sarcasticidealist: Note the editing collisions, they virtually rule out Piperdown as your sockpuppet. Also, evidence was never used against Piperdown. He was indef blocked by David Gerard on a hunch, without ever getting his own ArbCom case. User:Dorftroffel 23:11, February 21, 2008

Oppose - This particular evidence is subject to ongoing dispute - at this time, the statistics specifically cited could be used to statistically argue that Mantanmoreland is Piperdown, or Samiharris is Piperdown, equally well - statements which are rather unlikely to be true. Reanalysis and filtering of that evidence are being discussed to try and evaluate whether we can eliminate editing on similar article topics from false-positives in that analysis.

Pursuant to other discussions, statistical conclusions taken as hard evidence should be unambiguous and statistically rigorous. This one doesn't meet that standard. If merely editing the same articles actively (as Piperdown did) gets you a nearly solid hit on statistical correlation on the vector test then it's not useful as a sockpuppet detector. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to GWH: in fact, the evidence has already been re-analyzed and filtered (see here). The results of this filtering and re-analysis, when viewed in conjunction with Cool Hand Luke's analysis, makes the acknowledgment of these accounts of these accounts as socks inescapable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the re-examination done was excluding certain terms, which wasn't my suggestion at all. I recommended examining behavior on unrelated articles - without examining the complete details of the vectors involved, we don't have enough information to know if the Variations re-run excluded enough of the overlapping article interests "false positive" tendency or not. Your vehemence that this evidence must be that good is a perfect example of why it's dangerous to start using statistical analysis to this degree - we don't have a "standards of evidence" assumption built up for using this type of data yet, in terms of what types of data need to be processed in what way to remove false positives and one way correlations. People who don't know statistics that well are looking at the numbers saying "oh, that's obvious" - Alanlyst is explicitly being more neutral in his (?) conclusions, and I urge everyone to take a step back. The only statistical evidence in all of this which is strongly unambiguous and clear is the India trip editing patterns - everything else has either underlying statistical / math issues, or interpretation issues (is the correlation we found the one we want to use to interpret the data in terms of sockpuppetry, or was it another correlation which is still ambiguous). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To follow myself up - I oppose this particular finding of fact on the basis that the statistics cited are still in dispute. That this particular cited bit of statistical evidence has not yet been resolved to my satisfaction doesn't mean that MM is not GW or MM is not SH - it means that this section of cited evidence doesn't prove it by itself (yet - it could become very suggestive with reanalysis to eliminate the flaws I see). If people feel like issuing a Duck Test conclusion summary, based on a body of evidence, then weakness with this particular analysis is not relevant. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If indeed the statistics point to a wrong conclusion, that should be easy to demonstrate. It would be much harder to make up or manipulate statistical evidence on a level as presented here than it is to refute it — assuming the implied conclusion is indeed false. User:Dorftroffel 13:42, February 22, 2008

You refer to a dispute. I don't see one. You seem to disagree that the statistics indicate what they appear to to most people, and you have raised doubts on whether the raw data was gathered ethically, but that doesn't make it a dispute - it makes it an example of one person who disagrees with what the majority are seeing. Of course, you can add Mantanmoreland to those who disagree, but I would invoke Mandy Rice Davies. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for GWH as it's my section here, and based on LHVU's statement now: George, what flaws do you see with the evidence that compared details between all these users, and only found 3 of 3000+ that matched? Also, what "ethical" issues exist around the gathering of this public record data? That latter bit by LHVU confused me. I thought this was all culled right from edit histories and public records of contributions from Mantan and Sami. Lawrence § t/e 14:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Based on the evidence presented earlier in this ArbCom case and my own observations I already had a very strong suspicion this was puppetry. This evidence by Alanyst clinches it for me. Decisions whether accounts are sock/meat puppets are generally made on the basis of editing patterns, and MM and SH's patterns have been compared much more exhaustively than any other case I've seen (which, incidentally, includes a number of accounts banned as WordBomb socks). I think this FoF is inescapable. Avb 01:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a smoking gun It is another piece of probative evidence, and I agree with the header, but not citing this evidence as the sole basis for the conclusion. GRBerry 02:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. It is not a smoking gun, but refuting it —in the context of all the other evidence— as unsound statistics is trivial lawyering. Present precise arguments to refute it, or accept it. User:Dorftroffel 13:39, February 22, 2008

Oppose because I think we should be using not this evidence alone but this table combined with the somewhat different tables that removes the 13 subject-related words, here. The comparison of the tables is telling. That evidence is stronger because with the removal of 13 words, Piperdown's similarities to MM and SH are reduced quite a bit. In the Mantanmoreland table, Piperdown's number recedes into the pack of other editors and there is a more noticeable gap between all the rest and MM & SH. It is incorrect to call this evidence useless. It is incorrect to call it a smoking gun. It is incorrect even to be certain about it. It is absolutely correct to take this as one more indication that SH & MM are one person, and that it helps to build the case against him. Noroton (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. And I agree that the revised Mantanmoreland table is the most remarkable. The gap between Samiharris and the third best fit is large, and the differences between the rest of the pack are trivial. The editors use similar words, even when financial terms are excluded. Cool Hand Luke 17:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To George William Herbert: I've been grappling with some of the same issues you have, from the point of view of someone who doesn't know much about statistics. It is possible to both make too much of individual pieces of statistical evidence and make too little of them. But you seem to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that the only statistics you would accept would be "strongly unambiguous and clear". I agree that higher standards are always better, but it's possible to set standards too high (I've heard the evidence we have now is much better than what we've normally had in similar cases). The case against Mantanmoreland is that a large collection of different kinds of evidence, including numerous individual types of statistical evidence, taken as a whole, points toward sockpuppetry. Lawyers, correct me if I'm wrong, but in far more important U.S. criminal court cases, where the standard of evidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt", a jury of laymen, using their common sense can convict a defendant of murder based on a collection of circumstantial evidence. (Judges typically remind them that, ultimately, they are to judge evidence based on their common sense.) It is the evidence taken as a whole that needs to be "beyond a reasonable doubt", not the individual items. Jurors might well think that each individual piece of evidence might be coincidental, but viewing it as a whole can add its own value to it. I would say that there are weaknesses in this particular item of evidence but also strengths, and that while it could be improved on, it already has enough value that it can be used as part of a larger collection of evidence. Noroton (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I missed this statement from GWH: "If people feel like issuing a Duck Test conclusion summary, based on a body of evidence, then weakness with this particular analysis is not relevant." (01:40, 22 Feb) So maybe I just restated (more strongly) what GWH already said. Anyway, I hope the legal comparison was helpful.Noroton (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mantanmoreland is a puppetmaster

2) Mantanmoreland has a non-disputable history of disruptive and abusive sockpuppetry to advance his agendas on Wikipedia. Fred Bauder gave him a now infamous public warning to stop doing that.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Same as my finding of fact above. SirFozzie (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Common knowledge and apparently Wikipedia lore at this point. Lawrence § t/e 16:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Practically put on the welcome template for IPs now, I believe. Relata refero (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a safe bet that Weiss's pet articles will find any open proxy IPs editing them heavily scrutinized and blocked as open proxies in short order. Lawrence § t/e 18:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and it's one more item in the collection of evidence that points to sock puppetry here. If Mantanmoreland thinks the analogy of each item being a strand in the rope, perhaps we could call it one more fragrant flower in the bouquet. It's not just that socks were used before, but that they were used the same way (for instance, on the Gary Weiss article), making for a stronger pattern of behavior. Noroton (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mantanmoreland is GW

3) Per evidence assembled it is demonstratable and reasonable to deduce that User:Mantanmoreland is the Wikipedia screen name of a noted writer[link removed]. Evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is similar to SirFozzie's proposal, except that nobody has attempted to de-link his proposal, not even the arbitrator who commented on it. I don't understand the sudden coyness. Cool Hand Luke 17:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

To complete my section, along with my next post after this. Pretty conclusive evidence. Time zones suddenly changing for both users to coincide exactly with Weiss's known schedule and geographic location at the time; Varkala. This is pretty much indefensible that I can see. Mantamoreland is encouraged to explain the Varkala edit, as well as why he was editing from an Indian time zone at the same time that Weiss was in India, if this is a big, big false positive. Lawrence § t/e 16:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if its true, I'm not sure how its relevant. This case may have off-wiki roots, but the case itself deals solely with on-wiki problems and behavior. I've removed the link temporarily, because I don't think a definitive decision has been made yet on how circumspect we should be with connecting this persons name to these issues. Avruch ^T 16:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the linked evidence which also names the writer. It's needed to support my assertation below that this writer/and or usernames if his are no longer needed to participate in the listed conflict articles due to abuse of Wikipedia to advance a COI and agenda. I have no objection to you removing the links I placed, but perhaps a Clerk should do that. There has been no removal of his name from the various Evidence sections I would add. Lawrence § t/e 16:52, 22 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 banned

1) Mantanmoreland is banned for one year from editing Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Same as my proposed remedy above. SirFozzie (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence § t/e 16:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mantanmoreland banned from conflict articles

2) Mantanmoreland under any past, current, or future username or any IP address is indefinitely banned from editing any pages related to Naked Short Selling, Gary Weiss, Patrick M. Byrne, Judd Bagley, or Overstock.com. Based on demonstrated and proven sockpuppetry, and evidence that this user has repeatedly violated sockpuppetry and the goodwill of Wikipedia to protect his own agendas in a clear attempt to game content and COI inteference. Evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I support this. SirFozzie (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

We don't need a truth warrior/POV sockpuppet abuser on these with such a flagrant POV, and ongoing contempt for the Wikipedia community to puppet so much. Lawrence § t/e 16:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or IP address per comments on my talk page. Mantanmoreland, aka Sami, aka Weiss, is no longer welcome to touch these articles. We don't need him there. Lawrence § t/e 22:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slight expansion to evidence that ties Weiss to Mantamoreland and back into Samiharris. Lawrence § t/e 16:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mantanmoreland account restrictions

3) Mantanmoreland is barred from using more than one account for any purpose on Wikipedia. Any change in account name must be disclosed to the Arbitration Committee. Failure to do so will result in an indefinite ban on the user him/herself. Mantanmoreland, should he edit "as an IP address" (without logging in), must disclose these edits to the Arbitration Committee. Due to the user's history of egregious puppetry abuse, the Committee and Checkusers will need to be able to track him fully going forward.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Modified off my proposed remedy above, although it spells it out more. I also recommend that instead of escalating bans, it's a one strike and your out proposal.. this would be his third sockpuppet account SirFozzie (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence § t/e 16:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Foz: Modified accordingly. You're right, this has been going on forever and a day. Lawrence § t/e 17:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded to include IPs per comment/suggestion from Less Heard on my talk. Lawrence § t/e 22:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited, for clarity, the language relating to IP edits. — CharlotteWebb 13:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - if these articles remain there is going to be a rare old time for CU requests. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

It's tempting to take a preliminary view whether more evidence, or other evidence is needed. What would help perhaps is a bulleted list of what sorts of evidence or areas of work might be accessible (although often one doesn't know without looking beforehand). Certainly evidence of reasonable quality is useful. I myself would not require a few billion diff timings to be correlated, to make a point, if a few thousand might make it equally well. Any time evidencing on a case is also time away from content improvement. And yet I cannot say what others' criteria might be or when they will feel they have enough on a matter. What I'd suggest is, that as Arbitrators consider the proposed finding, they might state "unable to support - would need more evidence" if that is the specific concern. If a finding you expect to see is not proposed and doesn't look like it will be, then perhaps ask if it's due to lack of evidence or for some other reason. Of course sometimes one would find a once-off "smoking gun" without planning to. Those can't be predicted, one only finds them when already looking at evidence beforehand.

I am sure this isn't the most helpful answer possible, but... thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also below. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, contrary to claims that some editors are spokesmen for WordBomb, I'm not prompted nor paid by anybody to do this. If there's a significant chance you will not decide that MM == SH == GW, and if more evidence will help, I will look for it. Otherwise, I should get back to my life. I hope you start posting findings quickly so that we can clear up any missing links. Cool Hand Luke 20:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION TO THE ARBITRATORS: Considering correct DIFF, also 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]

See below. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. For an (opposing) position, (to newbyguesses here), stated by--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC) - see [15], Newbyguesses - Talk 13:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few users have presented evidence, or stated evidence exists, where the backing evidence from which these views were drawn is not presented. I'm thinking here of underlying data and spreadsheets for graphs and other data based evidence, and also the "hundreds" or "600" underlying emails for claims of stylistic differences. That data and the information culled from it is really the actual evidence being discussed; what is presented here on these pages is a summary of its highlights.

If the users concerned wish to indicate whether the underlying data and any analysis based upon it will be made available, it'd probably be helpful to know. Bear in mind that as a rule, general email correspondence is dubious as to GFDL (the copyright status of email has been considered at length in a case 3 months ago) and hence should not be posted on the wiki. If there are any difficulties that for whatever reason are unable to be discussed here, then please feel free to email any arbitrator or the arbcom mailing list.

Thanks, and appreciation.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged e-mails are unverifiable (and thus should not be considered nor should any claims arising from them) unless they were to a mailing list that maintains an archive and all committee members are given access to those archives. —Random832 14:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are said to be emails exchanged by two users, with Jimbo Wales. That would be considerable verification, if all three agreed to forward them and the same results arose in both Jimbo's copies and also the parties' copies. (Concerns about collaboration aside.) However this does rely somewhat on user permission, and nothing should be read into a lack of permission; they may contain private dialog or simply not be authorized for any other reason (which note: no user is obligated to disclose if they don't wish to). But equally nothing could be verified given a lack of permission either, so any claim based on these would essentially be an unverifiable assertation only, and carry little to no weight in the case. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I wish to make it available? I've already sent it to two editors. Just give me the address. Cool Hand Luke 15:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

shows the raw data for the November 2007 drop and timeshift in blog postings by GW. Cool Hand Luke's data will show The Wannabe Kate tool shows the near total departure of Mantanmoreland and SamiHarris at the same time. GRBerry 16:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• well...there are two sets of raw data. 1) on wiki information as evaluated by GRB, CHL, and others (lots of work), and 2) lots of email sent to either jimbo, one of the mailing lists, and/or JzG. The on wiki stuff has been spread around by those who developed it, the email stuff is the question and it would depend on if the recipients feel like it's going to mitigate the on wiki stuff if it is worth the privacy and GDFL potential to post here, or to even fully evaluate it (which I understand has not been done?). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Having read a fair portion of those e-mails, I'll offer comment. In most situations I would accept stylistic differences as convincing because not many people have the ability to write in two different prose styles for any sustained length of time. Yet in this particular case the possibility exists that both accounts could be operated by a successful writer. One of the reasons I decided the sockpuppetry claims were credible was that I could not recall a situation where these two accounts had disagreed with each other or had demonstrated actively different wiki-philosophies. A year ago when an editor expressed suspicions about improper collusion between Jehochman and myself, it was simple for me to raise a series of links and diffs that outlined our different approaches: he tends to come on strong early in a situation, call for strong sanctions, and then back off as a conciliatory gesture; I'm often slow to make up my mind, then if someone exhausts every angle of good faith I'll take a very hard line and brook no compromise. One of the things that raised my antenna about the possible Mantanmoreland/Samiharris connection was how consistently I saw both of them express the same viewpoint in different words. I studied writing in graduate school and it would be trivial for me to create two accounts where one was a pedant and the other a little bit of a hothead; in fact that's exactly the type of ruse I'd expect a proessional writer to try. And occasional use of the same pet phrases, consistent use of the same hyphenation, etc. are the lapses a professional writer would make. It didn't settle my worries to see one account suddenly announce its retirement while the other defended the departure without a hint of bitterness over the abandonment in an hour of need. These observations come far short of positive sockpuppetry, yet it also prevents me from persuading myself that these are different people. When the checkuser came back with the report that one account always used TOR nodes I set aside all the personalities involved and asked myself, under similar conditions, what would I want to know next? I'd ask myself whether these two accounts edited at the same time or not. So I suggested to other editors that they check it out. I won't be submitting any e-mails to ArbCom; they aren't mine to send. Yet if anything is forthcoming from other parties, that's how I parsed what I saw. Durova^Charge! 03:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well....I'm inclined to think that unless there is some substantial mitigating information in those emails they are likely not relevant enough to hassle about. I agree that this is a purely circumstantial case, but even dna evidence is circumstantial in most criminal settings. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated that the 600 emails are probably a red herring. But I note here, Mantan strategically withdraws, that User:Mantanmoreland has no qualms in badgering User:PatrickByrne a number of times to send some particular e-mails personally to Weiss, despite that would apparently incriminate Byrne in some way. (Well, Mantan did self-revert: it was only after clearly being "gonged off" byrne's talk page by some editors (anon) taking exception. So, that being the case, is Mantanmoreland indicating, equally, a commitment to forward relevant emails from Mantanmoreland to the arbcom mailing list for perusal, even risking self-incrimination, equally? Newbyguesses - Talk 10:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 15:02, 18 February 2008 [16], To clarify, User:Mantanmoreland added this material, which was reverted , Mantan (UNDO) - and a self-revert... -->

No, I do not believe that is a good idea. Mr. Byrne has described these emails on his blog as purporting to come from Gary Weiss, purporting to describe his editing here. Mr. Weiss has described those emails as forgeries, and urged the Securities & Exchange Commission (which is investigating Byrne) to subpoena them.[17]. If these are the emails to which he is referring, they should be made public, with no details omitted. Or, in the alternative, some method should be ascertained to determine their authenticity, and of course they need to be provided to Weiss. - Mantanmoreland (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not ever read or looked at, and probably wont look at unless it seems to sway things on this page? [18]. If these are the emails to which he is referring I Imagine Mantan could release extracts, vetted by self, but is not under an obligation to do so, if I understand right.Newbyguesses - Talk 16:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mantanmoreland's actions on that diff[19] are disturbing and the fact that he went right after Byrne there, and then seemed to withdraw, indicates to me on top of everything else that he is Gary Weiss. He is free to deny this (again) of course, but the community is also free to make a determination and decision on this matter over the objections of the small number of vocal bashers of Weiss's opponents. Weiss aka Mantanmoreland aka Sami aka whomever has apparently completely gamed and twisted around WP's insiders to promote and protect his own self-image here. Enough. Kick him to the curb and be done with it. Lawrence § t/e 16:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what we've seen, I think the only way a question is brought into anyone's conclusions on this are if he actually does admit and totally come clean on his poor wikipedia behavior. totally my own opinion, but I'm having a real hard time assuming good faith of mantanmoreland at this point. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether he "comes clean" or not, if enough evidence stacks up, the community can take action with or without the support of Jimbo, the AC, and Weiss's on-Wikipedia supporters. We certainly don't need their approval. There are 1,000+ admins and tens of thousands of users. They don't need the approval of one or more of a small group of 15 people to do something based on evidence. Lawrence § t/e 17:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patience, my padawan. There is a reason why its here, because of the long running, controversial nature of the situation. In matters this controversial, it's better to be thorough then quick. (and sorry for calling you "my padawan", I just had that quote stuck in my head. SirFozzie (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy indicated he was a recipient of such mails, and as such I requested he send a copy of the timestamps only to compare times and dates - no content or headers, etc. While he suggested he would he has not yet done so, and I am in no mood to press him. As I was then still looking for disparity between the two accounts it is not now a concern of mine to look on behalf of the threetwo wise monkeys. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]