Should I have a separate outside view section? I'm not really "outside." Cool Hand Luke 04:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Durova's section suggests that I'm fine. Cool Hand Luke 07:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a run-on. "There has been concern that User:Mantanmoreland, who had previously been warned by former ArbCom member User:Fred Bauder for using an alternate/additional account, User:Lastexit in ways that violated Wikipedia policy was using the account User:Samiharris to violate Wikipedia's rules on multiple accounts." Not sure whether it would be considered appropriate for me to edit this, so I'll note it here. Achromatic (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is a parsable grammatical sentence, as would be more clear if a couple of commas were added, but I don't think anyone could object to some copyediting. (Not commenting on the merits of the dispute.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think long, Faulkner-esque sentences that explore an idea completely and exhaustively before any periods are encountered are underrated. Cla68 (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading Henry James while you're stuck in a hospital bed. I swore the man needed to have his semicolon surgically removed. Three cheers for Hemingway (subject-verb-object-full stop). ;) Durova^Charge! 05:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks around, wondering if he's got his head stuck in his semi-colon.. (sorry, couldn't resist the joke there). Seriously, if folks want to copyedit me in an attempt to make me look brighter then I am, please, go to it with a vengeance. I could use all the help I can get. SirFozzie (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semicolon.

— Alan Perlis, winner of the first Turing Award

Not sure if it matters, but in reply to this evidence:

Either Mantanmoreland or Sami Harris always edits from an open proxy.

Samiharris seems to admit that he uses an open proxy and explains why. Just thought I'd poin tthat out, dunno if it matters. daveh4h 08:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing it out. Durova^Charge! 20:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posting this at Jimbo's request:

"I have asked SirFozzie to quote me on-wiki because I am traveling a lot this week and will not have time to visit the issue directly until Friday. I support that this investigation continue, and request that it be done in a kind, thoughtful, loving way, and that any trolling be dealt with firmly. An investigation is not a negative mark against the accounts involved, and the best possible outcome is a firm confidence that the charges are not true." SirFozzie (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad Jimbo supports the investigation, but I must take rather strong issue with his concluding thought. The "best possible outcome" is for the community to come to a firm (and accurate) conclusion about the charges - the outcome itself is only important in as much as we get it right. I hope (and would hope that everyone hopes) that we can establish the truth one way or another without fear or favor. Thus I personally don't care for Jimbo's (rather unsubtle in my opinion) cheerleading.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this situation but am somewhat wary of getting involved as it seems anyone who takes a view on this is in danger of being accused of being a Wordbomb sock. But I agree that, having read all the evidence, as wide a view as possible is needed from the community. One question I have is, as the sub-heading suggests, are we just treating this as a standard case of sockpuppet abuse or are we concerned about who the editor (if it is just one) behind the accounts may be? Yes, this is a Wordbomb/WR issue that they'vep had for a long time, but let's not ignore the elephant in the room just because a "badsite" keeps telling us it's there. Whitstable 17:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we're restricting this RfC solely to the question on whether or not Mantanmoreland was socking with Samiharris. The possible COI issues concerning Mantanmoreland's real life identity may be addressed elsewhere. Cla68 (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we not also commenting on possible other cases of sockpuppetry involving the Mantanmoreland account, when evidencing previous alleged examples to establish a possible pattern, than Samiharris? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The investigation at SirFozzie's user space included discussion of two accounts: one that was checkuser-confirmed and another that was possible per edit summaries. There's no BLP problem with exploring that here. Durova^Charge! 21:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous incidents help deflect commentary as "So-and so would never sockpuppet", or "Why would so-and-so need to sockpuppet in the first place?" If this was a crime show or court show (yeah, I'm reaching here), it would be considered A) Establishing motive and previous modus operandi. SirFozzie (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I believe this RfC is for the narrow factual inquiry into sockpuppeteering. Possible remedies may be discussed after this is established. Cool Hand Luke 20:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)First of all I assure you nobody has accused me of being a Wordbomb sock. ;) And with regard to the rest of your question, there are BLP issues here. It was my idea to ask the Foundation for advisement about whether to explore possible real world identities behind these accounts. About a year ago I was dealing with a different situation and was starting to prepare a case to request a siteban. The vandal had a particular affinity for a biography article and was, for various reasons, very likely the subject of that biography. Yet he had never disclosed his identity onsite. I received a request to take down that draft and reconstruct it without reference to a particular real world name. So this is just following precedent. Durova^Charge! 20:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consequences of a possible conclusion, per Bigtimepeace's outside view and my endorsement, should be very apparent to interested parties and needed saying. However, consequences should not have any impact on the conclusions and comments drawn by review of the evidence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the replies and clarification - and apologies for not replying sooner. I will have a think before commenting further, if I indeed do Whitstable 22:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One good point was raised here...should Tomstoner and Lastexit be added to the list of parties? Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone give me a quick answer related to that point - Lastexit claimed here that he was Mantanmoreland's uncle and they sometimes shared a computer. Was that ever actually disproved or proved (explanation for the sock tag also in that diff)? Whitstable 23:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The claim was never properly followed up on. Lastexit and Tomstoner both stopped editing, (Lastexit about a week or so later), and thus the problem of multiple accounts was avoided. SirFozzie (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previously-mentioned Mantanmoreland correction of a Tomstoner quote, without any explanation I can recall, would make me want to include the Tomstoner account, at least Whitstable 00:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question about English: The description of SamiHarris and MM´s editing pattern (That is: nr 1 starts, nr 1 stops, nr 2 starts, nr 2 stops, nr 1 starts...and so on)...isn´t that called "dovetailing" in English? Named after the Dovetail joint? Just curious... Regards, Huldra (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would an appropriate use of the word 'dovetailing'. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks! I guess we can say that dovetail-editing by two editors indicate sockpuppets -Regards, Huldra (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it disappointing, to say the least that instead of answering evidence that 20 or so folks have found great problems with his behavior, his first behavior is to attempt to wikilawyer around the issue and without posting here, post on the Administrator's Noticeboard in an attempt to get it deleted.... SirFozzie (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is at this point I am glad that those who have compiled the investigation have been very strict about adhering to on-wiki only. While a post on AN is not an admission of guilt, it does Mantanmoreland no favours Whitstable 00:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Improper RfC

That is indeed Wikilawyering. Cool Hand Luke 00:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will interesting to see who endorses Morven's outside view he just posted in the RfC. Cla68 (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Morven mentions that Mantanmoreland's and Samiharris' current behavior isn't being called into question. Doesn't it mention anywhere in this RfC that they both voted in several voting forums, including at least one RfA, within the past couple of months? Cla68 (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be patient. For all we know, Mantanmoreland may have other commitments right now and limited time to respond. I can also understand a reluctance to reply while he has an outstanding question about venue. The typical time frame for a conduct RFC is three weeks, or perhaps more. I certainly would have been happier if he'd replied in the first day, yet perhaps he'd rather post the best possible response than the swiftest possible one. Durova^Charge! 01:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has spent a fair bit of time on AN but no matter. You are right at the moment there is no reason not to wait.Geni 02:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is this all about? Well, for Wikipedia it is all about NPOV articles. For people trying to push a POV, it is all about making articles consistent with their preferred POV. In this case, there are two POVs that clash at many points and neither are NPOV. So what are those POVs and how do they clash? For that we need to know a little about some real-life well-connected people who pay others to influence on-line information. Some third party that disapproves of the manipulations by both sides might have a suggestion or two. Perhaps this letter published by the SEC might have a useful guess or two. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a "community" RfC (here) that hopefully will explore the entire issue completely. Anyone is welcome to join in and help in building it. Cla68 (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo said "I just want to go on record as saying that I believe the reason for this is that Mantanmoreland is in fact Gary Weiss." 9/15/2007 on Slim's Sooper Seekrit Syberstalking list WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo had better come clean on this one. I've never been angrier about something in Wikipedia than this. Cla68 (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out." WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to play semantics here, because that quote has annoyed, but "I believe" is not enough. Whitstable 12:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

(copy of my post to ANI) I've written to Jimbo and asked him for comment. He's traveling this week and may not be available to post onsite before Friday. I've reread the entire thread where that brief excerpt came from, and the context is about the difference between proof and hunch. It's possible to have a stong hunch without actually being right (cough). So let's not get too furious at Jimbo for being wiser in September than I was in November. Durova^Charge! 12:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this RfC has definitely diverted onto a tangent and I want to address that tangent. That is in regards to a supposed Real Life identity of all the four accounts at the core of this issue. Yes, there is a common belief about the real life identity of the accounts Mantanmoreland, Tomstoner, Lastexit and Samiharris. I actually share that belief, due to evidence I've seen. But what you believe and what you can prove are two different things.

Does it matter what I believe? To a point, does it matter what Jimbo believes? If we can't prove this, it doesn't matter what our beliefs are... if they have a Real World ability to hurt and cannot be proven conclusively, then we shouldn't be saying it. That is why Durova and I asked the Foundation for guidance starting last week on this.(Unfortunately, other then the statement by Jimbo, I have not received that guidance). That's why we are focusing conservatively at the moment on linking the two accounts to each other, and disregarding for the moment, off-Wikipedia evidence or RL identity evidence.

I can't demand, but I certainly hope that we do apply the utmost care in linking these account to a real life person. SirFozzie (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having added one last section based on a suggestion from Wikback, I rest my case. A few days ago, I wasn't sure these accounts were sockpuppets, although I strongly suspected that Samiharris had a COI based on my experience at Gary Weiss. The evidence gathered is overwhelming to the point that I can't imagine any words that would explain it away.

Mantanmoreland's a sockpuppeteer, period.

I hope that Mantanmoreland stops trying Wikilawyer out of this. I hope that he posts a forthright response that begins with the words: "I have intentionally deceived the Wikipedia community over the last year because..." And I hope that he has a damn good explanation.

I remain optimistic that Mantanmoreland will still have a place editing here—he's done some good work in areas where he isn't pushing an apparent agenda—but he should immediately and fully accept responsibility for all of his past and present sockpuppets. We should impose restrictions that will end this POV war between the user and WordBomb. We should also launch an inquiry into how we allowed this to happen for so long. If the user will not admit to his abuse and aid in our inquiry, he should be banned. Cool Hand Luke 08:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He claims he's never been blocked or warned about using multiple accounts.

[1], [2], [3] should prove that incorrect very quickly. SirFozzie (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, the posts on Wikback show precisely why you no longer "behaved as socks" on Overstock topics after September 2007. Admins told you to stop, perhaps even Jimbo himself. Unless you would like to give another explanation for your withdrawal from these topics... The Wikback posts establish your motive for creating a sock—so that you could edit articles with the "appearance" of COI without drawing scrutiny. Cool Hand Luke 16:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. I was never received any sock warning, public or private, in September.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned in July 2006. Diffs are listed above. Jehochman ^Talk 17:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin also says she told you to stop in November 2006, a couple of months before Samiharris was set up. You calling her a liar? Drop the wikilawyering, please. Cool Hand Luke 17:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not true and Sara has not said that. She suggested at that time that I stop editing certain articles at that time because of off-wiki harrassment.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Ptmccain was indef-blocked for restoring the info from the above diffs on Mantanmoreland's user talk page... perhaps he's another one who's owed an apology by the admins involved? *Dan T.* (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lastexit and Tomstoner have been blocked per WP:AN Whitstable 17:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concern that the Requests for comment formalities don't really fit the nature of this debate is well-taken, I think. This really strikes me as something that belongs to one of the administrators' noticeboards, and in fact might as well be converted into a subpage of that. Related discussions have sprung up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and I have proposed there that Mantanmoreland/Samiharris be blocked, with the option of proceeding under only whichever account wasn't using open proxies. --Michael Snow (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments there, Michael. If this goes anywhere, I think it's straight to ArbCom. SirFozzie (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The locus of discussion is not an issue. This is going to ArbCom, unless by some magic, no administrator opposes the block. Jehochman ^Talk 18:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt if there's a block it can be submitted to the arbitrators should that prove necessary, but I encourage people to review and respond to my proposal first. --Michael Snow (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree. The non-proxy account was Mantanmoreland, incidentally. Cool Hand Luke 18:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, we have reason to believe this because Samiharris said that he began using open proxies. GRBerry 19:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and consolidated the discussion, renamed this as a subpage of it, and blocked Samiharris based on this information. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Set aside the diffs and evidence for a moment. You say you and Sami Harris are two different people; I've tried putting myself in your shoes and supposing that's true. Right now if I were you I'd be getting his attention and explaining to him how there are concerns about double voting and unanswered questions and you might get sitebanned. The two of you used to work very closely; you nearly always agreed with each other. It doesn't look like you've had a falling out--you've expressed no resentment that he's turned his back. So here's a solution: call in a favor, have him come back and each of you hold conversations at two different pages at the same time. One of you post here and the other one post at SirFozzie's user space. Let us know when you'll both be online and keep it up for an hour or two while people ask questions. The time stamps and complexity of the conversation should be enough to demonstrate how many hands are at the keyboard. Durova^Charge! 19:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support this, and hope that it has been communicated to Mantanmoreland in more than one way (to ensure it is seen). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I would do that.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, when it's set up please post the GMT time when you'll both be online. Thank you. Durova^Charge! 19:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, how do we tell the difference between this and Mantanmoreland passing along a login to the Samiharris account to someone else who has never actually used it prior to this demonstration? I take it there would have to be a determination that the person editing as Samiharris is the same person who was doing so previously, yet somehow distinct from Mantanmoreland, otherwise this proves nothing. --Michael Snow (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the problem. Nobody can gain anything from this - those who think MM = SH and those who think MM and SH are different users. Whitstable 20:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove. Users here suggest that Mantanmoreland has been misleading the community for a year. I certainly don't believe that Mantanmoreland would be above employing a spouse or friend for a little tag team demonstration. How would they prove their identities—by exhibiting the same editing traits that somehow do not prove they're linked to each other, but would somehow conclusively establish simultaneous editing in this demonstration? Cool Hand Luke 20:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors will be asking in-depth questions based upon things that happened many months ago. Now if Mantanmoreland and Sami Harris are two different actual people, we'll see fluent and rapid conversation from both of them, each in their own distinctive style. One person trying to cover both bases would either resort to canned answers or slow down and/or get confused. It may nor may not be a perfect test, but it'll add to our pool of information and it might just show us whether there's one duck or two geese in the water. Durova^Charge! 20:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we serious with this? The Samiharris account has already been blocked as an abuser of open proxies, and its part in frustrating a sock investigation into another user. AGF as best I can, how difficult would it be for anyone to do this? It wouldn't show anything. The fact that Samiharris was present through the majority of these affairs and investigations, only to disappear in the last couple of days (and immediately the cry went up, "There's no dispute here to investigate, Sami is gone. Nothing to see here". But not once did either of them even propose any way of showing their 'innocence'. As judged by the use of open proxies, one would assume that at least one of them was reasonably competent to do so with ease. But we're asking the person under investigation of having a sockpuppet to arrange for that sockpuppet to be on at the same time as them to show, what, exactly, when that sockpuppet could be using another open (or closed) proxy, VPN tunnel or otherwise. I really don't like the sounds of this - though I also recognize that 'showing innocence' can be hard, proving a negative, etc. Then again, there's no onus or need to do any such thing, after all, it's up to those blocking or taking other actions, even investigating, to demonstrate conclusively. Why are we offering this? This would definitely be a precedent offered to no other sockpuppet investigation in the history of WP. Achromatic (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not unblock for this? Mantanmoreland has been complaining that he's being asked to prove a negative. If this conversation happens with sufficient speed and depth, it might accomplish that. Durova^Charge! 20:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I'm sure you mean well and are trying to find a solution to this won't prove a thing either way. And has it ever been offered to anyone before? Countless other accounts have been blocked/banned/whatever on far more tenuous evidence than we have here. And if the owner behind this account is in anyway, erm, influential, shall we say, then this can be gamed easily Whitstable 20:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked Samiharris, and I would support an unblock for this demonstration, but I remain skeptical that the demonstration will give much satisfaction. For proponents of the theory that they are different people, I'll expect a clear articulation afterward of the reasons for believing that. So far, I've seen vague arguments that they have a different "style" or "voice", but nothing to really illustrate why that is the case. --Michael Snow (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking this over, I've come off my initial support for this, as I do agree with folks that this could be gamed somewhat. Trying to figure out how to handle this. I've already typed up an ArbCom submission in my sandbox.. I'm thinking about just posting it to RfARB SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're all welcome to apply your skeptical judgement here, just as you would for anything else, and call it gaming or inconclusive if that's what it looks like to you. I'm seeking to bring in more evidence and will follow it wherever it leads. Durova^Charge! 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concerns, but as this is one of the defining conflicts of the wikipedia community and needs every effort to try to resolve. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting thought experiment but not, I think, the way forward.--G-Dett (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any result will be even more subjective and grounds for disagreement than the evidence we have now.

And by the way, we don't have a lot of disagreement. This is in part because Mantanmoreland hasn't really defended himself at all. He's attacked me, and made a conclusory statement, and he added obviously-false statements about never being chastised about sockpuppetry, even though the diffs are on-site. If they're separate, it's clear that they're in frequent communication. How about Mantanmoreland tells us about that? It might actually form a response that someone would be willing to sign. Cool Hand Luke 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration filed. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Mantanmoreland. SirFozzie (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I knew this was headed here, I'd hoped that this would get further with community input. Rfar scares a lot of contributers away. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom was an inevitable and necessary step I think, though there is no reason that the RfC (or whatever this is exactly) cannot continue to run and receive comments.

I understand the logic beyond Durova's proposal but do not think that it is at all a good idea at this point. The possibility for gaming is fairly strong as folks have mentioned, and - assuming Samiharris is Mantan's sock - Mantanmoreland has already gone to great lengths to avoid being caught for sockpuppetry. It is plausible if not likely that he would try to find a way to game Durova's proposed scenario. I think many of us are past the point of being able to assume good faith here unfortunately.

Additionally, the first thing that should happen is for Mantanmoreland to actually directly answer the charges and offer explanations for some of the many questions editors have asked. So far this has not happened - instead Mantan tried to basically short circuit the process by trying to get the RfC deleted. I am opposed to extending the rather exceptional offer to have the Samiharris and Mantanmoreland accounts edit at the same time until - at the very least - Mantan responds directly to the issue at hand as has been asked repeatedly.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A novel idea, but whats the point since Weiss or whomever has demonstrated an exceptional ability to avoid Checkuser in the past? Lawrence § t/e 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are various methods by which it is possible to edit from two different accounts simultaneously. It isn't hard.Geni 21:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Although the time for this appears to have passed, it may have been an interesting test - although I would have stipulated one further condition; that both parties should have signed in from traceable addresses, which could have been reviewed by a checkuser for obtaining a geographical location (not for general readership), such as a public library/internet cafe. This would have allowed the question of physical closeness to be considered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with this would be meatpuppeting. I'd have suggested that the accounts should log in, both from IP addresses/ranges they've used in the past, but given Sami used almost exclusively open proxies, another dead end lies here. Achromatic (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it may be moot now, but I like that idea of LessHeardvanU. Durova^Charge! 23:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its an improvement, but I know of at least one occasion when a similar attempt, over IRC, totally did not work, and in fact allowed a sockpuppeteer to hang around for a bit. Relata refero (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea behind traceable ip's is to test how physically close to each other the two parties are; same country, same State, same county, same city, same neighbourhood, same location? (I have no idea how more accurate than a whois a CU tools are - possibly the very same) The physically closer they are the more potential there is of collusion - not proof, mind - as the other party may be a friend/colleague. Obviously, there is also the possibility of an uncle or similar from out of area... as well as it just possibly being that they are two separate people! LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that now this test is tainted. It's trivial to get someone to give you remote access to a PC anywhere on earth with any number of tools, to use a different IP. Foresight could allow a person controlling both accounts to make the results show literally whatever he wanted. Lawrence § t/e 20:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Head up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this dispute has proceeded to arbitration, can we close this RfC, or are there outstanding issues here that won't be addressed by ArbCom? --Muchness (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have delisted this RfC from WP:RFCC, as the ArbCom case has closed (see final decision). Please feel free to relist this RfC if there are still outstanding issues that need to be addressed. --Muchness (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]