Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:19, 16 February 2008

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.

Motions and requests by the parties

Scope Focus Request

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Scope

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Avruch

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]

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]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Disagree per guilty until proven otherwise. Maybe this could be tweaked to place some emphasis on use of common sense? User:Dorftrottel 00:56, February 15, 2008
- I also disagree with it in principle, but this is in effect (no pun intended) the "meat" of WP:MEAT, so overturning it is beyond the scope of ArbCom's authority. Similarly-worded principles have passed in other cases where alleged meatpuppetry has been an issue. —Random832 15:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree as creating accusations which even if false are irrefutable. The current (mis)application of this theory is a source of much needless disruption. Mangoe (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dorftrottel. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

". . .when there is uncertainty. . ." is too low of a threshold, cannot support. R. Baley (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical analysis, if used, must be sound

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 because of the vagueness which can be misinterpreted. CU did not connect the accounts because it could not connect the accounts, due to one of the accounts consistently using an open proxy. R. Baley (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

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

Mantanmoreland and Samiharris restricted to one account

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mantanmoreland and Samiharris cannot edit via open proxy

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

(to Jpgordon) I don't think that's right at all ... open proxies are blocked when identified, but there is no prohibition against using them ... and there's been a specific determination that this is how we want to continue to handle things (wasn't that one of the cruxes of the CharlotteWebb case)? By the way, would a proxy service that provides anonymizing on a fee-for-account basis be considered an "open" proxy, or something else? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

In effect, would this put the accounts under continual CU surveillance? If no better remedy were available, this might not be a terrible idea—it would help the project block lots of open proxies if Samiharris continued to edit. However, I think the evidence is so strong that banning Samiharris as a surplus sock account is the bare minimum. Cool Hand Luke 19:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mantanmoreland and Samiharris prohibited

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editors are encouraged

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Proposals by Cla68

Proposed findings of fact

Morven recusal

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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]

Proposals by User:Random832

Proposed Principles

"Open Proxy" as a term of art

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Proposed findings of fact

WP:DUCK

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Flimsy is a very loaded word. There have been cases where users were banned as sockpuppets per the duck test where the investigation was not as detailed and did not involve input from so many independent editors. Rewording and some examples would be nice here. Thatcher 23:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Open proxy checks

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

30 days was chosen based on my understanding of the period for data retention. —Random832 22:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by SirFozzie

Proposed Principles

Who's Who

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

Added 1A, to see if this is a bit closer to what FloNight wants) SirFozzie (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The Duck Test

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Proposed findings of fact

User:Mantanmoreland and User:Samiharris linked

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Mantanmoreland has violated WP:SOCK previously

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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]

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Support Uncontroversial, dependent on the abuse of alternate accounts being proven. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

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

User:Mantanmoreland banned

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment Agree with FloNight. Durova^Charge! 05:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

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]

User:Mantanmoreland restricted to one account

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Newyorkbrad

Proposed Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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]

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evaluating sockpuppetry

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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]

Determining sockpuppetry

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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:

~~Comment~~Oppose 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]

Right to anonymity

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Conflicts of interest

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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]

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]

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]

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]

Comment by others:

Strong support LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 16 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]

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Candor

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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]

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:

Proposals by Durova

Proposed principles

Pseudonymity and conflict of interest

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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]

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]

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:

Proposals by User:Rocksanddirt

Proposed Principles

The Five Pillars WP:FIVE

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Proposed findings of fact

Articles are not 'fine'

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Abuse of Mantanmorelands Opponents

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Same as directly above; but I'm open to alternative explanations, ideally one that takes into account the good-faithed (!) perception of this as shared by myself and, as I understand it, several others and outlined by Cla68. User:Dorftrottel 14:00, February 16, 2008

Proposed remedies

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

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Proposals by Jayvdb

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 much immediately and fully disclose anything at all. I fail to see what's wrong with his "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]

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]

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:

Proposals by {Your username}

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:

Proposals by {Your username}

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:

Proposals by {Your username}

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:

Proposals by {Your username}

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:

Proposals by {Your username}

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:

Proposals by {Your username}

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.

@@ Line 750: / Line 750: @@
 ::Concur: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world#Don't count on your anonymity|Don't count on your anonymity]]. [[User:Mangoe|Mangoe]] ([[User talk:Mangoe|talk]]) 14:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 ::"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?].'' — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|CharlotteWebb]] 14:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
+:::Of having their contributions being viewed prejudiciously unrelated to the content - the "how many other lies have they told?" scenario. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 21:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 ====Template====