Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try .

Procedural question on recusal

I see that various users have called for Morven to recuse based on hostile comments he has made surrounding this issue on outside forums, such as Wikbak, and due to the fact he was subscribed to the underground Wikia.com mail list wpCyberstalking list along with Mantanmoreland. I don't have any opinion myself anymore, and have redacted my own agreement with the recall request on my original opening comment. I really don't feel like taking part in this epic mess since I'm frankly burned out on my current Waterboarding RFAR and need a break in general. This one technical point got me curious, however, as it's a related to the various heated arguments in the IRC case.

My question is, since the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales are only empowered by the goodwill of the community, does the community theoretically have the ability to enforce recusal, if enough established users called for an Arbiter to sit out a case? I understand there is no precedent for this, but I ask as the Committee only has any authority because the community lets them. Lawrence § t/e 00:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

See here. The decision to recuse is by policy left to the individual Arbitrator, and there is no other established method for requesting/enforcing a recusal (See WP:Arbitration policy). Avruch ^T 00:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That is to say, the policy would need to be changed by consensus in order to create a new method for forcing recusal. Avruch ^T 00:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, I saw that, but I asked here afterwards as the community can change anything it wants to outside the Foundation level (but that can be changed as well, since the community can always scrub the entire Foundation Board with an election or two). The community controls everything and anything in the end. Lawrence § t/e 00:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not so. For a start, the english wikipedia community is not the sum of the wikimedia community, so watch how you use the word "community". Second, WMF has core purposes, which cannot be votes out of existence. Anyway, that's pretty irrelevant to the question of recusal. I'm sure that a consensus of arbs, or the intervention of Jimbo could compel a recusal if they wished to. However, in fact, I doubt they would.--Doc^g 00:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The clerk, Rlevse, has told me that the procedure for requesting recusal is to first ask the individual arbitrator, which I have done [1]. If the arbitrator refuses, which Morven has done [2], then I'm supposed to take the request to another arbitrator, which I have done [3]. NewYorkBrad then replies that there is currently no way to force an arbitrator to recuse themselves. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify my statement. Sorry for the confusion. There is no set policy here. I advised Cla68 using standard wiki policies, ie, approach the person directly first and politely ask. Then use other means, which here would logically be ask another arb and/or send to the arb mail list. To me this makes sense and gives the requestor (Cla68 here) a means of "appeal" if the requestee (Morven here) does not respond or does not grant the request. It may be arbcom needs a formal policy on this, I'm not sure, but it'd probably be akin to what I outlined I expect if they did come up with one. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the question will probably come up again, so a formal process probabaly should be established. Yet another forum requiring the arbitrators to respond to. Cla68 (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I will state that should more than one other Arbitrator ask or advise or suggest that I reconsider and recuse, I will do so. This applies to all cases, not just this one. However, there are no rules that compel this. No arbitrator has yet made such a suggestion.

Note that I am at a convention from tomorrow through Monday night, and will not be editing Wikipedia nor reading my email during this time. Just FYI so nobody thinks I'm ignoring them. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

First of all, my apologies if this consideration has been noted before.

One thing for arbitrators to consider when proposing remedies is how to avoid endorsing the methods Judd Bagley (WordBomb) has been utilizing. If the committee determines the Mantanmoreland and Samiharris accounts belong to the same individual (regardless of whether it is Gary Weiss or not), I think it should take care to make clear that the way Bagley has been pursuing the issue is, well, not the ideal way to expose sockpuppetry.

But that brings up another issue - what is the ideal way for this sort of allegation to be made? Would this case have even come about if Bagley hadn't been pursuing it from Wikipedia Review and his website? Would SirFozzie have compiled his evidence subpage and filed this request if he hadn't been reading Bagley's posts on that site? If not for the wealth of offsite evidence in addition to what WordBomb listed at the checkuser request, would checkusers have taken Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Samiharris seriously? It is disturbing to consider that this sockpuppetry could have continued for even longer if not for Bagley's tactics. I think we need a better way for people to make credible sockpuppetry allegations against established editors without fear of retribution (note the credible requirement). I doubt a proposed decision could address all of this, but it's something to keep in mind. Picaroon (t) 02:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree there are some very large challenges to the project to come out of this, but it starts by not ignoring the real abuses going on (by all sides of this and other disputes). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Good thoughts from both of you. Getting to the root of any systemic corruption and exposing problematic editors is a good thing. Maybe the transparency found at other objective sources is a great thing, in the final analysis. Anonymous editing can lead to a kind of trouble that passes all understanding. Like a Rainbow (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Heard a rumor...

The word is that you might start posting proposals in the next few hours. I really hope that's true. The talk pages seem to have jumped the shark (several times, in fact), and I doubt many people will read the whole workshop, now pushing 500k. I certainly haven't.

I just want to know if the arbitrators need any more evidence in particular, so I'm eagerly anticipating your findings of fact. Good night. Cool Hand Luke 06:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Waiting on an arbcom decision is similar to waiting for a US jury verdict. Since we can't see their deliberations, we can't tell how close they are to reaching a decision. I expect that they'll start posting some findings soon. Cla68 (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the proposed decision

My approach to the proposed decision attempts to reflect a consensus of several arbitrators rather than solely my own views as the arbitrator posting the draft. And please see the second paragraph under United States v. One Book Entitled Ulysses by James Joyce#Appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

if there's nothing about the MM/GW/SH connection, the order of the day is apparently whitewash. brad, I have a LOT of respect for you, but if there's not going to be anything about the connection, then ArbCom has wasted a lot of people's time and lived up to the stereotype that others have placed on it. SirFozzie (talk) 03:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention ignoring the overwhelming consensus on the RfC and in the comments on the evidence that came to light in the arbitration case. Viridae^Talk 03:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The majority of the arbcom' (ie, the ones who don't have blinkers on) believe that they are socks, but a two-time sockpuppeter (and let's not forget the double votes, and double participatiopn in previous arbcom cases) shouldn't get anything more then told if he edits that article any MORE that he has to establish his COI? This is nothing more than a whitewash, and gives the folks who trash us evidence that they are exactly what they say we are. SirFozzie (talk) 03:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am going to do my best to let the decision speak for itself, and allow time for the other arbitrators to comment, but commenters need to focus on the principles established and the remedies enacted (some of which are novel) in addition to a specific finding that some may find not strong enough and others may find too strong. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the case pages there is a handful of people who will find the proposed decision too strong. But the vast majority of those people involved in this case will find it an abhorent copout that does ntohing to address the core problems that brought this case to hand or even touch on the impressively strong suite of evidence that has been presented, notwithstanding the lack of solid CU results (and more impressive because of that). Viridae^Talk 03:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm very surprised if ArbCom would turn the use of open proxies into such a defense. I assumed references to the narrow scope of ArbCom indicated that it would acknowledge the violations of policy as it would in any case, but that outside parties should not assume this was some sort of legal conviction. To say that two accounts assessed by the vast majority of commenters to be sockpuppets based on overwhelming evidence are nevertheless invincible because they use open proxies does not seem like a helpful development. In more normal circumstances, I don't think ArbCom would have any problem stating that significant evidence of sockpuppetry combined with the use of open proxies is blockable of itself. Mackan79 (talk) 04:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My initial thought is that I would be fine with the decision if WordBomb is unblocked and allowed to edit the articles on equal terms. This would suggest that the Committee has come to the conclusion that personalizing the dispute does not work. Otherwise, I can't see why the ArbCom would disregard the evidence, including the community consensus expressed in the RfC. Mackan79 (talk) 03:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In this case a more cautious and conservative standard was needed, due to confounding issues discussed internally by the Committee. Although the evidence is respected and was extremely carefully reviewed, the most that can be said by consensus in this most bitter case is "suggestive but not confirmed"., or in other words, that because this case is so divisive, we need a completely impossible standard of evidence (I mean, look at all the work that went into this, it's not enough???), apparently, to at least some members of the ArbCom, we'd need a video of person A logging into account's B and C right after each other.. oh wait.. that would be inadmissible because it was stalking, right? SirFozzie (talk) 04:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My greatest worry here is that the proposed decision adds up to a green light for vote stacking. For an experienced editor, creating hard-to-catch sockpuppets isn't all that difficult. One of the things that keeps the regulars honest has been the knowledge that the abuse would be handled firmly when the day of reckoning came. Yes, I'm thinking of Runcorn and a few other instances. But if the only downside becomes a stern talking-to and instructions not to do it again, then what's to stop the problem from becoming widespread? Durova^Charge! 04:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Durova. This is a green light to sensitive sockpuppet vote stacking by established users. I'm very disappointed. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I too must voice my strong disappointment with a finding that uses "suggestive but not confirmed" wording. I acknowledge that nothing is 100% provable but the connection here is about as strong as it can be. The finding should be much more strongly worded, saying something like "extremely unlikely to be different users" rather than merely "suggestive". To do any less is to be dismissive of the massive effort the community, and particular hard working members, put into this, and to enable wikilawyering of the worst sort, as well as give ammunition to those that say that this case is a whitewash. I will have more to say later about the way too narrow scope of the findings and remedies I am sure but this is a starting point. Surely ArbCom can do better than this. We did not select you to be mealymouthed and prevaricative, we selected you to be bold and forceful and to make hard decisions and possibly unpopular findings and not let coverups be whitewashed. I hope much stronger and better language in a much broader scope is forthcoming. ++Lar: t/c 12:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SirFozzie (04:11), Durova (4:32), Rocksandirt (5:28), and Lar (12:44), all just above. Lar goes beyond criticizing what's on the Proposed page so far to criticizing the committee, and if what's on the page now reflects the committee's final judgment, the criticism is justified. So far the Proposed page lacks an adequate recognition of the deliberate care put into this case by Wikipedians who wanted a decisive closing of this allegation circus. If that's the committee's decision, the Arbitration Committee has failed to show that it treated the evidence with the attention and fairness it deserves. This inadequate response harms the committee's own reputation among editors far beyond the usual critics, and it makes Wikipedia's most strident critics look better. If nothing else, the committee should be more explicit about its standards of evidence and why the evidence here failed to convince -- even as other bans have been effected with less proof. Private deliberations may be needed, but they need to be combined with much clearer, somewhat more detailed public explanations. The language now on the page invites similar abuse in the future and does not adequately protect the encyclopedia from harm. Listen carefully to the criticism: It's not just about the decision, some of it elsewhere on this page is about the way you're delivering it. Noroton (talk) 19:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Since this thread is the best place for this comment, I'll make it here. I appreciate, and think it a good move, to attempt writing the decision in the style adopted by the hand cousins. However, making a good decision is far, far more important and I suspect that the style goal has adversely affected the content of the decision. So my recommendation is to think again, reach a good decision, and then write it in a boring style. GRBerry 20:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am among the committee members who firmly believe that a sufficient standard of proof to be actionable has not been met. I do not believe that any further research or analysis is likely to meet such a standard, because the facts themselves are not sufficiently strong. Some things are unknowable. There are a number of problems at work. First of all, it is my experience having made a considerable number of checkuser runs that people engaged in sock puppetry make mistakes over time. It is rare for someone to make 100 edits with a sock without slipping up -- editing the wrong user page, signing the wrong name, having the proxy settings in their browser set up for the wrong identity, inadvertently outing themselves on an external site or by email. To make over a thousand edits from a sock, interleaved with contributions from a main account, without making a mistake would require consistent attention to detail heretofore unseen at Wikipedia.

Second of all, I do not find the statistical analysis to be rigorous or well controlled (though it does indeed raise suspicions). A well-controlled analysis would consider a function f(u1,u2) that could measure something thought to be correlated with probability of two users being socks. Without being preloaded with any data (such as word choices) specific to a user or pair of users, f() could provide some measure correlated with the likelihood of socking. If such a function were tested on a large, representative sample of users and produced accurate results, it could be considered to be verified in a well-controlled experiment. In contrast, the analysis we have is informed by visible characteristics of the editors under study.

I do not believe that the decision is a cop out, but rather believe that it accurately reflects the very limited conclusions that can be drawn from the data available.

Wikipedia's policy on open proxies, WMF's privacy policy, and WP:SOCK reflect tradeoffs between privacy and accountability. All these policies can be changed. I would encourage interested Wikipedians who are frustrated with sock puppetry to join the dialog on changing them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"To make over a thousand edits from a sock, interleaved with contributions from a main account, without making a mistake would require consistent attention to detail heretofore unseen at Wikipedia." there is every chance it is unseen on wikipedia because they haven't screwed up yet? You cannot come to conclusions like that based on a lack of evidence! Viridae^Talk 22:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As a practical matter, most people can't make it past 50. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In reality it is entirely possible to achieve quite easily. You can have ie and firefox logged into different accounts. have one of those browser forced to use and open proxy and bingo! The thing is, MM HAS achieved something like that before with lastexit and tomstoner, he screwed up (once) with tomstoner and thereby learnt his lesson. He is effectively a veteran at this sort of thing. He also had a lot to lose, should the MM = GW connecction ever be exposed - job, reputation, etc that provides a hell of a lot of incentive. Whats more, the edits, despite having a very very similar median time, only interleaved on a handfull of occasions. Viridae^Talk 22:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Uninvited Company: I have 5 different laptops here at home, of various vintages, but all capable of running modern enough browsers and net connections to effectively edit WP... I also have access to 4 different ways to get to the internet. If I was bound and determined to sock, all I would have to do is set one of them up so it had saved setup info to use some browser, and some dialup connection, and then never ever use it for the other account. As long as you stay logged in, you're never going to sign as the wrong person, and if an IP slips out, big deal. As Viridae says, set it up to always go through a proxy server if that's an issue. (which, hello, one of these two socks did...) I just don't see your dubiousness as well founded, I'm sorry. As Lawrence Cohen says, if this were some other editor, this would be open and shut based on passing the DUCK test... long long ago. Being dubious this way... fuels the conspiracy theorists. Although I am sure you are acting in good faith, I think you are doing the community a vast disservice here, as the net result is that you are protecting these folk who are extremely likely to be sockers. Apparently bringing this to ArbCom was a waste of time, which is a disappointment. ++Lar: t/c 22:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

UninvitedCompany, if I had presented this information and replaced all of the usernames involved with other ones, and named a BLP of Lawrence Cohen, would that have been sufficient to declare a sock relationship? I've seen sockpuppeteers banned almost immediately based on 1/10th the level of evidence we see here. Why is so much extra leniency and courtesy being extended to Mantanmoreland, who has a proven and demonstrated history of abusing sockpuppet accounts, and to my knowledge has never answered why he did that? Lawrence § t/e 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, first off, thank you for being honest. now, please don your asbestos underwear, because the flames are going to come fast and furious, starting with me..... ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME? You are one of the members of the ArbCom who firmly believes that a sufficient standard of proof to be actionable has not been met. If this doesn't reach the status of being actionable, I don't know what will. It is asinine to expect that folks will even go to HALF the level of what was undertaken in this case. The only thing that came close to this was the SevenofDiamonds/NuclearUmpf case, which while a good job by user:MONGO, had nowhere near the level of community participation or consensus that this did. You are setting not only an unreasonably high level of circumstantial evidencce to reach, but an impossible to reach level of proof for any sockpuppet investigation ever. Unbelieveable. SirFozzie (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow up to my own statement. You don't see this as being a cop out. Well, sorry, to break it to you, UC.. but you're in a vast minority here on THAT opinion. ArbCom had a chance to resolve this issue, not only going forward, but resolve the vast history behind this. Instead, ArbCom has "Dropped back 10 yards and punted". It'll be up to the community to return this punt and take care of what ArbCom shied away from. SirFozzie (talk) 22:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that lucid explanation, UninvitedCompany, but what are your views on the "Varkala Question"? Whitstable 22:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a word about Uninvited Co.'s claim about the analysis: Note the F(.,.) in question is the likelihood of overlapping edits, that has been amply checked against similar accounts. To claim that something so basic has not been rigorously tested before as a characteristic of socks is, frankly, head-scratchingly forehead-furrowingly lip-pursingly puzzling. Relata refero (talk) 23:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What Lar says is right. Using separate computers solves the problems. No slip ups, and it makes consistent proxy usage a lot easier. In Uninvited Co.'s experience, how many users have made over a thousand edits from proxies alone? Certainly this demonstrates some skill. I should remind everyone that the Runcorn accounts made in excess of 12,000 edits with no apparent slip ups.

At any rate, this case was set into motion because of an apparent slip-up. Remember?

Lastly, you claim that no evidence is likely to be convincing, then describe how the evidence should be—with no advanced observations. As it turns out, User:Alanyst ran just such a test to compare edit summaries. He selected no terms in advance, but Mantanmoreland was the best match for Samiharris. Cool Hand Luke 09:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I went through thousands of Runcorn edits looking for the obvious goofs. It's possible to avoid them. Via e-mail I've shown UninvitedCompany another example that had substantial interleaving and none of the usual slips, although the sock history had less than 1000 edits. Durova^Charge! 10:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a substantial number of people in this discussion who want the arbitration committee to simplify things and say "oh yes, this is a clear case of socking." But Uninvited Company's points are persuasive here: setting up firefox on a laptop and internet explorer on the workstation isn't enough. Sock puppeteers make slip-ups, they find it hard to maintain distinct identities, and they have quirks, of which they're unconscious and therefore do not bother to mask, that give them away. If all we have here is "one of them always uses the same proxy and their edits don't overlap", then I'm at a loss as to why so many editors are so determined to say that the two users are sock puppets. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm, do you honestly think the only evidence presented is that one editor uses a proxy and their edits don't overlap? If not, why the oversimplification? And, what is the statistical margin of error for the statement "sock puppeteers make slip-ups"? I'm sure that it has been ascertained from the well-controlled experiments that have led to the criterion's general acceptance as a test for sockpuppetry. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The, I don't think anyone here is "determined to say" anything; they've simply arrived at conclusions after carefully reviewing the evidence in its totality. This is an approach you might consider; if the only evidence you're aware of is the proxy editing and lack of interleaving edits, as seems to be the case, I can see why you'd find yourself at a loss in all this, or believe it's reasonable to imagine SH and MM are independent accounts. When you've read through the evidence page, I think you'll find it plausible enough that a twice-caught sock-puppeteer would be careful logging in and out of his third abusive account.--G-Dett (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

New evidence

Just want to mention that I posted new evidence after the Proposed Decision began to be released and voted upon. As it addresses one of the defenses that Mantanmoreland proffered (i.e., that Samiharris's similar style was a form of mimicry), I hope that the Arbcom will give it due consideration despite the lateness of its arrival. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Standard of evidence

Anas platyrhynchos

Does this mean that we can never block any sock puppets without a positive CU result? Only the uninformed and the unindustrious get caught by CU. If this is not your intended result, please add a clarifying principle to the case to explain the extreme discrepancy between the sock puppetry evidence standard used here and the one that we normally use. The cleverest puppetmasters will cite this case to make our work difficult over at WP:SSP (which is heavily backlogged at the moment, please consider helping). Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 04:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would think that one cannot block any established account for sockpuppeting without some kind of technical match, based on this. In fact, I think that perhaps many folks should be unbanned, such as SevenofDiamonds, Poetlister, and others whom the committee has previously decided were socks of users. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• The lack of checkuser results has never stopped us-the-admins and us-the-community from blocking sockpuppets before, nor should it; just as checkuser cannot prove innocence, the absence of positive checkuser results proves nothing, and for the same reason. There's nothing at all special about this case in that regard; perhaps there's no reason to mention checkuser at all in the decision. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• In that case, what would it take to show "the duck test" for these two accounts MM & SH? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• I'd be very happy if the decision didn't mention checkuser. It also might be a good idea to say that the committee failed to achieve a consensus on whether sock puppetry occurred, and does not feel a determination is necessary given the remedies that have been agreed. You'd be surprised how well people react to candor. Jehochman ^Talk 06:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you! I was trying to figure out how to express exactly that, and luckily we edit conflicted so I got to throw my attempt away. That really is quite exactly where we are. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's precisely why the words "a majority of the committee" appear in the draft, to reflect going in that there is known disagreement among the membership. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC) But "the committee has not reached a consensus on this issue" was an alternative formulation that was circulated and perhaps we should instead have used it. Jehochman's point is consistent with the proposed principles regarding how the committee sometimes relies primarily on forward-looking remedies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Forward looking rememdies are absolutely needed, but they only really deal with the content dispute part of this situation. The abuse of community through sockpuppetry, and what it takes to rectify this kind of abuse of the community have not been delt with yet, and that is at least as big a part of this as the content dispute part. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• "the committee failed to achieve a consensus on whether sock puppetry occurred" ??? Surely that's a jest! How much more corroboration did you want? Is that actually the case that the committee failed this way?? Then things are possibly worse than I feared. Please put a finding in that states it plainly so it can be voted on, I'd like to see who on the committee actually thinks there wasn't sockpuppetry. ++Lar: t/c 12:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Concur with Lar. We need to "poll the jury" here. Cla68 (talk) 13:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Concur with Lar and Cla68 - with a request to those unconvinced for advice on what kind of evidence outside of checkuser would be sufficient. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Accountability often clarifies thinking. Jehochman ^Talk 15:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Concur. There should be a finding, with the dissents explaining how evidence is inadequate—there's still time to answer evidentiary objections. Cool Hand Luke 17:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Concur. In a controversial case standing by your decision on-record is helpful to let everyone understand why a thing happened. Beside that, any arbiter should be proud to stand by their choices in public, irregardless of potential repercussions. Lawrence § t/e 17:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Agree. "Polling of the jury" may be discouraged in this case to do the conflicts of interest (perhaps only pereceived) that some of the arbitrators have, expressed in findings of fact here and here. However, discouraging this transparency is a sneaky way to dodge the conflict of interest issue and looks more like an attempt to protect the bureaucracy that is arbcom, rather than seek solutions to problems. Just because someone may have advised them not to comment about this case on wiki does not make their conflicts of interests disappear. Arbitrators had the chance to ask their peers to step down and decided not to take a stand (I am seeing a theme develop, in this regard). Moreover, this is a smaller part of a bigger issue though—the community is now going to have to take the responsibility that arbcom abdicated. This is just one battle in the pursuit of righting a long standing (and quietly accepted) wrong. For arbcom, however, it seems that "more of the same" is the solution. daveh4h 17:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Concur. I should have thought this would be obvious, and am very disturbed that it is not. Please post a finding of fact that sock puppetry has occurred and then vote on it - if it fails so be it (for that matter you can/should post a finding that says the evidence is not persuasive and vote on that). In the context of this case it is quite ludicrous (and damaging to the reputation of the committee I think) to have the only FoF on the key issue be "there have been some allegations which are kinda persuasive, but we alls couldn't decide for sure one way or another." You folks need to do a 180 here by laying out your beliefs and conclusions point by point. The simple fact is that you owe that to the community.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• I concur with Lar. I'm so very disappointed, I'm going away now. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Concur with Lar. It's not just the decision that disappoints, but the committee. Noroton (talk) 19:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• I also agree here. I want to know which members of the current committee can't or won't see what is blatantly obvious. When urging the committee to not take the case I said "Nor do I think that there is a point in having the ArbComm make a finding about whether or not Mantanmoreland is the particular BLP that many of us believe he is. Frankly, any finding that he isn't that is not based solely on public evidence won't be credited by many." At the time I had an open mind on whether MM and SH were sockpuppets, pending explanation by MM. He hasn't offered one. After all the additional evidence that has come in that Samiharris is an abusive sockpuppet of Mantanmoreland, and has been used abusively as recently as January 2008, in the discussion of whether or not to unblock Piperdown, the same thought now applies to that basic item. Any "confounding circumstances" need to be described publicly in order to be credible. Every shred of relevant evidence Mantanmoreland has presented publicly in his defense has been easily refuted by others. GRBerry 20:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• I Agree with Lar and the many established editors expressing a request for Arbitration Committee transparency, herein. Like a Rainbow (talk) 22:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• I strongly agree. Transparency is desirable in most cases, and absolutely crucial in situations which go to the heart of an issue as does the question of sock puppetry here. The community is entitled to know which ArbCom members have so little regard for overwhelming community consensus and an enormous quantity of evidence. We also should know whose understanding of statistics is so poor that they view the evidence as "just some numbers, means nothing" to quote FT2. We have seen evidence of ArbCom members declining to post motions they wupport for the sake of protecting ArbCom (notably in the recent MH case and the current EK appeal). ArbCom members need to understand that concealling the divisions and protecting 'collegiality' is undermining community confidence in ArbCom. As the situation stands presently, the community could have banned SH and MM as abusive sock puppets based on the evidence available, and avoided this case being brought - because it seems to me that this is the result that will follow within days if this case continues on its present course. Jay*Jay (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Concur, of course. The very least. Dorftrottel (taunt) 10:32, March 1, 2008
• Endorse the request for a Recorded vote on the issue of sock puppetry, for the ample persuasive reasons already given above and since it's of vital interest in this case. Each arbitrator should state their view and give details on their reasons for that view in relation to the standard of proof in cases of abusive sock puppetry which have previously been sanctioned by the committee. -- luke (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Concur. And the arbitrators, collectively or individually, should state what the standard of proof is for all such cases. Is the standard: "likelihood, and not legal certainty" (P 4.1), "a substantial weight of credible evidence" (P-4), or evidence sufficient for "a definitive conclusion" (FoF 2)? Is the standard to be heightened if there are "confounding circumstances", or are those circumstances to be considered only in the context of whether a fixed standard has been met? It appears here that the standard is malleable, which leads to result-based jurisprudence. Kablammo (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Concur with the above. Let's see who believes that there's no such thing as a duck. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Most definitely, concur with call for transparency and accountability on the part of all committee members involved in rendering this decision. Amerique^dialectics 20:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Of course. Everyking (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, it would seem that we now know at least one of the arbitrators who favour soft language. (Uninvited Company). I would call again for the matter to be put to a public vote so we can see who else is on the soft list. Perhaps those who in their hearts favour stronger language but were going for compromise might be surprised to see their language carry the day after all. ++Lar: t/c 22:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Concur on who believes what. As it is, the entire Arbcom looks like it is listening to evidence with one thumb in its collective mouth, and the other up its collective rear. And presently, they plan maybe to trade thumbs, but that's it. However, that's the collective plan. Shine a little light on it, and we may find that some people wake up. SBHarris 22:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

External disputes, definitions, and unattainable standards

• It would be helpful if the arbitrators would be more clear on what they consider an "external dispute" in this case. While we all know the whole WR/Wordbomb/Gary Weiss blog stuff would clearly fit in, it is important to note that there is another external dispute happening which is being reported in the financial media on a fairly regular basis. That dispute involves Patrick Byrne and others including Gary Weiss and relates to the entire concept of naked short selling. Given the media attention on that particular dispute, it is very difficult to imagine that the articles identified in this decision can meet Wikipedia standards for completeness and accuracy without some mention of that dispute. Unfortunately, some of those same reliable sources have touched upon the other aspects that are, shall we say, more interpersonal. I did ask a couple of friends who are active in this field to look at the naked short selling article, and they felt it was completely inadequate, so I hope that editors knowledgeable in this field will now feel they have the support of the Arbcom to go in and clean up the related articles.

• I am concerned that Arbcom has now established an unattainable standard for sockpuppetry investigations. Thousands of editors have been blocked with far, far less evidence in the past. Checkuser is a wonderful tool, but it is well known to have certain weaknesses, and this particular case may well have given truly malicious sockpuppeters a whole new set of tools to use in evading blocks and bans.

• Finally, I think Arbcom needs to flesh out some form of definition of "serious violations." There is a terrible tendency for the community to take Arbcom decisions and apply them as if they are policy. Unfortunately, with 1500 admins, there are 1500 definitions of incivility, of NPA and of terms such as "serious violations." This is not a criticism of our admins, but it is indeed a reason for Arbcom to be crystal clear in its meaning. The committee tends to have to go back and re-address the same issues over and over because it has not clearly delineated the expectations and limits of its decisions.
  

--Risker (talk) 04:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I'll respond to your questions in order, though I can only speak for me:
    • There is, of course, no prohibition against mentioning the Weiss/Byrne dispute in these articles. If (and only if) editors conclude that the real-world controversy is notable and covered in reliable sources, it should be included. What is prohibited is advocacy for any side in connection with the dispute, i.e., importing the dispute itself to Wikipedia, as opposed to neutral encyclopedic coverage of the dispute.
    • The concern about raising the bar in sockpuppet cases is a legitimate one and I don't believe we are attempting to create a new standard to be quoted in every sock case. In fact, to the extent we are considering establishing a standard, it is the one mentioned in the proposed principles. More important, the draft decision in this case should be read as a whole, including the restrictions on editors of the subject articles that will affect the named parties to the case along with everyone else—a fact overlooked in the assessments of the draft I have seen to this point. If all editors abide by the remedies, then the problems associated with this entire suite of problems will abate. If editors do not abide by the remedies, then administrators or if necessary the committee will enforce them.
    • The term "serious violations" is used twice, once in connection with whether a warning should be given before a block, and once in connection with what types of future behavior should be reported to the committee. My personal preference in any context is to warn first rather than block if there is a reasonable choice between them, and to keep the committee more rather than less informed in a situation of this degree of contentiousness.
    • Hope this helps, and thanks for your comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, NYB. The clarification on what level of content relating to the external disputes may be included is very valuable, and I propose that it be included on the talk page of the involved articles, so that "fresh eyes" will have the benefit of that guidance.

I believe Principle #4 (Evaluating sockpuppetry) really needs to have more flesh on its bones to clarify the position of the Committee, which is clearly not on the same page as the community in this specific case. I recognise that the Arbitration Committee, as an official body of Wikipedia, is constrained in ways that the editing community is not, and thus cannot put into writing some things that the community can say without fear of repercussion from external sources. Having said that, identifying right in the principle that this is an exceptional case and should not be considered the "gold standard" for future sockpuppetry investigations involving established users would be extremely helpful for those who serve the encyclopedia by investigating such cases.

Likewise, the term "serious violations" really does need to be fleshed out. What does it include? I can easily see some (not all) administrators blocking if an editor makes so much as a suggestion that another editor has a COI or may be a sockpuppet. I remain concerned that several of the editors involved in this case will perceive that they have no conflict of interest, or that admins who have carried out blocks or protections in the past will not recognize that they are "involved." In order for these articles to attain the expected level of quality, knowledgeable editors who have never touched them need to be involved. Those editors need some reassurance that they will not get whacked for cleaning up this mess. Risker (talk) 05:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Brad, regarding only the issue of viewing the draft decision as a whole rather than in parts - is it accurate to say that the decision need not be passed as a whole, and in fact individual portions will be voted upon separately and only those that acquire a majority will make up part of the final decision? It seems that, in such a case, each principle/FoF/remedy must stand on its own as well as with others in a final decision (i.e. not contradict other passing elements). Avruch ^T 15:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The sense of the Committee

Arbcom, please reverse direction on the style of the proposed decision. I would rather see specific and detailed findings of fact, principles, and remedies with each Arbcom member supporting, opposing, or abstaining—even if the Committee is hopelessly divided—than a vague mostly-unanimous "sense of the Committee" like what has started to appear. Each Arbcom member should be willing to take public responsibility for her or his own opinion, even if outnumbered or unpopular or wary of provoking more drama. To draw an analogy (acknowledging the differences between SCOTUS and Arbcom), I'd rather see a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision with the opinion and dissent both cogently argued, than a unanimous opinion that states little more than "we acknowledge the existence of the dispute and we'd like to see it resolved." I believe I speak not only for myself in this regard. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolute, 110% support for this. Was going to say the same. Viridae^Talk 04:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound defensive here, but I believe the intent of the committee—certainly, mine—was to address this situation with forward-looking remedies that (per my comment to Risker above) would solve the problems if all users abide by them, and would be enforced by administrators or if necessary by the committee if users fail to abide by them. Those alleging, for example, that the articles in question are "controlled" by conflicted users should welcome the COI disclosure remedy, which to my knowledge is novel. This case is not simply about whether one user sockpuppeted abusively or not, though I certainly have my own personal opinion on that issue. I spent a fair amount of time (as did other arbitrators who commented on the draft) honing principles and remedies, not just the finding that many are saying is too vague. I don't at present see why that approach is being seen as an illegitimate approach to resolving a dispute of this gravity, and would welcome input on this issue as it may affect how I approach future cases.

On the other hand, to perpetuate the U.S. Supreme Court analogy, the next time I draft a controversial decision I am styling it per curiam. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't particularly forward-looking to raise the bar for sockpuppet abuse. Any experienced editor knows how to do it. Most don't because they're honest. Most of the rest haven't because they thought there would be serious consequences. Suppose five percent of experienced editors ran extra accounts to get a boost of support in important discussions? Suppose ten percent did? Suppose fifteen? Durova^Charge! 05:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Durova's right. We don't need per curiam decisions in this narrow case, we need to know how the next case should be handled. Please stand for something. Cool Hand Luke 05:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about concern for future cases. I will give everyone's points some more thought. But I hope that there will never, ever, ever have to be another case at all like this one. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

you and me, both! *laughs* SirFozzie (talk) 05:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the one point that meets unanimous agreement. Durova^Charge! 05:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

On a project where we allow anonymous editing, and offer no sanctions for sockpuppetry—as this draft does not—there's absolutely no incentive for editors not to set up socks. If you let this stand, this will be the beginning, not the end. Cool Hand Luke 05:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Brad, are you signalling with these proposals that you're limiting the scope of the case to only Mantanmoreland's sockpuppetry and a vaguely described off-wiki dispute and leaving out Mantanmoreland's POV-pushing, personal attacks, and inappropriate support from admins? Cla68 (talk) 05:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

COI and NPOV issues concerning these articles are addressed in the remedies. The draft does not deal directly with personal attacks by any user; this is an actual and not a rhetorical question: do you think any side of this situation really wants to open that can of worms? I don't believe there has been much discussion of sanctions against any administrators here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(Multiple edit conflicts, replying to NYB.) Thanks for replying, Brad. I have no problem with "forward-looking remedies" to calm the roiled waters of a dispute. But it's also vital to acknowledge violations of core WP policies and craft appropriate sanctions. Doing this might seem like looking backward, but the community needs to know that the rules mean something—that those who violate them will be held accountable for the sake of the encyclopedia and the trust of its community. If there are mitigating circumstances, by all means take them into account and enumerate them—but failing to acknowledge what specifically went wrong and who was responsible is unfair to the community, to the aggrieved parties, and even to those who did wrong, since it could lead them into worse behavior (having gotten away with offenses in the past). alanyst ^/talk/ 05:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a very reasonable point of view although in this case a consensus of the committee was to take a different approach. Since I seem to be unsuccessful at convincing the commenters so far that it was the right approach, I am going to yield the floor for a bit and see if perhaps other arbitrators would like to take a shot at doing so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

regarding NYB's comment that "But I hope that there will never, ever, ever have to be another case at all like this one." Based on this decision, that is hopelessly naive. I'm sorry, but if this doesn't address the actual abuses of the community by at least the most egregious of the editors involved it is not going to help. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct, and failing to remedy this abuse could only encourage more. I look forward to further findings from FT2 or any arbitrator that cares to enforce this community's rules. Cool Hand Luke 05:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought I wrote, I meant to write, remedies with some teeth in the context of this dispute. I'm interested to know why everyone seemingly thinks that they are of no value. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

They apply equally to Cla68 and MM. Anyone involved in an edit war or with a COI could set up a sock with full knowledge that the worst that can happen is a remedy that applies equally to their opponents. That's not only no deterrence—that's encouragement for abuse. Cool Hand Luke 05:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The remedies so far only deal with the content dispute, not the abuse of the community. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In this specific case, there was a visible internal question on the weight to give the technical evidence. That weight varied from "damning" to "just some numbers, proves nothing". Newyorkbrad has pitched his stance and drafting at a point we have agreed, minimally, we are likely to agree upon. It may be that a stronger statement is possible (or indeed a weaker one), but as yet, Newyorkbrad has posted that draft alone, which (as he correctly states) reflect the baseline agreed by consensus. Others - self included - may post further proposals for voting, that may gain differing degrees of consensus.

But this case has been actively discussed and should be read as a whole. Yes we could itemize every last thing anyone did wrong -- for 2 years back on this dispute if need be. Do we choose to? Not in that way. A major concern is that it was allowed to be dramatized and thus roll on. The better focus is the future. The actual article issue is being addressed. The dispute on the articles will be closed. Any common editing has been almost negligible for some 5 months (we analysed that). With that closed, and intense scrutiny on all parties, it may be that there is no need for the Committee to take further action for the integrity of the project's debates and articles going forward. The question may well be moot. The community will gain a balanced consensus on the puppetry concerns, for consideration in the event that this is still of concern. Our first aim in Newyorkbrad's initial drafting is the basic measures and facts needed to sort out the dispute around which this debate has arisen, on the wiki, and ensure it comes to an end. Other more specific posts may follow. I have a couple I'm thinking of, since I was looking at various specific areas; other Arbitrators will too, I'm sure. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that every instance of poor behavior over the two years or so that this has festered is not appropriate for remedy, at least one user has used inappropriate methods to gain the upper hand in a content dispute multiple times. And we are not going to sanction said user at all. Unless, I misunderstand and the committee is acutally asking for a community ban or other community restrictions? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(Note: I'm going to bed soon. Any comments left here for me will be answered tomorrow sometime during the day. Editors asking rhetorical questions about my motives for writing the decision, but posting them on external sites where I don't have an account, are invited to ask them here or on my talkpage instead, where if they are reasonable questions I'll be glad to answer them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

My observation is that folks with questions on the "Board of Outer Darkness Where There is Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth" should get someone to post them here if they are real questions (i havn't looked at this time).--Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the case proposed doesn't go far enough. While not a focus of evidence and workshop, there is evidence cited that Mantanmoreland has also edited in other places where he has a different conflict of interest, such as Julian Robertson and related articles. Thus remedies focused on the primary real world dispute do not adequately address the scope of prior misbehavior nor constrain future misbehavior. I think the restriction/warning Slim Virgin reportedly gave him in 2006 was better - no editing on these topics or articles about living people that GW has written about. I really can't stomach the committee drawing up narrow remedies than that; they should be far stronger given the evidence available now that wasn't known or considered in November 2006. GRBerry 21:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Community ban? / specific factual findings

Could we have an express finding that community sanction may be applied to users who are not "definitive" sockpuppets according to ArbCom?

Incidentally, I've asked several times for detailed requests about what sorts of evidence would be helpful to the Committee. More specific findings of fact would aid Alanyst, GRBerry, Cla68, myself, and others who are willing to fill holes that dissenting arbitrators perceive in the current evidence.

On the other had, if these dissenters feel that no non-CU evidence can establish sockpuppetry, I would appreciate if they could sign such a finding. Cool Hand Luke 06:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There was some discussion of community ban back on one of the rfa/an pages, off the top of my poor memory it looked like the quick consensus was "this needs to go to arbcom." If the committee abdicates any decision back to the community, maybe we will need to fire up the rfa with that discussion in full. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The Proposed Decision needs/is required to be carefully worded (Brad--could you weigh in on this if I'm off base?) so that the Committee does not appear to be overstepping their authority to imply that the community is discouraged from or prohibited from taking sanction actions based on evidence in this case after this case closes if unhappy with the outcome. My understanding of the AC's mandate and level of authority is they can impose sanctions and so forth, but have zero power beyond as any individual admins to stop or prevent the community from taking action; but that they can be an avenue of appeal to reduce community sanction; and that it would seriously take extraordinary community force and consensus to de facto overrule an already imposed AC sanction, but that the community does retain that authority.

The short version being, if the AC says no action taken by them, the Community is free to go ahead as they need to afterwards, and community sanctioned parties can appeal to the AC after if they aren't happy with that community choice--but the AC and ergo Jimmy (him "being the AC" really) is beyond their authority/power to "as the AC" to discourage or stop the Community from placing sanctions--they're all just individual admins in that regard.

Short short version: if the Community needs to ban someone for something, they can do it, and the AC/any one admin really can't stop them. Does that make sense? Let me know on what specific points I'm wrong on. If some want to take the sockpuppetry/COI to the nth and final degree with a full community discussion on the matter after this RFAR, which appears scope-wise to now be just on the editing conflicts and is MM=Samiharris, I think their concern is the Proposed Decision as it's heading may imply this is precluded.

So, a clarification on my rambling here could be helpful, and an answer to this question: if the Community wants to take this sockpuppetry/COI investigation "all the way", is the AC going to try to stop them, and does the AC even have the power to do so via a decision or anything else? I think this simple clarification will soothe a lot of people. Lawrence § t/e 06:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Your understanding is correct. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • We haven't discussed this as a committee, but there is the precedent of Archtransit as recently as last week, although it wasn't in the context of a formal case. The committee desysopped him and limited him to a single account on Monday, but did not ban him; by Wednesday, he was community banned. Note that I am not drawing any parallels between the facts of that matter and this one, and the fact that Archtransit was an administrator was certainly an aggravating factor in that case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks guys. Your answers will calm a lot of drama before it builds, since it means the people who feel they need to go further after this case can to take and propose possible community remedies. Lawrence § t/e 06:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Individual admins on the committee (or others) could stop any sort of community remedy through appeal to the commitee/jimbo who as group seem unwilling to make user sanctions in this case. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This would seem to conflict with what Josh and Brad are saying. The "Community" appears to outrank the AC and Jimbo, no, if push comes to shove? Lawrence § t/e 06:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, we have not discussed this aspect as a committee at all, but to me individually there is a clear difference between deciding not to take an action as an arbitrator, and deciding to affirmatively overrule that action if taken by the community. I would say that if a community ban were imposed on some user, the ArbCom overruled or reduced the ban, and then the next day it were proposed to reimpose it, then a problematic situation would arise. But that is not this case. Personally, I do think this committee's judgment is sufficiently valuable that if we vote that a particular set of remedies is sufficient, it might be in order to give those remedies a reasonable opportunity to work before reopening the discussion. That may be more a matter of community discretion than a fixed rule. The bottom line is there are no precedents on point that I can think of at this late hour; the Archtransit situation last week, which I mention above, is the closest. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's been the unanswered question does the community get an override? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, yes. If the AC says Rocksanddirt is a banned from Some page and is banned for 1 year on top of that, or the AC says, "Congrats, Wordbomb! You're unbanned!" the Community with enough clear consensus could simply say, "No," and go otherwise. But the point is that beyond simply electing different arbiters each year, the Community really has to want to flat out override the AC, but can, is my reading of how it works and based on the answers. In short, even the AC and Jimmy have to bow to the system as created and designed, which makes sense--anything here can change with enough correctly done, supported, and widescale pushing. We elected and chose these guys to do this heavy lifting for us because we trusted them when we chose them, in short, and that's their job as the AC. We simply retain the authority in extraordinary circumstances to say No to them, the same as they can say No to us. Nice system of checks and balances. Lawrence § t/e 07:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And before someone asks, if both sides (Community/AC) said No equally forcefully to each other on some insane matter, I'd imagine the push would automatically come to shove in favor of the community side, since the community is the AC and selects them. I can't even guess what level of insanity would require that. Banning User:Jimbo Wales? It would have to be something absurd, so probably not worth dwelling on here. Lawrence § t/e 07:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but....say after this is over, there is a community sanction discussion and two members of the committee participate as regular users/admins and end up against an otherwise broad consensus for some remedy? They usual standard is that would not be consensus for editing restrictions and should be referred to the committee. what then? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Since when did consensus = unanimous? Lawrence § t/e 07:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's been the usual rule for community bans/restrictions anything that "some admin won't undo". There are cases where folks object, but state that they wouldn't undo an action or wouldn't appeal it to the committee...but if someone does that's all it takes to shoot down community sanctions. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And if the AC ever were to take that case up again then, and force the equivalent of a Constitutional crisis, it could be amazingly disruptive. No one would benefit, since it ever came down to a consensus shouting match, no one can beat the community, since the community is everything. The AC comes from the community, the community (from all the wikis) elects the Foundation Board, which hires the paid staff who run the servers and business. Betting against the community in any ultimate push/shove is like betting against the house in a casino. The odds mathematically will always go against you in the end, no matter who you are. If you win the local specific fight, you could well lose the next local election for AC seats. Take it up the food chain, you could lose your Board spot(s). Lawrence § t/e 07:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Outside of the confines of an arbitration case, with certain very limited exceptions, each of the arbitrators acts as an individual editor, and is entitled to take actions and to hold and voice opinions as an individual editor. Even within a case, we see arbitrators identifying what their own personal practice would be in a given situation, while making it clear that their position is not an "Arbcom" practice.

I think something to keep in mind here is that, in almost all cases, the Arbitration Committee narrows down (or expands) which issues it chooses to address in its decision. That does not preclude the community from deciding to take action on matters that may be raised or identified during the course of an Arbcom case. Indeed, if I recall correctly, the sockpuppet policy underwent considerable editing during the Privatemusings case, and many other policies and issues have been reviewed and modified based on arbcom cases. Risker (talk) 07:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree at all, and I hope that what comes out of this evenings discussion is a clear indication to the committee that the proposed decision is no where near complete, and that some of the proposals may have unintended consequences. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for belaboring the point. Figured it'd be best to just get those cards on the table before everyone started whitewashing chant mantras and drama. Lawrence § t/e 06:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well if that door remains open then that would settle a lot of concerns. Whether the community takes action or not, at least the decision wouldn't have the problems that appeared initially. In this particular case more than usual, there appears to be a credible potential for formal offsite continuation. The world at large understands very little about how Wikipedia works; it's conceivable that an official Committee decision on some aspects of this case might be construed among non-Wikipedians as having more than its intended weight and conclusiveness. And (this is conjecture) such concerns might have something to do with the difficulties in achieving consensus? Durova^Charge! 06:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

See my last proposed principle (#8). Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Principle 4.1 by FT2

What would it take in this case to make such a showing of 'likelyhood of sockpupppetry'? I really think we need to state clearly what it would have taken to conclude sockpuppetry in this case. Maybe NYB and FT2 can't help us with that as they might feel that it does exist. Could someone who doesn't feel that it does, please say what it would take to show it? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm also perplexed by this. Principle 4.1 would not say that there is definitive proof, but that it is reasonable to treat these two accounts as one person based on the evidence and based on how Wikipedia has acted in the past. It's hard to see how this principle (which is consistent with what I hoped to see) would be passed without any finding. Mackan79 (talk) 15:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Community ban

I call for a community ban for the principals in this two year war and all accounts identified now or in the future as "significantly suggestive whether or not confirmed" sockpuppets or meat puppets of the two principals who whether they are or they are not the suggested real life persons act enough like it so that the best interest of NPOV at Wikipedia is best served by these bans due to two years of apparent COI editing on a wide variety of articles related to their employment and friends and associates.Letter published by the Securities and Exchange Commision of the United States WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That was a comment letter. You send it in, they print it. It has as much standing as a post in a message board.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 13:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

So what? The letter presents some verifiable claims that are relevant to this case. Further it illustrates that this case is about real world financial conflicts of interest, including editing Wikipedia to make friends look better. A short list of articles not to be edited will not prevent a known lying COI sockpuppeter from corrupting Wikipedia articles with spin for his friends. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I skimmed it and see just a lot of incoherent gibberish about Ron Paul and attacks on Patrick Byrne. What has that got to do with anything?--Mantanmoreland (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, more precisely, if it is a comment letter even loosely related to something they are working on, they'll publish it. Unsolicited comments on other issues won't be published. See the FAQ answer at http://www.sec.gov/answers/commentletters.htm. But MM is right here; it evidences no more than the opinion of whomever wrote it, and published because it is submitted as a comment to the SEC's consideration of amendments to regulation SHO. Like our arbitrators, the SEC commissioners are expected to read every single comment letter on a topic before reaching a decision. Whether they do, or focus on ones that their staff select to highlight, is unknown to me. GRBerry 13:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just link Varkala and his blog. Every other post is about Overstock.com. Support community ban. Cool Hand Luke 14:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate venue for the community ban discussion, at least in my opinion. GRBerry 14:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please move the discussion to WP:AN. Please comment there. Jehochman ^Talk 14:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This section is a comment and an appeal and information on the proposed decision and is meant to influence Arbcom so they can achieve their desired objective of putting this behind us, which will not happen unless the two warring sides are banned. This is exactly the right place for this comment and appeal and information on the proposed decision. It is on a page designed for exactly that. That its mere form or style or content has similarities to the form or style or content of sections that sometimes appear on other pages does not mean it should be moved to one of those other pages. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, it's really _not_ appropriate to run a community ban discussion concurrently with an arbcom case (though if arbcom wishes to suspend the case to allow such a discussion to run its course, as it has in the past for RFCs, that would be reasonable). —Random832 15:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just put this in abeyance until the case closes, there's time. If at that time the current set of findings stands, do what ArbCom did not. ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A present for the committee

Y'all seem to have misplaced yours, so here's a spare. 213.239.220.202 (talk) 14:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC) (This IP is an open proxy, so you'll probably want to block it.)

Thanks, Anonymous Coward. This open proxy has been blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 14:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

sigh, an unhelpful comment. (though a nice pic). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the images were redacted: in case any casual readers want to know what's going on, the pictures the anon posted were (presumably, based on the filenames - I only looked at the diff) of a spine and balls. —Random832 15:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what they were. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive by the IP, yes, but unfortunately also to-the-point. The current proposed decision is simply abhorrent. You might as well have dismissed the case and saved us all a lot of time. I'm utterly disappointed with the proposals so far. Dorftrottel (warn) 17:42, February 29, 2008

Hey, I tried to tell them not to take the case... Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland#Statement by semi-involved GRBerry. Admittedly, I did it because I thought there was no way they could do better than the community, as opposed to this which is far worse than what the community would have done. GRBerry 21:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

confounding issues

I, for one, would like to know as much about these "confounding issues" as the committee can tell us. The basic nature of the issues would be a good place to start - secret evidence in their favor? legal threats? Even if you can't tell us what specifically is going on, what can you tell us? If I decide to start sockpuppeting tomorrow, how can I make sure I get "a more cautious and conservative standard" when I'm found out? —Random832 15:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify - that last question was rhetorical and you would (of course) be fools to answer it, but I submit that you're fools to have multiple standards in the first place. It invites gaming the system. —Random832 15:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's one thing I was wondering as well. Is this arbitration and proposed decision a de facto endorsement of double standards, for some users in regards to certain forms of allegations? Are others seeing it that way? I'd imagine there should be a rigid standard that all such standards are applied the same for everyone. Lawrence § t/e 16:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Reluctance by the committee to make an official ruling in this case does not (I think) prevent the community from making similar rulings in the future as it has in the past. Thatcher 16:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know... the above section covered that. I was just speaking to Random's statements that the Proposed Decision as written may be seen by some as an endorsement of double standards, or that some users operate under a modified set of rules than everyone else. Lawrence § t/e 16:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Without going into details (and no, I have no special information from Arbcom on this point), there may be some extenuating circumstances in particular cases that require a more flexible manner of addressing issues. When it comes to sockpuppetry, there are always shades of grey. While many in the community may see this case as primarily being a "sockpuppetry" one, based on the currently proposed decision, I believe that Arbcom has taken a very different view of the case. That view does not necessarily preclude the community pursuing certain issues without the direct intervention of Arbcom. It's not the first time this has happened; a close reading of any number of Arbcom cases has resulted in final decisions quite different from that anticipated at the time of the request for arbitration. Risker (talk) 16:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Without a doubt. I was just speaking to Random's apparent thoughts that the appearance of an endorsement of double standards or different standards for different people is a potentially Bad Thing. Lawrence § t/e 16:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

@Risker: I can't speak for anyone else but I did not see this case as primarily about sockpuppetry. The sockpuppetry allegations, to my way of thinking, were a done deal to anyone that cared to look before the case started. That's way too narrow a scope. I saw the case as primarily about the wider matters surrounding the sockpuppetry, the issues and allegations that this sockpuppetry was known about among many senior editors and admins for some time and was not dealt with. I have no idea about the truth of those, I had hoped to see more evidence presented, but that is what I hoped the focus would be on. The decision so far, which calls what I considered a done deal into question, and which doesn't address the wider issues at all, is a bit of a jaw dropper and I have expressed my disappointment to NYB directly just now, in case it's not clear enough to him yet. I am not at all surprised to see the large number of community members signing below where I expressed my disbelief about the evidence apparently being questioned by some members of ArbCom. ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The decision fails the community

WIth all due respect, this decision fails the community.

1. It does not identify the parties in the area of dispute or the off-wiki battle
2. It does not clearly state that Mantanmoreland has a conflict of interest in the area of dispute
3. It does not ban Mantanmoreland from editing the area of dispute.

Since he has stated all along that he is not Gary Weiss, then he can continue to edit the articles involved under the principle of Remedy #1. Apparently the Arbcom is leaving it up to some administrator involve in Arbitration enforcement to issue a topic ban somewhere down the road. (Unless they are hoping Mantanmoreland will suddenly take a quiet wikibreak.)

Now, I do not believe it is necessary to state as a fact that MM=SH=GW. It is sufficient to say for purposes of this case that they may be, and they whether they are or are not, they have acted in a manner that constitutes a conflict of interest. Nor do I think it is necessary to pillory any admins for being overzealous in protecting Mantanmoreland from harassment, since it seems to me that there is a significant difference between having one abusive sockpuppeteer (who also runs an attack web site) saying "look at the elephant in the room" and having a dozen experienced editors and admins conduct an exhaustive review of the elephant problem (and remember that this "room" that allegedly contains an elephant is not so much a quiet living room as Burbon Street on Mardi Gras, so spotting the elephant does require a bit of skill and patience).

I have made some alternate proposals. Thatcher 17:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

. . . based upon editing misconduct consisting of what? What tendentious editing? What edit warring? And are you seriously suggesting that nobody editing these articles has reflected a point of view for or against any of the principals in these off-wiki controversies? --Mantanmoreland (talk) 17:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The editorial process can usually deal with people who have conflicts of interest if those conflicts are disclosed. I think Wordbomb has made some interesting points about naked short selling and the DTCC on the Site of Gnashing of Teeth (or whatever that nickname was). I would like to have confidence that Wikipedia's article on naked short selling is neutral and reflects a broad range of sources and opinion and covers both reasons why naked short selling might be good and reasons why it might be bad. I do not have confidence that you are the editor who can do that. Arbcom basically asks in this proposed decision for the article to be cleaned up by unbiased experts. You present yourself as such an expert but I do not believe that is the case, and I believe Arbcom should explicitly state as much. Thatcher 17:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! When did I ever "present myself as such an expert?" When did I ever tell people not to contribute to naked short selling, on or off wiki? Has anyone other than Bagley and Piperdown ever done so? When have I? For that matter, when has anyone done so who disagrees with Bagley or Byrne and their stock market conspiracy theories? Despite all the "gnashing of teeth" about the naked shorting articles, very few people actually go there and contribute to it. But if you feel that there has been a problem with my editing, you should point out the diffs. Funny how in the some days this has been pending, with many thousands of hits on the Wikipedia Review section devoted to this case, nobody has came up with diffs of misconduct on my part.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I invite your attention to the information that Thatcher just posted. This seems to be a case of "Never Defend, Always Attack". Your constant "Overstock/Bagley" refrain is overdone, tiresome and not useful. If you see a vast conspiracy behind the number of editors/checkusers who have good-faith concerns, well, then I feel sorry for you. SirFozzie (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the majority of the evidence centers around an attempt to prove identity, something I have always felt was tangential to the case. (Who you are is less important than what you have done.) But there is some evidence on that issue. Thatcher 18:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher has posted his diffs, which consist of two year old edits that are, with one exception (a blog link that shouldn't have been added) perfectly valid and within policy. I've replied in the workshop. Except for the blog post, the material I added to those articles two years ago remains in them, despite all the attention focused on these articles. That is the distinguishing characteristic of this arbitration, which is that people have trouble coming up with bad edits, edit warring, and the stuff the arbcom usually deals with I would suppose. As for Overstock/Bagley, that is why we are here. If it weren't for their campaign, which consists of character assassination and not of criticism of the articles on their merits, we wouldn't be having this discussion.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had no problem at all coming up with bad edits, and "the material I added to those articles two years ago remains in them, despite all the attention focused on these articles" is precisely the bloody problem. Boy, this has been an awful waste of everyone's time, since half the people haven't read what other people are writing, and the other half don't appear to care. Relata refero (talk) 19:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is a problem, a very big one, that there is no evidence of bad editing. It is something of a waste of time that this case is being pushed so aggressively despite that. I would respectfully suggest that the diffs you posted in the workshop don't prove a blessed thing, as described in my workshop response.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You didn't have a response. You had an assertion, and a poor one at that, amounting to precisely what I dismantled elegantly by quoting you above. Whatever. As if ArbCom cares if you had a response or not. Congratulations. Relata refero (talk) 19:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This [4] isn't a response? You pointed out "tendentious editing" where none existed.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, its not a response, and if its the best you came up with in the ten days since I put up my findings.... since all of it consists of "but nobody objected" when the problem is that you are being investigated for gaming consensus, I can only suppose you are being deliberately obstructive. Relata refero (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, correct. You cited routine edits to which nobody objected and called it "tendentious editing."--Mantanmoreland (talk) 22:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

For the last time, I've demonstrated they weren't routine. Nothing in your evidence contradicts that, because your evidence relies heavily on the fact that nobody pointed out that you were editing tendentiously. Only they did, and they were banned. Or they were reverted and the page protected, as at Talk:Gary Weiss. Or they were ignored, as in the case of the chap from the Econ wikiproject or the chap with the tags. Whatever. Talking to a brick wall, evidently. Relata refero (talk) 23:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad editing:[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Character assassination: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] Other use of Wikipedia for off-Wikipedia feud: [22][23] All of these have conributed to the problem over time. Mackan79 (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The "bad editing" are routine editing that has never been disputed to this day, the "character assassination" is mainly accurate references to the notorious troll WordBomb (Judd Bagley), and the "use of Wikipedia for off-Wikipedia feud" is a google blog search and a proposal in a previous arbitration. The only "problem over time" that I see here is a pattern of allegations being made without any basis in fact.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"....that has never been disputed to this day.." - I'm beginning to think I'd support a community ban on you for wilfully disregarding points already made. That's usually a foolproof sign of enormous tendentiousness. Relata refero (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse that this decision as it stands now fails the community. ++Lar: t/c 19:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• I also endorse that this decision as it stands now fails the community. R. Baley (talk) 19:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. As things stand, the decision fails not only the community, but Arbcom itself. Giving a "wishy-wash" decision to a situation as serious as this, with a number of implications, just strikes me as fundamentally wrong Whitstable 19:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not the arbcoms job to offer blood at each sacrifice. I am thinking everyone needs to carefully reread the proposals and figure out what the end result is...seriously. The articles in question will likely never be edited by any COI editor in the near or even distant future...I don't see how MM can continue to edit without a huge shadow hanging over him...I mean, I would have walked away long ago if I were him...no matter whether the accusations are true or not.--MONGO 19:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"The articles in question will likely never be edited by any COI editor in the near or even distant future" Really? How will we know? We can't block them for being sockpuppets using WP:DUCK, can we? And what on earth will it take to establish COI? And who is going to do the reversion of apparent COI and risk becoming an 'involved' editor? The problem isn't that I haven't read the proposals, its that they're shortsighted. Last year ArbCom was handing out amnesties. This year they're handing out this nonsense. Next year, I have no doubt, it will be community service. Three hours of vandal reversion a week, for three weeks, and you will have served your debt to the project. Relata refero (talk) 19:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

just because Arbcom decides not to take a stand on the sockpuppet issue (although I hope they will consider my proposal) does not invalidate the community's approach to past or future issues, such as the duck test. Whether it is wise for Arbcom to hold itself to such a higher standard is another matter. Thatcher 20:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Was this[24] a "COI edit"? An editor removed a reference to an entire article in the New York Times by a notable journalist on Patrick M. Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com, on the ludicrous grounds that it was an "advocacy" source and "not reliable." That is far worse than any edit attributed to me. But it doesn't matter because this edit is POV-pushing on behalf of Patrick Byrne, and Patrick Byrne is a darling of Wikipedia Review, which is screaming its heads off off-wiki. Nobody has suggested that this editor as a "COI" and this is truly a horrendous edit that damaged the article. Let's stop this "COI edit" nonsense, because the issue is whether the editing is good or bad. I have yet to see any editors on the other side even attempt to take an even-handed approach, and instead all I read are shrill denunciations. I am sorry, but despite all the distancing from Wikipedia Review I have no doubt that what we are seeing reflects all the one-sided advocacy going on there.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I added two news sources to that article, and added several more that day, just so I could take out a direct rumor quote from a columnists that read "Though no one will say so publicly..." I don't push POV, as demonstrated by adding hard citations for fisticuffs Patrick Byrne got into. Cool Hand Luke 21:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

But you adamantly refused to allow two news sources, the New York Times and Forbes.com, that were devoted entirely to Byrne's confrontation with state legislators over the naked shorting legislation[25]. There is no reference to that in the article at all, and the article suffers for it, and that is entirely because of your POV pushing. If that had happened in Gary Weiss, you'd be screaming bloody murder and it would be rung up the flagpole here as a horrendous act.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm so tired of your idle accusations of bad faith. If you think I'm POV pushing, do start an RfC. I'm not. I found new, unflattering sources about Byrne and put them into the article. I don't believe you have ever done that for Gary Weiss, nor have you ever added favorable treatment to the subjects you loath. Cool Hand Luke 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't edited Gary Weiss in months, or even participated in talk page discussions such as the one you had with Sami. It is difficult to add favorable content to the Byrne article because of a dearth of such sources. I am sorry, but your refusing to allow an entire column by a New York Times financial columnist, and an article by a journalist at Forbes.com, to be quoted on Byrne was poor judgment at best and POV pushing at worst. Your editing of Patrick M. Byrne is relevant to this arbitration, because the editing of the articles generally is very much at issue. My point is that all the edits in these articles need to be put under scrutiny, including yours.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 22:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In a BLP, it was the correct decision. I would never argue for similar quotes to be included about Weiss. The New York Times said Weiss "made a second career out of ridiculing Mr. Byrne on his blog." We should not include such a statement in his article. Instead, we said that Weiss was a critic of Overstock.com, but your "friend" Samiharris still threw a fit about "Bagley memes." By omitting inflammatory opinion, BLPs are better and more encyclopedic—both for Weiss and for Byrne. Cool Hand Luke 22:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• The community understands that there was abusive sock puppetry and will treat Matanmoreland as a social outcast. It is not within the Committee's power to change that perception, unless they offer a clear explanation with evidence why there was no sock puppetry. Jehochman ^Talk 19:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• In reading the decision, Mantanmoreland is free to continue editing Patrick Byrne, Naked short selling and all the rest, because he denies he has a conflict of interest, therefore that requirements of remedy #1 don't apply to him. That means that it will fall to someone at WP:AE to determine he does have a conflict and to ban him from the page, which he will appeal, causing more drama, or which he will ignore, leading to a block, which he will appeal, leading to more drama. I'm asking Arbcom to take a stand and not fob the problem off on WP:AE. Thatcher 19:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Lets see; Thatcher recused, I declared myself semi-involved when urging the committee not to take the case, Sir Fozzie filed it, Rlesve clerked the case, Who is an WP:AE regular left that didn't help enable Mantanmoreland's abuse by addressing one of WorldBomb's socks over the past year and a half? I'm not sure there are any uninvolved admins among the current WP:AE regulars. GRBerry 21:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've not been editing these articles in some months. But I strongly object to the kind of one-sided screaming that has been going on here, the making of accusations without any basis, and the sheer hysteria. I am sick and tired of being accused of "bad editing" consisting of routine stuff that happened two years ago, while totally noxious stuff from the past few weeks, such as the link I just posted from Patrick M. Byrne, is ignored. If fairness was being done here there would be a look at all the editing in these articles, not just mine. But as you say, Bagley has posted "interesting" stuff, and his fictions are what is driving this discussion. Bagley obviously is not going to object to editors here removing New York Times articles describing Byrne's political activism, or his lobbying on the naked shorting legislation. There is at present no reference to that Joseph Nocera column in the article. If someone had removed a similar article from Gary Weiss, there would be endless screaming. Let's be frank and admit that elephant in the room, which is Bagley.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Bagley's paying me. Relata refero (talk) 20:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's sheer silliness to suggest that Bagley and Wikipedia Review are not having a strong influence on this whole thing. That is separate from the fact that Bagley used a sockpuppet to initiate this case.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This case was initiated by Sir Fozzie, a forthright and upstanding member of this community for many years. Your implication that he is a sockpuppet is beyond the pale. Risker (talk) 20:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland is there referring to the sockpuppet that filed the Request for Checkuser that blew the "no go zone" limits away, allowing the duck test to actually be tested... GRBerry 20:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It was a checkuser confirmed sock of Bagley/WordBomb.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Because any account in good standing would have been blocked for doing so. It would not have been very wise, excuse the pun Whitstable 20:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. What have here are two sides to a fight (Weiss and Wordbomb) that are both wrong, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. We need them, and their friends, to "take it outside" and not return to the bar until they are ready to get along well with other patrons, and more importantly, not wreck the fine decor by throwing bar stools and whiskey bottles at each other. Jehochman ^Talk 20:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct. there was a sockpuppet of WordBomb that filed the initial sockpuppet report.. I just took the ball and ran with it when there appeared to be fire underneath the smoke (little did I know about the inferno underneath, mind you!) The fact that a WordBomb sock filed the initial report should do NOTHING to smear the work of the many different people who did things the right way and kept things on the straight and narrow. I hope that's not what you're insinuating, MM. SirFozzie (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

MM - I'm going to make this really clear - the main reason that only your behavior is being examined here is not that anyone thinks WordBomb hasn't done anything wrong, but rather because WB is already banned and no-one's seriously considering unbanning him. —Random832 20:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear

I haven't read this talkpage, but I do hope that ArbCom knows that this will be viewed as an extremely unhelpful set of decisions so far from the point of view of writing this encyclopaedia. I for one have no intention of returning to the Naked Short Selling page to clean it up, as an outside observer, if the duly elected representatives of the community don't show that they're serious about confronting the disruption surrounding these articles in the past.

If the ArbCom does not realise that giving in to POV-pushers and handing out "everybody was a good person, basically, and now these articles are being watched, so its all OK, isnt it" remedies are not helping, I fear our current system of dispute resolution is fatally flawed.

Have fun, people. This has been a waste of everyone's time. Relata refero (talk) 18:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem. It seems that people, knowing only what Bagley tells them on Wikipedia Review and elsewhere, complain that the naked short selling is deficient in some vague way. But they won't come in and edit it. They say that what Bagley says is "interesting." Fine. So where are the reliable sources that have been omitted and need to be added to this article? In your workshop submission you claimed that there were seven studies that belong in the article. I encourage you to add references to those studies if they are indeed relevant to the subject matter and useful. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? Why? So you can bring a couple of sockpuppets in through open proxies and revert me? And then I'll be "involved" and subject to banning? No bloody thanks. ArbCom, take note, this is the nonsense that you're permitting thanks to your pointless evasion of your responsibilities. Relata refero (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing from open proxies is banned under this decision, and I am sure the articles will be closely watched. I guess you have nothing to add to those articles. Why not list those "seven studies" you say were "artificially omitted" from the article?--Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, delightful comeback. Unfortunately, I can direct everyone to several different proxies for hire if they're willing to shell out $14.99 a month. That might be worth it.

And, for the last time, if ArbCom doesn't show any concern for the quality of those articles by letting this kind of behaviour pass, I, for one, am not interested enough in the subject to run the gauntlet of whatever mysterious new user shows up to revert me. And I suspect nobody is going to be interested enough either given these circumstances. And as for the seven studies, go check SSRN yourself. It's a moment's work, which you would have done at any point over the past two years if you were interested in the neutrality and quality of those articles. Relata refero (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If Arbcom or the community or a war crimes tribunal in Belgium does everything you want, and bans everybody you don't like, there still is a need for editors in NSS and there is still always the possibility of open proxies and socks. WordBomb has 33 checkuser-confirmed socks, so I am sure he will be out in force.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And if genuinely uninvolved editors can be certain that ArbCom is treating all such sockpuppets alike, and admins are empowered to strike down on them in an even-handed manner, then it won't matter.

Editors might be needed, but these principles will not deliver uninvolved ones, and will allow disruptive ones full play. I don't really care about Wordbomb or whatever, so don't keep on bringing him up. He isn't the one whose screwed up these articles as far as I can see.

I really don't know why I'm arguing with you any more, since you show no evident desire to learn from the community's reaction. Pretty much every other disruptive editor (all of whom claim not to be disruptive) at least show some signs of attempting to turn over a new leaf for the couple of weeks before and after they're being scrutinized at a RfArb. That you show none demonstrates that ArbCom is even more foolhardy in this mysterious clemency in your favour than I imagined. Relata refero (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing from open proxies is banned under this decision and who's going to checkuser your socks? Who's going to request the checkuser? Will they be banned as a WordBomb sock, too? —Random832 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If checkuser confirms them. The list of WordBomb confirmed socks is not being kept up to date, but at last count was 33.[26]--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And if they're not, they can be banned anyway as duck, meat, or whatever. The one who requested the checkuser that started this mess may have been checkuser-confirmed, but he/she/it was blocked _before_ that happened (and all checkuser needs to "confirm", anyway, is that someone's from Utah) —Random832 20:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Impact of this case on past sockpuppetry decisions

A portion of the proposed decision states:

"A majority of the committee concludes that the weight of the credible evidence taken as a whole is suggestive of or consistent with a relationship between the two accounts, but that the absence of usable checkuser findings and other factors prevent a definitive conclusion from being reached."

From comments above I gather much of the committee will support this finding which will perhaps be the only definitive statement made about the sockpuppetry issue (since there is a split in the committee apparently).

Given the amount of evidence presented in this "duck test" case (which I think nearly everyone has acknowledged was extraordinary) and the apparent conclusion that it was "not enough," do not users who have been banned on the basis of less (or even similar) evidence in the past have a strong case to be made for their unbanning? And please do not wikilawyer away this question with the point that ArbCom decisions do not necessarily have bearing on future or past actions/decisions - clearly they do. I want to know what the committee says to someone who e-mails them and says "I was banned on less information, why should I stay banned?" Simply quoting wiki-policy at them probably will not work since they will probably feel that we follow policy inconsistently.

The one case I am aware of from the past that would seem suspect now is the SevenOfDiamonds case (where MONGO presented evidence about on a par - in some ways better in some ways not as good - with the evidence here and the committee banned the user in question, probably rightfully so). Others have mentioned the Poetlister case and I'm sure there are many more which are far less prominent. What do we do about these folks if they ask that their bans be reversed - just ignore them?

I do not think that this is an idle or tangential question - it is central to the case. The fact that the Arbs apparently cannot come to a conclusion on the sock accusations (thus, not incidentally, disagreeing with the vast majority of the those in the community who have taken a look at this case) suggests that they have set an incredibly, incredibly high standard for the "duck test." Why would this incredibly high standard not apply retroactively to past cases? Why would it not apply to cases in the future?

I would really like to hear answers from the committee on these questions. The current proposed finding might well have an effect on past and future sockpuppetry accusations whether the Arbs like it or not and I don't think you can stick any additional findings in there which will change that fact.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. Instead of handling the important issues this case DID raise, ArbCom chose to repudiate community findings about the extremely likely connection here. Thus, ArbCom has opened up an entirely new can of worms (what other findings come unraveled next?) when it had a chance to close an old and rotting one instead, and thus making things worse rather than better. The community would be well suited to take it on itself to resoundingly endorse its own findings, community ban the lot of the editors involved in this and override ArbCom's rather limp wristed findings. Sorry if I seem a bit steamed here. ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If that is the only way to do it, then the community has to reserve the right to overrule Arbcom. As things stand, we have to throw out the sock puppet policy or, at the very least, rewrite it Whitstable 19:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What do we do about these folks if they ask that their bans be reversed - just ignore them? Sure. They don't have any confounding issues, after all. —Random832 19:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely true. Expect a lot of requests for re-evaluation of past "sockpuppet" bans, which were done one way flimsier evidence. In addition, and if this passes, I expect the community to only ban suspected sockpuppets if unambiguous checkuser information is available and not for anything less--Reinoutr (talk) 20:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but if this proposed finding passes it will have absolutely no effect on the standard I apply to block or not block suspected sockpuppets. This finding is clearly directed to this specific case, which I think we can all agree is a bit atypical, and is not general guidance on how to review a case of suspected sockpuppetry. MastCell ^Talk 20:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is it atypical? What makes it so? How is what makes it atypical relevant to the standards of sockpuppetry? How do we know that what makes it atypical in your estimation will not be repeated more regularly in the future? Relata refero (talk) 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, there is nothing atypical here. Any user known to have used sockpuppets in the past would be blocked or even banned at even the slightest hint or the smallest of evidence. Yet here, suddenly only checkuser reports are good enough. Hence, positive checkuser reports are required for any block for suspected use of sockpuppets from now on. --Reinoutr (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm sure you see the ways in which this is not a typical case of suspected sockpuppetry. All I'm saying is that it will not have an effect on how I (and I suspect, most other admins who take on such tasks) review sockpuppetry cases. I'm not suddenly going to ignore contribution patterns and quacking if the checkuser evidence isn't rock-solid. My point is this: people are already finding plenty in this case to get worked up about. Claiming that on top of everything else it's going to destroy our ability to deal effectively with sockpuppets strikes me as a bit hyperbolic. MastCell ^Talk 22:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And its going to make unblocking them ridiculously easy. "But this doesn't stand up to the Mantanmoreland standard of evidence...." and can you imagine the discussions at AN/I? So the community doesn't have to follow precedent. That doesn't mean it doesn't. --Relata refero (talk) 23:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

MastCell's comment "I'm sure you see the ways in which this is not a typical case of suspected sockpuppetry" does not answer my question, which was: how do we explain to users banned for sockpuppetry that their ban was righteous even though it was based on far less evidence than that provided in this case, where no one was banned? Basically MastCell should put her or himself in the position of a person banned for socking - not the admin banning the sock - and ask how that person would view/pontificate about this ruling. It is something we need to consider, and I would still like to hear what Arbs think about this issue.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom protects the 'pedia, assigning blame is not always part of this role - right or wrong?

Something is being lost in the sturm und drang over the proposed decision. My understanding has been that the purpose of ArbCom, the reason we select them for this role and the reason Jimbo created it, is to protect Wikipedia and promote the goal: content. Does this responsibility always include assigning blame for all decisions related to the scope of a case? If it doesn't, in what circumstances is it appropriate for the Committee to address the future of the content in question rather than focus on who did what and why? I think the folks who have decided they are utterly disgusted with the Committee need to take a step back and make some reevaluations: Are you looking for a decision that provides for the protection of Wikipedia, or a decision that provides justice to those who have transgressed? If the second, to what better end? To those who declare that not providing a stiff penalty in this case threatens future sock cases, how? ArbCom decisions are not, formally, precedent setting. WP:DUCK blocks are made by admins in the community, not ArbCom. If a WP:DUCK socker, particularly one well known by the community, uses the results of this case as a defence... I don't think that attempt will be met with much success, but perhaps you disagree. Avruch ^T 19:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have pointed out above and below at tedious length why this decision is bad for quality. I don't care who gets blamed - indeed, I personally think we should take "fair and equitable" out of ArbCom's job description, as long as ArbCom actually does a job. Relata refero (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

By "pointed out...why this decision is bad for quality" do you mean your statement that you won't touch the naked short selling article because the Committee hasn't blamed and banned people for the disruption? Perhaps you will choose not to, hopefully others will - the concern of the Committee isn't whether you are fully satisfied and if, failing that, refuse to edit... its concern is for the ability of other editors, not involved in this case, to come and contribute in this area or others without hindrance. Avruch ^T 21:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, I am uninvolved. As in, before this ArbCom began I'd never looked at the articles. You've just made my point nicely, thanks. Relata refero (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You may not be involved in the dispute, but judging just by your work on this page you are certainly involved in the case. Avruch ^T 21:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And why on earth should it be different for those who haven't spent a little time reading this case? That's patently illogical. You think anyone is going to make even a couple of edits on those pages for the next year plus without following a lead to this case even if by some miracle they don't know about it already? Relata refero (talk) 23:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid Relata refero is right; I've contacted a couple of editors who have done work in this general field, and they won't even consider touching the articles, despite acknowledging they are complete messes. One said "no thanks, I have a clean block record and I intend to keep it that way," and the second said he had no doubt that any edits he made would be contested and railed at. Perhaps the arbitrators could put on their editing hats and demonstrate how it is done - or make personal requests of very knowledgeable and well respected editors to clean things up, under the protection of the committee. Risker (talk) 23:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be different because the remedies that are proposed provide for the future protection of pages in this area: Required disclosure of CoI, restriction to one account and no open proxies (and presumably checkuser enforced without the fishing template), probation, etc. You are not asking that these pages be protected more than they will be under this decision - you are asking that the editors who have garnered the ill-will of the community be punished in the name of justice - this is not the role of ArbCom as I understand it. Avruch ^T 23:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that those remedies have already been made something of a mockery of in this case (probably). I am concerned that this means, as Risker says above, that nobody will touch them because ArbCom doesn't seem interested in enforcing our standards in this area. It has happened before, and it is happening here, only perhaps worse because there was more reason for them to be bold here. Most of us have enough battlefields, and genuine editors aren't looking for more. If ArbCom doesn't have our backs - and that means by handing out sentences to those who have probably violated the norms the rest of us edit by - we won't enter this arena. So there is a direct link between ArbCom being suitable severe on transgressions and the protection of this content. Particularly in this particular set of articles, where the attention that has been lavished on it has been counterproductive. Relata refero (talk) 23:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• I am so surprised that the Committee is unable to realise that no editing of those articles will ever be free of cries of bias or undue weight. I knew that my relevant proposed finding of fact and subsequent proposed remedy were never going to be adopted, but I entertained some hope that it would be realised that the articles will always be considered as compromised by one or both parties to the off-Wiki dispute. I am not surprised that all those with some expertise in the area decline to edit the articles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand how you feel but for the record I have dealt with cries of the same issues regarding undue weight and bias on article related to the events of 9/11 for over 2 years now...the sad fact of this open resource is that there will always be some areas that are magnets for those with strong opinions. I have also noticed that in many areas, we don't have enough editors that truly are neutral and are interested in working on subjects that have a tendency to be polarizing.--MONGO 06:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is an excellent reason for ArbCom to reduce those areas, not expand them. Relata refero (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points from both, there is likely to be subjects where the preponderance of opinionated contributions are going to disincline neutral editors from participating and that the Committee should act - where it has been engaged - in reducing those areas of the 'pedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Avruch, I would expect this decision to make some admins block-shy - knowing that an appeal to ArbCom could easily see the blocking admin de-sysopped for blocking without sufficient evidence. I mean, it's not like ArbCom doesn't have form in this area...
It could also make admins doing unblock review more likely to give socks another chance - for fear that ArbCom will use the standards here to go after both the blocking admin and the unblock reviewer. How is either of these likely to help 'pedia building in the future? Jay*Jay (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not the end, or giving up?

I can only assume that there are further proposals to come from the arbitrators.

1) That Mantanmoreland and SamiHarris, due to engaging in sockpuppetry, be blocked for an appropriate length of time.

2) That it be made clear that for COI affected editors, it is best practice to declare the Conflict of interest before any contentious editing is engaged in.

3) That possible admin misconduct/serious lapses of judgement/possible COI in edits related to the indef-blocking of User:Wordbomb, and the aftermath, will be further investigated, and if possible , details of deleted DIFFs which constitute possibly extremely important evidence, will be made available in open evidence.

When these further proposals come forth, the arbitration case will be in a position to close effectively and honourably.

Were the case to end here without such further proposals, and their enforcement, then that is simply a travesty of justice, and trampling on the right of the entire en.wikipedia conmmunity to obtain fair play.

The disappointment of many editors to date, and that of many editors too let down to even bother commenting is noted, it is virtually universal. Dissapointment - , or maybe disgust.

I have read every word of evidence presented, and I thank those editors who performed what must be huge efforts, and vast amounts of time to gather a dossier of evidence that far surpasses any rational threshhold for positive determination. For that effort to be disrespected in the way that the current state of the proposals page indicates, is disturbing, not to say dismissive and could only be described as actually traitorous. With respect—Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 20:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Traitorous"? We could do without that kind of hyperbole. We've only just started to hear from a few of the arbitrators, who are trying to lay out the areas where the committee apparently was able to come to consensus. I think there's still time for the committee to take the proposed decision into more detailed and concrete findings and remedies, as the community clearly desires. Let's give them reasons to listen to us and adjust their approach, not dismiss us as a mindless mob. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think much of what I'm reading is mindless. There are accusations made without a shred of proof, and below someone chimes in to say that people have to post here and justify my existence. That is not the purpose of an arbitration case. If people want stuff done, they have to submit evidence for it. Evidence of bad editing is simply not been introduced. POV edits by people on the other side of the dispute are ignored. The loud braying of Wikipedia Review is the obvious reason for this hysteria.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Evidence of bad editing is simply not been introduced." Sigh. Here's a suggestion: for the forty-seven more times you will make this assertion on this talkpage, try saying instead that "bad editing has not been demonstrated." That's still false, but not so false that everybody else thinks you can't read. Relata refero (talk) 20:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, evidence of bad editing has not been introduced. [27]. The diffs you provided don't even come close. But there is no need going back and forth over that here, that I agree.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

See, here's the problem. What you should say is "evidence of bad editing has been refuted." That would also not be so false etc.

Frankly, if you don't get simple points made in good faith even after they've been made so many times, I wonder whether you'd be a net gain to the pedia even if you weren't blatantly tendentious. Relata refero (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, "evidence of bad editing" is not correct. No point in going around and around about it, though.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm beginning to see a point here. The more you avoid a more accurate representation of events (using a bald assertion and no form of backup) in favour of wording that would be of personal assistance to you, the more you dig your own grave as far as I'm concerned. Relata refero (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I've responded to your diffs in detail on the evidence page.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And for the uninitiated, the detail is "Overstock! Smear! WordBomb! Byrne! STALKERS! BLLLLAAAAAAAAHHH!" SirFozzie (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No the detail is here.[28]. I say nothing of the kind. I think you're being deliberately disruptive. If you feel that helps your case, please keep it up.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 22:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that detail being "nobody objected! And even if they were, they were WordBomb! So my edits had consensus! See, me and my puppet agreed! Even that other guy who disagreed, he was WordBomb!" Please. Relata refero (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• and below [BirgitteSB] chimes in to say that people have to post here and justify my existence. That is not the purpose of an arbitration case. Let me clarify. A proposed principle reads "The purpose of Arbitration is to provide . . . final resolution of disputes on Wikipedia . . . in the best interests of the encyclopedia and all of its contributors." I truly want to know why it is in the best interests of Wikipedia to continue to deal with you. Your opponent is banned, misbehavior on that end has not been ignored and will not be in the future. But why should you be able to continue to make demands on the communities attention? What redeeming aspect of your participation here deserves such a sensitive approach? I can't see it. You haven't been as blatant as some past controversial editors have been in breaking policies, but you haven't really offered much to the encyclopedia either. So what is the purpose in keeping around someone who is at worst an extremely skilled manipulator who uses Wikipedia as a front in a long running dispute and must be closely watched; or at best extremely stubborn person who is unwilling to address the concerns of others frankly and makes little contribution to Wikipedia outside opposing WB (who has no lack of opposition), even though his very presence obviously provokes WB to be more active on Wikipedia. What exactly is the point again that makes this all in the best interests of Wikipedia?--BirgitteSB 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been spending most of the past few weeks defending myself against this crap, so I think it is a bit unfair, to say the least, to cite my contribs say that I am "not interesting in writing an encyclopedia." I'd like to see you focus on List of Fordham alumni when some p.r. guy is attacking you left and right in three blogs and websites, and people are taking that hate campaign on-wiki. I'd love to go back to writing the encyclopedia and agree that people are wasting a ton of time on this.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 22:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How about getting written up in the legitimate tech press by reporters who didn't contact you for the chance to correct their inaccurate facts, and receiving hate mail? Three hostile blogs and websites would have been a cakewalk. Would you like a forward of my Google alerts from December? Yes, it's possible to focus on writing an encyclopedia afterward. Durova^Charge! 22:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your list of 500 article contribs goes back a year and a half! And I do not see many substantial edits outside of the topic under dispute. How does the past few weeks have anything to do with that?--BirgitteSB 22:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

He may have another account for editing some articles, perhaps. Lawrence § t/e 22:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, Mantanmoreland's last 500 Article edits actually took him from 2006 to February 2008 to accumulate. The primary purpose of Wikipedia is to write articles. What is going on here? Lawrence § t/e 22:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Hear, hear. Durova^Charge! 21:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why this is so far problematic

The problem with this proposal is not necessarily the decision itself. This decision arising from a robust enough discussion could be acceptable to most people. And although I imagine there must have been such a discussion in private none of it is evidence on this case. A large group of people see MM's behavior as being very problematic, and they have gone to great lengths to articulate the problems they see. Others seem to disagree, but the reasoning in support of MM is not shared. It is perfectly understandable that some of evidence against MM is being dismissed out of hand. But I think MM actions have clearly surpassed passive "good faith" assumptions. What evidence is there that MM is a net positive to this project? I can find no active defense of MM anywhere among these pages, yet from this proposed decision I must surmise that such an active defense exists. I understand that Arbcom does not wish to be quoted in off-site battles, but the primary goal of this case "is to provide a fair and equitable, well-informed, expeditious, and final resolution of disputes on Wikipedia". I can not understand how anyone can even dream in their most pleasant dreams that this decision will bring final resolution to the actual dispute on Wikipedia. I believe Arbcom is elected to a role of judgment that the community cannot fulfill on it's own. However the community is truly the only enforcement of Arcom's judgment, and although a judgment does not seek or require the community's agreement is does (outside of simple bans) require the community's comprehension. I find this proposed decision incomprehensible in terms of the case presented and therefore largely unenforcable. Looking forward I can see this decision improving the situation on articles named in the "Locus of Dispute". However just because Arbcom may wish to limit this decision to that locus, it does not follow that the dispute does not actually reach into other areas of Wikipedia. Looking forward I can see this decision without further clarifications being detrimental to those other areas of Wikipedia (Noticeboards, Sock Investigations, etc.) Above some people have said this decision would encourage abuse of sockpupppets. But that can only be an issue in edge cases, my very large concern is rather that this decision will encourage stonewalling throughout all stages of dispute resolution. Frank communication is the means of all solutions within wikis, and it's absence always inflames problems. Ignore any issue at all within this case; except the apparent stonewalling. Just to be absolutely clear of the problem I see: I find no acceptable explanation given in this case to address the concerns raised by MM's actions. I can only imagine that those privy to all the information at Arbcom's disposal are able to disagree with that. But it is impossible to leave this up to imagination and expect any real closure. This is the "final step in dispute resolution" only so long as people are satisfied their concerns have been addressed, otherwise it is only one step in a cycle. Addressing peoples concerns is a significantly low bar that has not yet been met here. Shed some light on the robust discussion that has brought Arbcom to this stage. Share whatever you can of the arguments in defense of MM that were found convincing, even if only in the most general terms. My biggest questions are, which concerns over MM's actions did Arbcom find to have substantial enough evidence to surpass an assumption of good faith (if any)? Were the all concerns considered substantial satisfactorily explained? Were the satisfying explanations at all found within the public pages of this case, or were they solely part of private submissions?--BirgitteSB 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad someone thinks that at least this will have an effect on the four articles directly mentioned as the locus of the dispute. (I still haven't the vaguest idea how.) Relata refero (talk) 20:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Truthfully I can imagine two good approaches to this. There can wishy-washy FOFs and a broad banhammer (i.e. "We can't conclusively determine the facts of the matters, but it smells rotten and is in Wikipedia's best interest to ban all disputants from this topic broadly interpreted"} Or there can be strong FOFs and a very nuanced forward looking remedies (i.e. "Situations A, B, and C due to X, Y, and Z details are improper or have such a strong appearance of impropriety as makes no difference. Going forward all such activity is dis-allowed and blockable on an escalating scale.") However the current proposal is not practical. It basically says "We can't conclusively determine the facts of the matters, but looking forward no more of it". So basically I can see the remedies that are very specific working narrowly, but no overall closure to the problem--BirgitteSB 22:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A quick thing to consider

Gary Weiss has shown previously on his blog that he knows of the disputes on Wikipedia. It's probably also fair to say if Arbcom were to rule that he has been editing Wikipedia under an alias, and denying it, in areas he shouldn't be to help his career, his career would subsequently take a bit of a battering. So why hasn't he turned up at these pages to say "I am not Sparticus?" Odd, hey? Although I admit that means nothing, as without watching someone log in as someone else, nothing really matters. Welcome to the new Wikipedia, home of more sockfarms than a cotton mill. Whitstable 20:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My guess, unless someone in a position to know states otherwise, is that he contacted ArbCom privately with "confounding issues" (i.e. legal threats). —Random832 20:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the problematic issue is the open participation in this case by the director of communications and CEO of Overstock.com[29], which is under investigation by the Securities and Exhcange Commission? But that is just a guess, and I see no point in speculating.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it true that you are mandated by law to throw in an attack against people not even involved in the freaking case with every post? Here's a challenge, MM. Can you go FIVE posts without throwing WordBomb/Patrick Byrne references in? I personally think it can't be done.. that you'd get 2-3 posts in, and then suffer from a version of Tourette's Syndrome where all you can say is "WordBomb! Overstock! Smear Campaign! RARRRRRRR!". SirFozzie (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I mention Overstock's participation in this case, because it is participating in this case. If that discomfits you, don't read it.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

So that would be "no" then, I guess. No amount of repeating yourself will convince me of anything you say, I'm afraid, you have to actually address the points raised. ++Lar: t/c 21:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you might view this a little less callously if the CEO of some company and his paid stalker were after your bacon.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean your bacon or Gary Weiss' bacon? Seems to me they are more interested in "Gary Weiss" than "Mantanmoreland", that's why I ask. daveh4h 21:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

BINGO!!! (I regret that the usual prize of a fluffy duck, although it has fluffy yellow feathers, wings, a beak, webbed feat, answers to the names Daffy and Howard, etc. has now been reclassified as "potential but unproven water fowl" - and has been substituted with a picture of a moose. Congratulations.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Have to give you grudging credit for your single-mindedness. We look upon this discussion, and see 50 different people. You just see 50 copies of one person and imagine that person is pulling the strings of everyone. Takes some imagination, I have to admit. As for the rest of your post, wow, I'm impressed. BLP Violations for all! (Apparently, the real name of the policy is WP:Biography of Living People We Like, and Screw The Rest. SirFozzie (talk) 21:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, since we're being brute force honest, you mention Overstock's "participation" in this case, because it's so much easier to go "Look at the silly monkey" then actually deal with the fact that many neutral editors have good faith concerns. SirFozzie (talk) 21:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you, a Wikipedia editor, care so much about a company that 99.999 per cent of the world have never heard of? Whitstable 20:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't care much about that company. But that company's CEO mentioned me and Samiharris on his corporate website, which I do think is pretty extraordinary.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Why would evidence from an editor in good standing be a confounding issue in your defense? Or do you just want to get another jab at a RW adversary in? Relata refero (talk) 20:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that the fact that the CEO of Overstock.com is participating openly in this arbitration is a confounding issue from my perspective, but it might be from Arbcom's. That is just speculation. I have no idea. Perhaps if George W. Bush participated in an arbcom as User:GeorgeWBush, and attacked editors on the White House website, it would be taken in stride by all concerned.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It would depend on if the White House provided IP-based evidence of sockpuppetry, I suppose, the way this is going. Hint? Lawrence § t/e 21:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It might also depend on if the White House routinely used fake emails and forged screen shots, engaged in other dirty tricks, and sent an email to an administrator saying that if "Weiss is banned" he will remove his attacks on the administrator and Wikipedia.[30]. I know, I know, doesn't matter.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is all rather circular and pointless. Let's just all stop on this avenue. This clearly will not be resolved to the community's satisfaction until there is a full and open public investigation (an AN subpage discussion?) after this RFAR closes for the community to make a decision on the evidence provided. Lawrence § t/e 21:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering how this started, I think that would be the best Wikipedia example of a Vicious Circle, ever. SirFozzie (talk) 21:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How else will this end if the AC won't take up the evidence or directly address why they feel it's insufficient, and what this secret mitigating factor is? Is it a legal threat from someone off-wiki or an editor? Something else? Leaving the community dangling after 2+ years of this mess will just let it fester. Or, the community can take steps to permanently stop disruption. Lawrence § t/e 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it another way: If I posted on WP:AN today with the depth of evidence that has been presented here in regards to MM/SH/GW, about User:Bobby566, User:TeddyRoosevelt, and a BLP named Vince Clortho, out of the blue, how long would it take for the community to reach a decision about Bobby566 and TeddyRoosevelt? Lawrence § t/e 21:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you posted a graph that clearly showed while TeddyRoosevelt's edit times changed to a time-zone on the other side of the planet and Vince Clortho could be should be shown to have been on the other side of the planet at the same time, we all know what would happen! This whole process did not need to go past Varkala! Whitstable 21:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just commenting that it started at SSP, went to AN, went to private sandbox pages, went back to AN, went to RfC, went to AN for discussion of the RfC.. then to RfArb... and now back to AN, again? Hope we get some frequent Wiki miles out of this! :) SirFozzie (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And then it goes to CSN, and if that doesn't work it goes somewhere else, until the blood lust is satisfied.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it goes until the community (not YOU) rejects the evidence with counter-evidence and explanations. You still haven't even answered anything. Why did your and Sami's editing times change to Indian time suddenly? The answer is not "Patrick Byrne". Lawrence § t/e 22:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to jump in, it was just Mantanmoreland so "I am not Sami" is no answer, either. Whitstable 22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, we all get a free round trip to ANI. The blackout location is WP:FAC (this takes too much time and attention away from real editing). Durova^Charge! 21:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed principle on enabling

Effect, not affect. --Michael Snow (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so - 'affect' meaning "External display of emotion or mood" is how I read it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a possible reading, I suppose, but the passage scans as if "effect" was intended. If "affect" really was intended, the sentence should be rewritten to eliminate the confusion (maybe it should be rewritten either way). I note that it's possible to sensationalize things and provoke disruption without presenting a sensationalist affect, and in fact some people are quite practiced at disrupting without calling attention to themselves in that way. --Michael Snow (talk) 21:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Question re effect of MM and SH on community reactions to WB

Although divided, the Committee seems to believe there is suggestive evidence for a link between MM and SH. Given that, it would be good to know if the Committee felt that there was a problem with the way MM and SH acted in concert against WordBomb. Does the Committee feel that these actions against WB coloured the response of the Wikipedia community in general to WB and his claims, and that this was a significant contributor to the length and heat of the conflict leading to this arbitration? Or does the Committee believe that the community acted properly in regard to WB, and that the actions of MM and SH did not negatively contribute to how the community reacted to these claims? BCST2001 (talk) 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Samiharris came on Wikipedia several months after WordBomb was banned.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct, it was MM and his checkuser confirmed sockpuppet Lastexit that acted in concert against WorldBomb. Correct the details, the basic question remains. GRBerry 21:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. Yes, I meant the way MM and Lastexit acted in concert, for instance here: [31]. And then the way in which MM and SH acted in concert to colour the reactions to WB's claims and accusations. BCST2001 (talk) 21:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anything caused WordBomb's banning except WordBomb's actions.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to perform the same function as multiple editors in good standing here are, although admittedly in not the "best" way? Whitstable 21:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand you. I didn't ban WordBomb, and didn't even ask for him to be banned. There was no conspiracy against him. I do realize that is his big complaint, but I don't think it's quite accurate.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for your reply, Mantanmoreland, but, with respect, your somewhat unsurprising answer wasn't really what I was trying to elicit. What I am saying is that it would be worthwhile for the Arbitration Committee to indicate their views on my question, which is: given that the Committee tends to agree with WB's accusation that MM has been sockpuppeteering and has a conflict of interest in relation to the articles in question, does the Committee feel that MM/LE/SH acted in concert in relation to WB in a way that negatively coloured the community's reaction to WB and his accusation? Or, on the contrary, does the Committee feel there was no negative impact, and that there was nothing wrong with the community's reaction to WB and his accusations? BCST2001 (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And the pertinence of my question is as follows: I entirely agree with the intentions of the Committee to come up with "forward-directed" solutions, rather than apportioning blame, however, as it stands, these solutions appear to favour one "side" over the other. That is, while the accusations, which the Committee seems to acknowledge are grounded in fact, show that all sides have engaged in bad behaviour, WB remains banned, while MM and SH are not banned. This would seem to amount to an implicit finding that the community's reaction to WB was legitimate and not negatively coloured by the concerted actions of MM/LE/SH. I am asking if it is correct to read this implicit finding into the Committee's resolutions, and, if so, whether the Committee ought not make explicit what it seems to be expressing implicitly. Or, on the other hand, if the Committe does think that MM/LE/SH behaved badly in relation to WB, negatively affecting the community's reaction to WB, then the question is begged: how "forward looking" is the Committe being really, if their findings perpetuate the results of improper actions in the past, in terms of banning WB while leaving MM and SH unsanctioned?

The community's good faith

Regarding doubts about the time that it took to look into the sock concerns seriously, and whether that reflected improper collusion among other editors, I've written User:Durova/Mantanmoreland_statement. Durova^Charge! 21:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that mantanmorelands opponents have been his best defense. I don't see anyone who helped conduct this investigation and review having done anything improper, other than maybe some overheated talk page rhetoric. This is what makes it so disappointing, that the committee seems willing to let the community continue to be abused in this way. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The committee is still a committee, with all the flaws that entails - one of which being that the decisions made collectively are more likely to be timid than aggressive. Timid proposals from a committee meeting behind closed doors quite often reflect vigorous disagreement in private.

There are obviously flaws in discussing such things in private. However, I suspect that discussing this case in public would be so noisy as to prevent any decision from being made at all, unfortunately. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it an internal Committee policy or practice that other/dissenting Proposed Decision sections are generally not posted? I.e., does the Committee have to approve together on language for these ahead of time, or are individual members free to post their own dissenting opinions sections and findings at any time free of pressure or repercussion? It would seem that doing that, and allowing public up-and-down votes, would be the most just way to approach divisive cases, rather than taking the easy way out. Lawrence § t/e 23:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not in general; many cases see proposals that get voted down or which fail to gain sufficient support to pass. I suspect that alternate proposals may be offered to some of these (most likely will, in fact). However, we do most of the time prefer to discuss cases that involve allegations tied to real-world identity in private. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that FT2 has already offered some additional or alternative proposals to the ones I posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The arbitrators don't have to thrash things out in private before bringing them onwiki, but it some cases it helps. I don't think I break any secrets in saying that the majority of arbitrators thought this case needed thorough discussions before a proposed decision was posted. That feeling was not in any way binding, though. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

re:Morven's comments. I don't have a problem with private deliberations. My problem is that the committee is seeming to ignore a users documented abuse of the community to a level that earns most folks a one year wikibreak. It's the double standard question, and part 2 of it is: do I have enough contribution to get to be on the good side of the double standard? I know that some folks are concerned about the appearant double standard (via comments on other cases involving long standing users), don't let this codify it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Types of evidence: precedents and milestones

Over the course of this investigation I think we've let our evidentiary classifications (circumstantial, "smoking-gun," duck test) become hopelessly blurred. This is a good time to revisit and sharpen these distinctions given that we're thinking about the precedent being set by this case.

We've been conflating the duck test with circumstantial evidence, when in fact these are quite different. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck – that's the duck test. When something is thought to be so self-evident that a rough eyeball estimatation will do, that's the duck test. It's what has been used for all Wordbomb socks and alleged socks. There are a few editors who refer to some 600 hundred private emails and claim to make out stylistic differences between SH and MM, but both the emails and the alleged stylistic differences have remained undisclosed, and the overwhelming consensus is that SH and MM pass the duck test with flying colors. But there was an almost equally strong consensus that due to the stakes and sensitivities of this case, evidence would need to be systematically gathered, vigorously vetted, and soberly presented. That is, even if the facts met a threshold of self-evidence deemed sufficient for duck-test decisions when dealing with Judd Bagley's manipulation of Wikipedia, more circumspection was necessary when dealing with Gary Weiss's manipulation of Wikipedia. The circumstantial evidence adduced by Alanyst, Cool Hand Luke, and others answered to this need. It has absolutely nothing to do with the duck test, and description of it as such not only demeans it, but totally misses the point of their efforts. Their evidence set a new standard for circumspection in sockpuppet investigations, and it is nothing short of overwhelming. Smoking-gun evidence of Mantan's COI problem has also been adduced – arguably in the case of the Ernie Pyle library, and incontestably in the case of Varkala. There is on the other hand no smoking-gun evidence for MM=SH.

In other words, the "duck test" as such was never applied to this case. Instead, a much, much higher bar of evidence was set, and incontestably cleared.

Much discussion seems to take for granted that the best and most conclusive evidence possible would have been a positive checkuser, that that result would have provided a degree of certainty that mere circumstantial evidence, no matter how extensive and compelling in its own way, can ever quite match. I dispute this notion. I think if you took the circumstantial evidence adduced here for MM=SH and traded it all in for a positive CU, the result would be a net loss in certainty. MM says he is an "MBA candidate at a large Eastern university"; if SH claimed to be a fellow grad student sharing his office computer, that would be a cleaner, simpler, and ultimately more plausible story for a common IP address than what would be required, at this point, to make sense of the ever-expanding web of circumstantial evidence linking the two accounts.

I am not concerned that this decision will be a "green light" to other editors to sock-puppet. I have the opposite concern – that this decision will be widely perceived as confirmation of a double standard or worse, and that it will be seen as a blot on the committee's credibility. In Anchorman: the Legend of Ron Bergundy, Will Farrell, bless his soul, tells the lucky lady he's wooing that San Diego was discovered by the Germans and its name means "whale's vagina"; she says nuh-uh, no way, sorry that's incorrect, he says OK OK I admit it was blarney, I wanted to impress you, I don't know what it means and in fact no one does, "scholars maintain that the translation was lost hundreds of years ago"; she says look jackass, it means "Saint Diego," he says no I'm sorry you're wrong, she says no, really, her voice tightening. "Agree to disagree?" he pleads, hoping for détente. My younger brother laughed like hell at "whale's vagina." I laughed like hell at agree-to-disagree. Yesterday's Could-Samiharris-be-Wordbomb? was a whale's vagina, no doubt, and some laughed like hell, but today's suggestive-but-not-conclusive will be the connoisseur's punchline.

While admittedly disappointing, I don't think this is a big disaster. By far the most important milestone in this saga was passed weeks ago, when Sir Fozzie opened his evidence subpage and Jimbo gave it the go-ahead, and it ceased to be a "shoot-on-site" blockable or bannable offense to talk about obvious COI and sockpuppeting problems involving Mantanmoreland, obvious NPOV problems in the articles on Gary Weiss and Patrick M. Byrne, and obvious admin-abuse problems related to these (I am thinking particularly but not exclusively of the harassment of Cla68). The second most important milestone was passed when the arbcom case was opened, and investigating editors set a standard for sobriety and circumspection that, when the dust is settled, will be seen to have done more than anything else to put the era of bitter and sterile debates about "cliques" and "cabals" behind us as a community. Certainly, a vigorous, transparent, and just Arbcom decision now would be a fitting and deserved conclusion, but the community will survive without it.--G-Dett (talk) 22:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent consideration, even if you did misspell millstone every time. You also missed the smoking gun that is Varkala regarding socking - both MM and SH's edit patterns altered to accommodate that timeshift... Regarding the millstones I alluded to; if the detailed circumstantial evidence produced in the absence of checkuser is insufficient to indicate that a duck has been found quacking the it is going to be far canard (pardon my French) to justify sockpuppet blocks in the future on the analysis of contributions, shared interests and similar styles. The dedicated socker will be examining these deliberations closely, and those banned previously will doubtless be investigating whether the evidence used in their cases fails the standards apparently considered in this case (although this is not entirely bad - can Piperdown be the only innocently aggrieved party?)

Regarding the milestone that is SirFozzie being permitted to open an evidence subpage - all kudos to him and his integrity, but just about how many other individuals would have been permitted to do so? Indeed, how many of us with sysop privileges would not have been? Just how good a record do you need to be able to dare to start to discuss a (s)low article edit count contributor with an interest limited to little more than a few articles regarding an arcane subject matter and some of its players? It seems to be a step in the right direction, but not yet a leap. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as SH being MM, I'd like to add two more things that hadn't seemed necessary to mention (partly because they may be minor by comparison): First, I recommend that anyone interested try a ctrl f search through each editor's contribs for " -- ", to compare not just the frequency with which this is used, but also the manner.(MM/SH) I found this to be one way of cutting out a lot of noise for a direct comparison. Second, I've personally noticed a distinctive pattern in both accounts not just to edit talk page posts afterward, but to add new thoughts as well. Any review of Mantanmoreland's edits will show this (today: [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]) ; a list from Samiharris' first five hundred edits is here:[40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] These are just two more things, but in my view noteworthy. Mackan79 (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well - I do that. I suspect a lot of people who participate a lot on talk pages do. I'm not sure I'd read much into that one in particular. —Random832 07:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Samiharris joined Wikipedia in January 07. The Varkala non-issue was in November 06. You may now return to your regularly scheduled circus.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland is correct. Varkala, while not a non-issue in other regards, does not add to the other extensive evidence that Samiharris is an alternative account used abusively by Mantanmoreland. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. The timestamp evidence that SH=MM consists only in their joint haitus from wiki-editing from late Oct. through Nov. 2007, one year after India. Either they are socks or joined at the hip and vacation together. Neither has been forthcoming for what they did in those 5 weeks. SH? MM? For two guys who share the same edit tics, it's very odd that you slacked off astoundingly and obviously at the same time, there. How about it? SBHarris 01:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Informal comment

This has been a case with a huge number of issues to raise. Picking the best for the community has taken considerable discussion. A lot of the above views, and the workshop discussion is persuasive... however it needs to be taken into account with the background. Then the reasons for the present approach are more clear.

This case has involved at a minimum, a long saga of problematic and downright unacceptable conducts, by many people. Features of this two year case have included:

• Offsite attacks - up to and including February 2008
• Linking to offsite attacks
• Harassment campaigns
• Forcible coercion attempts, going so far as possibly tantamount in one case to pretty much literal blackmail of an editor (Although I am not a lawyer)
• Lies, campaigning and misrepresentation
• Information that became clear at one point in time that was not reliable at a previous point in time
• Significant "pot-stirring" in unhelpful ways by many people
• Interpreting 2006 actions and decisions by reference to 2008 norms and knowledge
• Good faith actions with bad outcomes
• Historic gaming leading to bad conduct
• Historic frustrations leading to user and admin misjudgement or error in the past.
• People having an interest in ensuring others in the real-world situation will be made to look exceptionally good or exceptionally bad (for PR purposes), by whatever means necessary, including forgery, faking and deception, and who have the resources to achieve that.
• A neutral review shows common editing between Mantanmoreland and Samiharris on a number of pages, which would be a concern if there is puppetry of some kind.
• People with a grudge, or a view that they know beyond doubt what's best and most right, have felt compelled to present an opinion or their accusations; often speculative, part informed, or misinformed, and frequently not for the best for the community - but stated loudly and expectantly.

These are all features of a long dispute where patience was exhausted. I don't expect to cover all the issues that have been looked into and reviewed. There has been a mountain of it to consider.

We could go through and document it all. This admin blocked improperly; that user was grossly uncivil, this person engaged in personal attacks and that person switched between campaigning and attempted forcible coercion, these people latched onto a conspiracy theory and became convinced Something Evil Was Up, and those people unaware of the background in good faith became concerned a mis-handling had happened.

This is an exceptional case. It's the kind of case ArbCom is set up to handle, where privacy, and seriously divisive issues collided in a train wreck.

We are not inclined to further or perpetuate it, is our consensus. We could do that by blocks, bans, and rulings against these or those people, but in fact, we decided point blank not to. This needs explaining.

This mess is not a pure wiki problem. Behind the scenes is an attempt to use Wikipedia as one more battleground in a bitter offsite saga. Several people are probably mainly here (on-wiki), or have only visited here, because of a wish to fight that battleground. Any decision, we are more aware than most from the history of the dispute, will be used immediately as ammunition to perpetuate the dispute - that this one was wrongly blocked, that one wrongly let off, the community or Committee were biased by considering this matter but not that one from 2006 or 2007... users who were uncivil, unhelpful, over-dramatic, POINTy, or engaged in personal attacks or posted offsite attack links (especially on these pages)... and more disruption would ensue.

Accordingly we choose none of that. We have decided to take the exceptional measure to focus on none in particular, and to shut the core wiki-dispute down, or render it within communal control, so far as possible without citing the usual itinerary of who did what. If Mantanmoreland or others edit these articles in future, it will be under intense communal eyeballs. If further incident occurs the community will deal with it. Our focus has been to say simply, that without the drama of naming specifics that can only cause a further cycle of "X did Y", to take the few commonsense steps needed to assert three things:

1. This isn't what we're here for, and the many who enabled it, helped it roll out, and pushed the matter into prominence (in and outside the community), must consider better actions, because this isn't what Wikipedia is for.
2. The evidence of improper editing is "suggestive", but not 100% conclusive. It was less convincing in the past (third party campaigns to the contrary notwithstanding), and was required to be evaluated in the quite exceptional context that there were others with specific agendas to smear at any cost and via any means. Different users may read into that statement their own preferred degree of "suggestiveness", from "very little" to "very much". We, exceptionally and against our norms, do not plan to specify ours.
3. The dispute - in on wiki editing terms - ends here.

That is our consensus -- to give the community our concern that in fact, the handling of disputes in that way can do more harm whether right or wrong, and to provide the few remedies needed to counter any forward-looking disruption. The rest, we remit back to the community to handle in totality, in the belief that the community will now be clued in and actually handle it quite well. That is our focus, not to provide "vindication" for any "side" in the real-world dispute, but to ask the important question - what remedy the community needs to get beyond the issue, and to remember we're here to write an encyclopedia, not for this. It seems most likely that all sides and all parties in the real-world dispute may well have have acted dishonorably, unethically, and duplicitously, and this may have done us as an encyclopedia no favors.

Our case decison is not yet complete. A number of proposals on the Workshop and which others feel "should have been decided", and that seem very credible, have been carefully considered internally first, and have already been dismissed as superficially helpful, but after more thought, were deemed less helpful than they at first appear in the context. That is why they weren't part of our main decision.

This case is exceptional and such considerations and issues and approaches here are not to be taken or applied as a norm. Some other cases dating back to 2006 had similar heated issues, though few as extreme. In line with ArbCom's changing communal role of considering increasingly more difficult cases over time, the Committee may well reassess the process by which it approaches such complex train-wrecks in future, since the unresolved past history and ambiguities were a key factor in making this case as problematic as it was.

Posted as a personal comment.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Thank you for that. I am satisfied that the ArbCom has taken the best decision they could take given their expectations of the effects of various decisions.

You are, however, completely wrong about the effect on the articles, as I note earlier on on this page, which is what counts.(Ending a "dispute", possibly, though the not-proven-socks were doing fine on ending disputes on their own; ensuring the integrity of those articles, not so much.)

You might also have severely misjudged what the community required from you in order to move on, but I will be proved either right or wrong on that in the fullness of time. I do hope to be proved wrong in this case. I usually am not, however. Relata refero (talk) 23:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• You make some excellent points FT2 - one thing to consider in this case is that it is far outside the realms of the usual arbitration cases. It goes much much deeper than your everyday decision. What we have is an attempt by the committee to stop the disruption through on-wiki sanctions that help to keep the decorum. Pushing people off the project would only lead to the off wiki aspect of the dispute intenifying. If we are able to deal with things here, then hopefully the whole dispute will disengage. With respect to the sockpuppetry concerns - I'm not sure what else the committee could do, they are concerned with some of the editing patterns, but as there's no real evidence of it, it's not really right to start issuing bans for it. Thanks again for the clarification FT2. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• RE Ryan:Pushing people off the project would only lead to the off wiki aspect of the dispute intenifying. If we are able to deal with things here, then hopefully the whole dispute will disengage. Wordbomb is banned. If MM and SH are banned, there is no more on-wiki dispute! Problem solved, from our end. "hopefully the whole dispute will disengage"--here it sounds like you are talking about the dispute as a whole, which I assure you Wikipedia has no way of solving, in fact it could have divorced itself from it right here with this case and chose not to. daveh4h 07:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the further explanation too. However, I strongly feel that actions taken to avoid drama often ironically sow the seeds of future drama. I think back to the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster and the investigation of the event. What would have happened if the commission had said, "We don't want to cause further turmoil at NASA by talking about who made mistakes where; our purpose is to get the shuttle back into space, and discussing every bad decision will just create drama that distracts us from that goal"? alanyst ^/talk/ 23:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The analogy here would be: "Arguing who told who what 2 years ago or if John Doe needs sacking or not, isn't that helpful. The issue is, 1/ the quality control on O-rings needs improving whether John Doe is in that department or not, and 2/ we each and all must refocus on good quality space shuttle management which is what we're actually here for." I don't think anyone would disagree with that. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the explaination, and understand the goal. However, I do not feel that this decision will get you there. There are two parts of this enormous dispute that this arbitration hearing could actually make headway towards resolving. 1) abuse of the community through in appropriate use of alternate accounts, and 2) article content (through removal of protection of the pov controlling user. The rest of this dispute is not possible to clear up through this hearing. So, what's it going to be? do what you can or not. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Rocksanddirt. This helps explain things. I'm not sure that I like your approach or think that it will work, or approve of free-passing those you've decided not to review, (because if the allegations are true, the behaviour isn't going to stop) but it definitely helps explain things. Frankly you all perhaps should have led with this instead of the stuff on the proposed decision page in more conventional format, I think, some of what's just been said maybe wouldn't need to have been said. ++Lar: t/c 00:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The behavior is tightly tied to specific articles and topics, which are likely to have strict controls placed on them. The proposed remedies are likely to be effective in clearing up the articles, and concerns over untoward conduct will be unlikely to continue given article probation plus communal scrutiny. If they do, then we'll see where the "leak" is. Its more measured that some would wish, but there's a good chance that will fix it, and if not, the community will be stricter now too.

On your second point, we actually did have a foreword drafted, for exactly that reason, but didn't ultimately use it. The idea of a narrative section on cases, saying how we have found the case and our approach on it, a sort of obiter dicta or general comment, has some considerable appeal but would be a change to the norm. if complex cases are going to happen more, maybe they should be used next time. Thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, a forward in cases where the committee is not going to follow their usual precedent I think is VERY important. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but we don't need to get in depth with this case - it would be nice, but that is nowhere near the core issues. What we need is a solid ruling based on overwhelming evidence that MM is SH and whoever that is they appear to have a conflict of interest. MM/SH is then banned, restriceted in editing etc. That is the core of the case, there is simply overwhelming circumstantial evidence that this is the case. THe evidence is there that MM = GW too, but tat does not necessairly have to be said. That is the core of the case. Viridae^Talk 00:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, the Committee is not going to concern themselves with the history as the consequences of doing so may prove detrimental to the encyclopedia but are going to address the present situation to provide a basis on which the community can more onward, into the future? Under the circumstances I can do no better than to reference George Santayana, substituting "will not" for "cannot". LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

We remember the past. But to unpack it, against the hordes of voices... the problem is LHVU, that imagine we did. Imagine we had tried, methodically and soberly, to unpack the past, decide what was important and what was not, and make remedies on that basis. It wouldn't help because the mindset it faces is in many quarters, an emotional one, not a rational one. It would not be looked at calmly with thought, but used as ammunition, sources of new disputes and claims, and that would be so no matter how carefully and neutrally it was done. The lesson of the past that needs learning is "we all got distracted, and let something take us off track far too easily". Our solution is to draw a line under ther murky bits, take steps to kill the basis of the current and future issue (malediting on these topics leading to article probation) and let the community handle any minor issues if those involved do not visibly act in a reassuring manner from now on. There are lessons to learn, and we have them too. But the communal lesson is that this kind of thing is a distraction. A finding X was/wasn't a sockpuppet is not a "lesson" of the past. its a conclusion about the present. The best lesson is sometimes you draw a line and admit everything got fouled up, and determine not to contribute to that happening again. We must all make that determination, individually... and that above all is the lesson we wish not to have marginalized. (eg, by presenting it amongst many findings that will merely be squabbled over for ammunition for future with the important lesson ignored.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I realise (remember the past, if you like, from one of my first participations) that each ArbCom addresses the specific case and does not of itself make policy but enacts the principles and rules in relation to the dispute, and its resolution; however, as MONGO/BADSITES taught us, ArbCom decisions are referenced in the processes from that time forward. I would comment that the past was unpacked - indeed, would there have been this deliberation without the initial 'opening of the case' (what a waste of a pun) by SirFozzie - in the evidence and workshop sections. Thus we have both a strong indication that WP:SOCK was abused and that there will be no action taken for that violation, even though there is ample guidance in policy that it should. That is not an appetising consideration to take into future sock disputes. It would have been best, in my opinion, that my proposals that this ArbCom concerned itself only in the matter of the alleged sockpuppetry between Mantanmoreland and various accounts with only passing reference to COI (and its RL consequences) and the areas where it was manifested. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec with several editors) FT2's explantion, though appreciated, was on the whole rather opaque. We need y'all to do much better than that here. The comment "this case is exceptional and such considerations and issues and approaches here are not to be taken or applied as a norm" is particularly disappointing because it is impossible for any outside observer (and I hope we're thinking about them - not the 50-100 folks who have followed the case closely) to read that and know what in the hell that means, or know why this ArbCom case does not set a norm whereas others obviously have.

I agree with Viridae that this case was, at the heart, about the suspected sockpuppetry of one user. There's an enormous of background noise, of course, but we deserved an honest ruling on that issue. FT2's comment does not explain (even a little bit) why we will not get it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Then may I ask, read it again. It does in fact explain, to my mind, and does specify exactly how we feel right to characterize the editors (which of course may differ from how you feel they should have been characterized). Others above have understood the rationale. Thanks :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No FT2, I already read it once, quite carefully. Believe it or not I'm actually a pretty good reader and don't remotely appreciate your suggestion that I read your comment again (which implies that I read it poorly the first time - a conclusion which you presumably intuited solely on the basis of the fact that I said your comment was not helpful...obviously I wasn't reading closely!). I know that other editors "have understood the rationale" and I know that you obviously think what you wrote makes sense given that you wrote it. I do not think it makes much sense and I am very much entitled to that opinion. Just a suggestion for the future - when someone else calls something you wrote "opaque" and not particularly useful it will pretty much never do you any good to simply tell them to read it again.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm right here with Bigtimepeace in finding the explanation lacking or even confounding. I'm not the smartest guy, and you obviously are able to type much more than me and you use bigger words, so maybe that has something to do with it. :-)

In regard to FT2's statement above: A neutral review shows common editing between Mantanmoreland and Samiharris on a number of pages, which would be a concern if there is puppetry of some kind. LOL. You've said yourself that sockpuppeting is suggestive, assuming they are puppets or not they have operated in tandem as such. I agree with you that this is a complex case, but jeez don't complicate things that much! As I said above: Wordbomb is banned. Mantanmoreland, who he believes to be Gary Weiss is still here. Do you think that is a solution or a good way to move forward? I'm not saying you should ban MM to appease Wordbomb, but I am saying that you are allowing (making!!) history repeat. There will be another case, very shortly I suspect, when it could have been avoided by issuing a year long vacation. That is preventative. Not this. daveh4h 07:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding comments above that it would be nice if some of this sentiment had been expressed prior to releasing the proposed decision page... Some of it was, although not in such a collected fashion, and to me it was both predictable before a decision was proposed and obvious afterwards. Folks decided that the decision proposed meant the worst of all possible worlds - the ArbCom had completely abdicated responsibility, and the Community must now repudiate them in the strongest possible terms! Well, no. The pitchfork and torch mentality is exactly what forced the ArbCom (in my view) to come to a decision that only addressed the future of the encyclopedia without rehashing the past. There are true transgressions at the source of this case - whether it be inappropriate blocks, poor judgments, sockpuppetry, whatever. What caused this case to become a major problem has no relation to any of those things, though. The problem is/was opposing crusades, with people convinced that their position was righteous and just. The solution is that arrived at by the Committee - take a step back, note what we are here for (the content of the encyclopedia, and its readers) and address that goal only. All other considerations take a back seat. Avruch ^T 17:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The committee refuses to make a decision

One must realize that, in addition to 500K of public evidence, the Arbs have also recieved evidence via email, which is kept private. It may well be that such evidence has proved decisive, and yet will never be made known to the WP community.

Such evidence could consist, for instance as a "smoking gun" DIFF, or perhaps legal threats were made, or death threats or just plain "blackmail". In which case the community may be furthermore disappointed if the arbs. choose not to at least indicate the type of evidence which has been received, and which has out-weighed the comprehensive analysis, which has seemed to convince the overwhelming majority of users and parties who have been following the, apparently pointless, public evidence.

Under the circumstances, if the arbs choose not to inform the community if such evidence has been given the power to over-rule the community and rational argument, then speculation is likely to mount as to just what such evidence, if it exists, could be.

The most likely would appear to be either of legal threats, or "blackmail", of a distinct and pronounced nature, in order to explain how the commitee could end up perpetrating such a gutless outcome. What has the Committee been threatened with, and who made those threats?

So, "blackmail" on behalf of Mantanmotreland has succeeded in thwarting all hope of resolving this matter. How very disturbing, indeed disgraceful. Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 02:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that this comment is unneccessarily conspiracy theory driven. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And the Committee's track record has been to siteban very swiftly when actual threats get made. Durova^Charge! 03:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an example of the kind of thing that hasn't helped. A good-faith concern, that is used as the basis for bad faith, and whose effect is to raise the emotivity (sp?) of the case rather than speed its handling. You start with a fair comment. One must realize that, in addition to 500K of public evidence, the Arbs have also received evidence via email, which is kept private. It may well be that such evidence has proved decisive, and yet will never be made known to the WP community. That is both possible and a fair observation. You then slip from possible to assumed, hypothesising about "the most likely" as if it's certain. Finally you reach a conclusion, again completely misassumed, "So, 'blackmail' on behalf of Mantanmotreland has succeeded in thwarting all hope of resolving this matter". It is hard to convey how much of the issue of this case and damage to the community has come from exactly this kind of (apologies for being blunt) inept, bad faith, and self-confirming argument. If you find it hard to believe, imagine how others (using the same style of thinking but both for your view and opposing it) act, and what a chorus of this kind of uninformed debate would do to any hope of rational discussion. It was this I had in mind when I stated major problems in this case included: "Significant "pot-stirring" in unhelpful ways by many people" "People with [...] a view that they know beyond doubt what's best and most right, have felt compelled to present an opinion or their accusations; often speculative [...] or misinformed, and frequently not for the best for the community - but stated loudly and expectantly" I highlight your post because it is a very clear - almost classic - example of exactly the sort of thing that got this case where it is now on the Wiki, and a behavior which many editors have problematically engaged in to the communal detriment. Let's try an alternate strategy. Suppose you had the same valid concerns, but did something novel like post them as an open question ("Could some arbitrator comment") or emailed us with the worry you have. We could then have openly confirmed for the record that in fact, there was no "secret evidence" in this case of any note. The only non-public evidence was the great amount of prior discussion and past incidents reviewed that indicated how matters in this dispute have tended to go. No new or recent "secret" matters of any kind were presented of any note here. You speculated, assumed bad faith, and none of it was necessary. You goofed. The one formal concrete speculation you also gave, that I have said on one occasion "coercion tantamount to blackmail"... lets look at what you did with that. First, you assumed it must have "been given the power to over-rule the community and rational argument". In fact it was one of many factors informing a rational discussion. Then out of nowhere you suddenly decide the answer is that "'blackmail' on behalf of Mantanmoreland has succeeded in thwarting all hope of resolving this matter". Which would indeed be disturbing and disgraceful, except that it's also in fact, hopelessly clueless. We did not give details of who (which person or victim), what (the actions sought or threatened) or when (2006.. 2007.. 2008) for exactly the same reason you would expect details not to be given - commonsense. The only thing influenced by all this, taken as a whole, was that we have decided the emphasis must be on a non-standard approach which we believe will be just as effective as the standard one, but less damaging in collateral.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(PS - Durova's more au fait with communal norms here, I think. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

Thankyou User:Ft2 for your response, which I will surely re-read and attempt to modify my behaviour as appropriate in acknowledging your well-made points. In my defence, I would like to state that ineptitude is not a rare beast, and that bad-faith, applied to myself, is I hope, a slip of the tongue.

Yes, this was speculative, and, in some eyes, needlessly provoking. Well, sticks and stones...

I have acted in good faith, taken these proceedings seriously, and have had hopes only for the best for en.Wikipedia, hopes which have been dashed, even crushed.

As to speculation ,and over-wrought posting, I must protest that there is a good case for being "more sinned against than sinning", in that the majority of posts by Mantanmoreland far exceed my efforts in terms of personal attacks mounted, non sequiters endlessly repeated, and utter disregard for answering questions. I did my best, sometimes it seems i have disturbed people with my words, but Mantanmoreland never attempted to answer a single, pertinent, question addressed to him.

I am sorry, but I do not see myself as the "bad guy" here, not by a long chalk, but I do appreciate your points. It seems that the accused, and guilty sockpuppeters are extended every freedom to transgress against civility and reason—such though is not allowed in respect of a good-faith editor who has transgressed against WP in no way. Just the old double standard, putting me in a collision course with CATCH22. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: I do not agree that the quality of argument coming from good-faith editors caused this Arbcom to fail; rather the crux of the matter is in the evidence. To be distracted by rhetoric is unfortunate, but the evidence should have been allowed to speak, through any confusion caused by my ineptitude with words. After all, none of the major evidence was contributed by this minor editor, with respect. Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 03:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see you as the "bad guy" either. Yet I hope you understand the way this dilemma has played out for a long time: Group A has a certain set of information, and the people in it are weighing how to act upon it. Meanwhile Group B, who may have looked at some part of the picture in a valid way and have legitimate concerns to raise, pepper that with some off-the-wall speculation about Group A's dynamics. It would take Group A a while to dig into Group B's real research, but Group A knows immediately that the part about its own dynamics is really off target. That hurts Group B's chances of being taken seriously regarding the things it really cares about. Durova^Charge! 03:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I would not go as far as to say "the bad guy", but my words were not lightly chosen. By making such comments you become a link in the chain, as Durova says. Or to say again...:

• "People with [...] a view that they know beyond doubt what's best and most right, have felt compelled to present an opinion or their accusations; often speculative [...] or misinformed, and frequently not for the best for the community - but stated loudly and expectantly"

The argument "I don't see what I did as bad" may be true, but the fact you don't see it that way does not change that many people, all not seeing it that way, of whom you're one, together turn some of our worst problems into intractable ones. It's incumbent to understand why that style of debate just doesn't help the project, and why it must be replaced by an approach that does.

Arbcom contains in general, those editors who stood for the role, and whom the community rated as its top five trusted for the role for two, maybe 3 years now. That decision was by the community, with little or no change to its ratings by Jimbo - thus the December 2007 Arbcom appointees were strictly the top 6 rated by the community in open debate, at which anyone at all of sufficient edits could stand, and vote. It's a tough, gruelling election, and rightly so. When appointed, we remember we're there for the community, and we try to exercise our experience and judgement well on some of the community's most difficult and conflicted cases. That can be difficult. Sometimes we're almost the only ones who remember we aren't a lynch mob; sometimes we're almost the only ones who remember there are strict norms on basic conduct. Sometimes it's almost impossible; sometimes people are just human. If you have a question - and this applies anywhere not just at arbitration - ask, consider a fact check, consider what you heard may not be all that others are privy to, consider that all you see as mattering may not be all that really does matter. Ask, and seek clarification. It may be we can't say, but if its a fair question better ask than assume. It's worth it. That's all that WP:AGF means - don't assume negatively when you could as easily just be mistaken, uninformed, assumptive, or the victim of someone elses' bad communication. Ask, or ask others to ask for you. If you have a concern, at a pinch, email me or anyone at WP:AC, or ask an administrator "what should I do, this bothers me".

Hope this helps. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm not helping, but you say that you should ask others if you have a concern that something's going on. It's been a little while since I read through the evidence, and I may be forgetting something, but it seems that doing this (albeit by starting in a way experienced Wikipedians would not do, but also by creating a mediation request) got WordBomb banned. --NE2 11:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Accepted. My apologies. For trying to walk before learning to crawl. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

SevenOfDiamonds

To the Arbitrators: How was the evidence of sockpuppetry in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds more convincing than in this case? Thatcher 04:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Note -- we discussed this separately, so this is purely brief notes on that, and on the issues distinguishing the cases, for anyone curious:

1. 7oD may be taken as an average case - 7oD may be taken to be an average routine case of this kind.
2. 7oD did not have the issues this case has - RFAR/7oD did not have the backdrop this case had in any way. It did not last 2 years, it did not involve bitter real-world issues, it did not involve movements that had embroiled the community and harmed individual editors as this case has had. It was a simple "sock/reincarnation case" with no real wider issue. The sole similarity was the type of data analysis performed.
3. 7oD none the less had a bare marginal pass too - 7oD had seven active arbitrators (4 = pass). Its relevant finding of fact was 4-1 that 7oD was a sockpuppet. The finding there was a bare, minimal, pass, and one arbitrator opposed after reviewing the evidence. It was not an overwhelming pass, but marginal.
4. 7oD's marginal pass was despite being based upon lukewarm wording - The 7oD finding was not an overwhelming one. It not only was marginal, it was marginal even on the conclusion wording: "The evidence presented by MONGO demonstrates that it is more likely that not that SevenOfDiamonds is a sockpuppet of NuclearUmpf." Hardly an overwhelmingly strong form of wording there either.
5. This case needs more caution and more conservatism - This case due to issues listed way above, needs more conservative treatment and caution than an average case.
6. Arbitrators have felt this case needs unusual approaches to drafting whatever its findings might be - In this case there are reasons stated, why the Arbitrators have decided to be non-specific. This is mostly to reduce the potential for ongoing damage to the community environment and harassment to editors (see above). In 7oD there was no such potential and no such need.
7. Wording' - Despite the above, te conclusion was "suggestive but not compelling".
8. Interpretation already indicated' - The community has already been told that the wording of choice "suggestive but not conclusive" is intended to guide but also to stand for a wide range of views, as our consensus. "Suggestive but not conclusive" is not entirely dissimilar to the 7oD finding, "more likely that not".

Hopefully this shows how the two cases compare, as discussed. None of this by the way, shoudl be taken to indicate the 7oD finding was not agreed and endorsed. It is drawn to show how in fact the decision here is compatible with past decisions based upon analytic techniques, which concluded "likely" or "yes" but with a considerable reserve of caution in both voting, and wording. As stated, this case is exceptional and users should not expect its decisions to be typical of other cases. In the core issue though, it can be seen that they are in fact comparable in most ways. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

7oD did not have the issues this case has - you haven't demonstrated (though you've explicitly asserted it) that the issues mean that _the standard for proving sockpuppetry_, specifically, should be different for this case than for a case that does not have these issues. —Random832 06:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This case needs more caution and more conservatism - This case due to issues listed way above, needs more conservative treatment and caution than an average case. Can you list the issues again for reference? I was under the impression that you'd not yet identified what issues are affecting this, and that lack has led to speculation of legal threats, blackmail, or worse. Now, there are issues affecting this case that everyone's aware of, but the lack of any attempt to demonstrate that those issues mean that the case _for sockpuppetry by MM/SH_ should need more conservatism than any other sockpuppetry case, leads to the thought that there are issues that not everyone is aware of. —Random832 06:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(Will comment later if nobody else has. - FT2) 15:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like comment on the issue Random raises here as well. It seems as if the Arbcom, as a whole (or majority if you will) is afraid of something, which is leading to inaction. I find it hard to believe that arbcom are afraid, but that is sure what it looks like. It makes me long for the days of Fred Bauder, when it was proposed that a BLP be redirected to clown!

Additionally, I hope that this question is answered clearly and with as little pretty white backgrounds, black borders, and nifty show-hide javascript options as possible. FT2, you have a very unique writing style, which I am sure you are very proud of, but often I feel as if I am studying Torah when I read them. My time is worth something, and I urge you to get the meat of the issue when answering questions, as much as that is possible. I have a tendency to be wordy in my writing as well, so I sympathize, but I ask that you be aware that people may not be inclined to read everything you type. This is just a suggestion of course; take it or leave it. daveh4h 20:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher's question was quite simple and despite all of the bullet points FT2 simply did not answer it. I'm quite sick of hearing "this case was complicated, etc., etc." as an explanation for why we cannot get a vote from the arbs on the sockpuppetry question. Random832's question is spot on - what is it about this case that changes the standards we use for spotting sockpuppets? As far as I can tell, nothing. I know the case has "issues" (we all know that) but pointing that out does not answer Thatcher's question. SevenofDiamonds was banned for being a sock of previously banned user, (that is a fact--"it was a close vote" and "the Arbs said 'more likely that not'" are not relevant points given the end result), so given that the evidence here seems to be at least on a par with the SoD evidence the fact that the committee does not find said evidence persuasive enough to conclude that socking occurred warrants an explanation. If an Arb can offer such an explanation without saying "this case was tricky and had a bunch of complicating factors" (which have nothing to do with the evidence of socking) than I look forward to reading it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Look trees!

Trees!

(now where is that forest arbcom?) Viridae^Talk 08:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is not helpful. This whole page is rapidly becoming unreadable. Unless there's something important to add, I would like the Arbitrator's do more splainin', with less redundant outrage here. Those who are outraged could perhaps signify it by supporting Lar's modest proposal above. I don't think more bare disapproval is helpful until we get some more detail from the arbitrators. Specific, signed findings would be the perfect start. Cool Hand Luke 08:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one who sees those tiny Gnomitrators patiently digging a fire trench? Avb 13:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No, a couple of other people do. Yet others believe they're digging the wrong trench, and in the wrong direction. Relata refero (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions for ArbCom Members

FT2 has noted that it is better to ask than to assume, so here goes - and these are directed at any Committee member who is willing to respond:

1. Do indivudal arbitrators (or better you, the Committee collectively) anticipate that Mantanmoreland will be community banned within days of this case closing? (Note: question predicated on a closure with no block of MM.)
2. If a FoF concluding that there had been sock puppetry (however gently worded) were posted and received a vote, would it almost certainly pass? likely pass? don't know? likely fail? almost certainly fail?
3. Is preventing knowing where individual arbitrators stand consistent with maintaining community confidence in ArbCom and its processes? Why / Why not?
4. If the community had decided to act on the evidence itself, instead of bringing the case to ArbCom, would we all be better off? Why / Why not?
5. If the community decides to act where ArbCom will not (as seems likely, at lesat to me), would this signal that the community should ban editors instead of bringing ArbCom cases?
6. I note the recent decisions of ArbCom (notably in MH) where admin blocks and reviews in WP:SOCK cases have been questioned. Given the level of evidence in this case, would members please comment on any concern that admins may become more reluctant to block abusive sock puppets in response to ArbCom's apparent scepticism in cases of sock puppetry which lack conclusive CU evidence?

Thank you. Jay*Jay (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Great questions Jay Jay and I hope all the non-recused arbitrators will respond. Cla68 (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick answers:

1. Do individual arbitrators (or better you, the Committee collectively) anticipate that Mantanmoreland will be community banned within days of this case closing? (Note: question predicated on a closure with no block of MM.)

   Community bans are a communal decision. It would probably sway the community greatly if arbitrators were early-advocates for this, or against it (in such a case). Sadly one of the realities of arbcom is the number of communal issues one might have a significant or valid view on, but may need to take care whether to speak, or even abstain. I abstained on commenting of my concerns on MONGO's January RFA for the same reason - it was an arb desysop, and everyone would have looked at an arbitrator's view as "what arbcom thought", even if it was actually just a view as an uninvolved admin. I might state a view, or comment, on the basis that (for example) it was in fact no longer under arb auspices, but I'd want to think carefully about how it might be taken and make a judgement on the risk of skewing the decision on it. And balance that against the harm done if I deprived the community of an experienced admin's view, too. (I had a few people noting my comment on KM's RFA last year was useful and balanced.) A difficult call, individual in each instance. Will you allow that I don't in this case predict/subtly direct what the community might or might not choose or be best to do?

2. If a FoF concluding that there had been sock puppetry (however gently worded) were posted and received a vote, would it almost certainly pass? likely pass? don't know? likely fail? almost certainly fail?

   You're asking for a finding by the back door, that has already been explained we decided not to make in those terms. ("I know you said you won't vote on it but if you did would it have passed".)

3. Is preventing knowing where individual arbitrators stand consistent with maintaining community confidence in ArbCom and its processes? Why / Why not?

   In some cases, lesser of two evils. Is giving those who have already made the case a wiki-damaging drama, more material to argue, campaign, and wage war, useful either? We took the latter as the more likely issue to cause longer term damage in this case.

   By contrast, any issue that existed related to puppetry would be well within communal control anyhow, and we noted the community were likely to be motivated to scrutinize greatly in future for COI and NPOV issues, where they may not have done so as much in the past. Some wanted a definitive statement. But our view is that actually, this is all that's needed from us. Seven of Diamonds only got a "more likely than not", too. As a direct answer, any arbitrator can give their own view; any dissenting arbitrator has this right and we are not shy to use it. But when consensus says that this may in fact in some exceptional case be not so much helpful, as "used to promote the drama even more"... you can see why actually the consensus was that the aim of the case was better served this way.

4. If the community had decided to act on the evidence itself, instead of bringing the case to ArbCom, would we all be better off? Why / Why not?

   An interesting question. I thought about this a while and decided "this has benefits, but not in the obvious way". The evidence has been revised and reviewed since then, and the communal mood is a bit more balanced than perhaps was the case a week or so ago. Sometimes it's seemed that the really difficult heated issues need some means to vent, or to reach RFAR, before being sure a more balanced view will be found when remitted back to the community. This was the case at WP:SRNC, the Gdansk naming issue, and many other disputes. Consider the opposing question - if the community had proceeded from the RFC to a ban, how long before it would have been interminably contested as unfair, gloated over by some, paraded by others, and so on? Sometimes even though it may seem to do nothing on the surface, it's got a lot of value to have a second independent review, because our concern is not just "now" for the community, but the reduction of future harm too.

5. If the community decides to act where ArbCom will not (as seems likely, at lesat to me), would this signal that the community should ban editors instead of bringing ArbCom cases?

   The community has always had the ability to ban editors. Communal bans are issued routinely. It was the community's view that having entered an RFC, this one should be referred here for consideration. In other cases that's not been felt needed. Compare to Arbcom's self imposed rule not to usually ban for over a year. Clearly many people who come to Arbcom should probably be indef-banned. But we prefer to leave that decision, where possible, to the community to enact/not enact in such cases. Likewise with the puppeteer-admin Archtransit a fortnight ago... we desysopped and explained the issues, but we left the rest to the community to take a final decision (Archtransit was immediately community-banned, no real surprise). Our role is last recourse, often to deal with the actual source of harm and render it likely to be within communal control. Beyond that as often as not, we do in fact pass the issue back to the community. That's a common Arbcom norm, and the only difference here is evidently some in the community had hoped for us to rule for the maximum we could, whereas we see our role as closer to protecting the project, and assessing what is really needed for the community to deal with any real issues. Note if a community ban is potentially unfair, the appeal comes our way anyhow, though.

6. I note the recent decisions of ArbCom (notably in MH) where admin blocks and reviews in WP:SOCK cases have been questioned. Given the level of evidence in this case, would members please comment on any concern that admins may become more reluctant to block abusive sock puppets in response to ArbCom's apparent scepticism in cases of sock puppetry which lack conclusive CU evidence?

   Note our approach has not been so much been expressing "skepticism", as "careful reserve, similar caution to other technical-only evidence cases, and awareness of wider issues", as discussed. This case is exceptional. As an admin I've done a lot of difficult sock work myself. So this is my view as an arbitrator, a participant in the case discussions, and an admin with experience in such areas: I'm broadly content with the community's usual approach, which works 99% of the time (if applied fairly and subject to independent review when uncertain), and see no need for a singular exception to change the wider norm in this case. Problematically there are always going to be a handful of sock-related concerns where one cannot assume the norms hold. (For example a rule of thumb is that an editor with 100+ votes is probably genuine, yet there have been proven bad-faith sockmasters with several thousand.) Also inevitably, by nature, these are the ones you usually see more of at Arbitration, not the 99% that are routine. Sadly this is one where nobody can readily assume usual assumptions hold. It's important to recognize exceptional cases happen, we learn from them, but that when they do, it does not necessarily change a working recipe and balance on the vast majority. The current standard we (communally) usually apply has arisen from extensive trial and error, and thousands of cases and experiences int he community. The problem is 1/ we may be entering an era of more sophisticated sock use (not specifically related to this case's concerns), 2/ There will now and then be cases that don't follow the norm, and 3/ the more "heat" and less "light" there is, the more chance of mistakes which calmer voices have to think about. In that sense those who shouted loudest actually harmed their own case, since the possibility of unbalanced "mob decision-making" by campaigning (where everyone "knew it was true" basically because everyone was saying it) became a greater possibility. As in most disputes, it's way easier to be sure what's up if one voice is fair, balanced, and reasonable. Sadly in this case many 'pushing' voices over the years (on both sides, and on- and off-wiki) have not been, which also hasn't helped things much.

Hope that helps. Apologies for the length but 1/ it's how it comes, and 2/ I figured you'd probably want a fuller version rather than a "skimped" one anyway. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll do it the terse way: it's how it comes.

1. It wouldn't surprise me; given the nature and volume of the evidence, the community doesn't really need our help to make that decision.
2. As FT2 said.
3. We need to be able to have free and unfettered discussion on the private mailing list; this implies that the community doesn't always get to know where we stand on specific issues.
4. Probably slightly, yeah. The case might still have come up as an appeal of a community ban, and ArbCom would have had a far more focussed issue to deal with. But it was a mess one way or another, so it's basically a wash.
5. As FT2 said.
6. I've never seen admins have any reluctance to ban sockpuppets, and there's no reason it should start now. Most truly pernicious puppeteers who aren't entirely stupid do just fine evading CU as it is; this decision, were it to pass in its current form, wouldn't change that at all.

--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the very clear and lucid answers, jpgordon. daveh4h 19:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What daveh4h said. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

One more arb question - classism

I'd toss in one more question for arbs:

Does this pending decision by Arbcom reflect a view that decisions involving identifiable or possibly identifiable living people should be handled differently than unidentifiable people for the outcome itself, and do you feel that this gives "identifiable" editors a different standing and application of rules than completely anonymous editors for their possible protection from certain forms of harm?

As I mentioned in passing during the IRC case in regards to myself, Tony Sidaway, and Phil Sandifer, this would be a dangerous precedent, as it would create a clear separate class of users on Wikipedia. My take is that irregardless of what name you choose to edit under, applications of rules, and repercussions from them, MUST be the same. If User:PopeyeTheSailorMan is busted for sockpuppetry, or threats, or whatever, he gets logged as banned and blocked. If User:William James Jones III, noted scholar/attorney/whatever is busted for sockpuppetry, or threats, or whatever, he gets logged as banned and blocked exactly the same and by the same standards as Popeye. Is there any valid community accepted reason for any other way to approach it? Lawrence § t/e 15:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, the "possibly identifiable" is the key here. I don't think there should be any difference in the circumstance you mention. But add to it the problem that Popeye is believed by some to be Mr. Public Figure, an allegation Popeye vehemently denies, and that Brutus or perhaps the Sea Hag is responsible for at least some of the allegations, it gets pretty complicated, since Wikipedia's dedication to preserving anonymity when desired means it's pretty unlikely that Arbcom will officially expose Popeye. The community might act on the preponderance of evidence while Arbcom might have a reasonable doubt standard. We need to treat real-name-userid-people and pseud-userid-people the same; it's equally nasty, for example, to post "Mr. Jones lives at 12 Drury Lane, Alexandria VA" as to post "Popeye is actually Mr Public Figure who lives at 12 Drury Lane". Editors have the right to be as public or as private as they see fit. This does, of course, make COI issues a lot harder, if not impossible, to control, but the only alternative there is requiring personally verifiable registration for everyone, and that's not how Wikipedia works. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Did we actually need an ArbCom case?

I've read FT2's fuller explanations of why the arbcom is choosing to keep the case narrow, and more specifically choosing to officially ignore entirely the allegations made (about actions that protected the sockists). I read them. I understand them. I just don't agree with them.

Arbcom exists to handle difficult questions. If all the community needed here was a finding that MM and SH were socks, we have that. In fact, possibly, we have it better without ArbCom than with it, because I suspect many, if not most, in the community discount UC's explanations of why he's dubious as (ahem) dubious, at best. The community needed these allegations actually dealt with, not brushed aside with "the past is past". I see no reason why this matter won't continue to fester. So despite the further explanation, which I've read and understand, I remain unconvinced this is the right approach and I remain disappointed in ArbCom for being narrow. But I repeat myself in that, there may not be much more to say. Time will tell.

As for time telling... FT2 just above doesn't predict the future but I will. Here's my nightmare: There will be continued socking, and continued POV pushing by new socks in these sorry little articles, and the real-world conflict will continue to be brought here by the parties, who will rules lawyer about what the case provisions say. Meanwhile, the community will move to community ban MM and SH, but it won't stick because someone will cite the uncertainty in the arbcom case, and further drama will ensue (remember that the standard for a community ban to stick is tougher... a few determined admins can prevent it from sticking... arbcom just needs a majority vote). Meanwhile, the matters raised that are wider in scope won't be able to be resolved by the community alone, no matter how hard it tries (because it historically has been fairly easy to derail RfCs if you set your mind to it, especially if there are a few like minded editors or admins that think it's a bad idea to have it around) and ArbCom will reject any further cases related to this on the grounds that it's been decided already. Moar Dramah will ensue.

Too bad really. I'd be delighted to be wrong but that's how I see it likely going. ++Lar: t/c 16:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If it ever came to a follow-on case, I think it would be a lot simpler. If that did ever happen, we'd be dealing with recent, current, matters, a clearcut article/topic under probation, probably less confounding other conducts, and much more communal consensus. Of course I hope it won't come to that, but this case is intended to draw a line and provide useful remedies. Second time around cases are often far easier and more definitive than the initial (messy) cases, because the confusion that allowed the initial case to grow and become messy is no longer nearly as possible. Indeed if the initial case doesn't fully kill the issue then often what's left is easily handled by the community, which is also taken into account in deciding what's needed. One hopes a second case wouldn't be needed, and that restrictions and probation on the few affected articles and their editors would do the job... but if it were to take two cases to put this to bed, so be it. But of course, hopefully it won't. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got my fingers crossed. ++Lar: t/c 17:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly I answered this question during arbcom election as follows, when as a non-arb admin I had exactly the same knowledge and WP:CLUE as anyone else on the wiki:

Do Arbcom act too hastily, and facets get dropped...? I'd like to say that on the whole, arbcom seem remarkably balanced at what they do, especially given the complexity of the cases they look at. However this isn't a single-sided question; the question covers several points: Do arbcom get it right, but fail to communicate this, so that people perceive an error of judgement? Are some errors in fact legitimate differences of interpretation, or application of good faith? Do arbcom take the decisional view that rulings aren't expected to be perfect (given the pressures and complexity) but can be reviewed if needed, whilst users expect perfect insight? Are case pages so messy by the time all evidence and counter-accusations are presented, that it's not clear where a decision has come from or if it's well informed? Do arbcom have their own views and criteria to measure what constitutes "successful/appropriate case handling", so that the targets they work to are slightly different to the broader community's? (Ie, with more experience comes hopefully, wisdom in deciding what a "successful" handling might be, what matters, and what doesn't. Conceivably facets might well be dropped through wisdom and clear thinking, and not error, in some cases.) In some cases, is there non-public evidence involved, so that what seems unusual from outside is a partial view? (By its nature, decisions based on such evidence may not be capable of informed review by other editors; this is a communal status quo with high buy-in though.) ...

See especially, 3 and 5. It was obvious from outside arbcom, and with no unusual inside information, that there might be factors often overlooked, as well as wider lessons all round. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That last part reads like you're trying to lecture the community, or me specifically, about something we, or I, already know. That may not be a good approach, especially not if it's directed at me specifically, as I was active in online communities before some of the current arbitrators were born. The use of boxes for emphasis is perhaps also not a good approach. We tend to discourage trying to give certain words undue weight with formatting that sets them aside, unless they are official pronouncements, warnings, and the like. Perhaps you should consider removing boxes from where you've used them on this page. ++Lar: t/c 17:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not intended to sound that way, lar. You asked a reasonable question, it seemed best not to reinvent the wheel but to cite what I'd already written on the identical question barely a few months ago. I boxed it as a quote for readability, alone, a style that I sometimes use in discussions, that seems to help with parsing of some text that otherwise might confuse a long thread. No "officialness" intended - the original was boxed for readability too. Please disregard it in future. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

A point to Lar, with whom I mostly otherwise agree, is that some of us really did feel the need for a clear ArbCom finding of abusive sockpuppetry - as there was felt to be little chance of a block sticking without it. In this way the ArbCom has failed the community, and should MM be blocked by a sysop for violation of that policy then, as you fear, it will likely return here. There is still time for that finding to be included, of course, but it appears the will is not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In recognition of that concern - which is a fair one - I have added a brief interpretational note to that finding of fact, which I hope will reassure that there is firm recourse to address any hypothesized attempt to game it, or to argue (in good-faith but mistakenly) to misconstrue it, if renewed concerns were to arise. (Subject to agreement by other arbitrators.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for listening, and for clarification on the page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

LessHorrid: I "feel the need for a clear ArbCom finding of abusive sockpuppetry" too. I just happen to think that the sockpuppetry is pretty obvious with or without that finding and that there were other matters that ArbCom should have dealt with. ArbCom participants here stated they expicitly chose not to, and FT2 has given reasons why. I understand but don't agree. There's not much more to say there, if they don't see the need, they don't. I think the second case, when it comes up, will NOT be more constrained, (well maybe the bad edit related things will be tightly circumscribed, but that's small beer compared to Cla68's allegations, and other stuff raised during the case about larger issues) it will raise all those same old issues again. And presumably they will then rule "we already said we won't deal with them" and round we go. Worse, I have reason to believe now, based on something that I just received, there possibly are larger real world issues than we previously realized. ++Lar: t/c 21:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Lar, I am not sure what your last comment refers to. Please e-mail me or the committee if you believe there is something we should know about. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not either but I can guess. I think that some precis of whatever it is needs to be made public, if it is to be taken into consideration by arbcom (and if it is new).--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have mailed Brad about it. As for you, feel free to mail me your guess if you like. ++Lar: t/c 21:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also support making secret evidence public (or at least reviewable by trusted checkusers like Lar). Let's start with the "confounding issues." If they're in the form of emails with headers, it really makes more sense for a checkuser to review them anyway. Cool Hand Luke 22:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't email your guess Mantan – put it on this page! I'm sure your guess is an educated one, and it'll do for a précis while we're all sitting here twiddling our thumbs.--G-Dett (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No, if I made a guess the Boss Man would stuff me into the rear of a black SUV.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You're a crackup, Mantan; you're alright. Now don't go all gloomy on me. If a banning discussion starts I'm on your side, and if you were here right now I'd pour you a tequila and offer you a chesterfield. How about a little gallows candor while we wait for the sky to fall? What I want to know is, why couldn't you wait out the hour before Sami made his first edit? Wikipedia's use of GMT always throws me; my guess is it threw you too, and when Sami debuted just after 11pm GMT on January 31st you thought he'd edged past midnight on the Greenwich clock, and would be getting a February 1st timestamp, for a perfect one-year-and-four-days. I've been reading Wall Street Versus America, and there's that wonderful passage about the American fascination with hedge-fund traders, which the author likens to the American fascination with myth, the flirtation with lawlessness, which he then illustrates by invoking the magnetism of places like Tombstone, Arizona, and there's a lyrical description of tourists taking in Tombstone by night, and its reenactments – literal and imaginary – of the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral...I've also been reading Born to Steal: When the Mafia Hit Wall Street, about the gangster Louis Pasciuto. Superb! Quite different style; this Weiss has range. Very pared down. Minimal. Masculine. Kind of grunting, even. Think Elmore Leonard with a hangover, or Hemingway with a st-st-stammer:

Louis went to Arizona to steal from Joe Welch just a couple of months before he was arrested. He went to steal but not to rob. There is a difference. A robber uses a gun. Louis never used a gun when he stole. He didn’t have to. Joe Welch lived in northeast Tucson, on a side road off a side road. A dirt road. Since this was the desert Southwest, the street where he lived had a weird-sounding name – Tonolea Trail. When Louis heard it he thought he had misunderstood. Tana-what? Tana-Lay? As in fuck? Louis hated the Southwest. He hated the desert. He hated dirt roads. He hated dirt. Period.

Period. Love it! Hemingway dispensed with metaphor; you get the feeling Weiss would sooner just dispense with words altogether. Just sit there and smolder on the page like James Dean on a street corner. Love it!--G-Dett (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm dumbfounded. Period. Cool Hand Luke 00:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Responsibility for one's voice

FoF 2 includes the following:

A majority of the committee concludes that the weight of the credible evidence taken as a whole is suggestive of or consistent with a relationship between the two accounts, but that the absence of usable checkuser findings and other factors prevent a definitive conclusion from being reached.

I note that arbitrators voting for this finding of fact are not expressing an opinion on the matter at hand, but an opinion on the thinking of other arbitrators. This voting behind curtains seems unusual. By striking the phrase "A majority of the committee" arbitrators could restore transparency - at no real cost. Jd2718 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I also note that this was added after arbitrators voted on prior content. It is a significant change in the content of the proposed finding of fact, and I trust that FT2 will have personally notified all of the arbitrators who voted prior to this addition that he has changed the content.

I will also point out that the community voiced their opinion of each arbitrator as an individual. It is a core principle of Wikipedia that each individual is responsible for his or her own actions on-wiki, whether it is writing a featured article or deleting the main page. It is rather odd to read this proposed decision, with its weasel words and utopian view of how easily the articles involved in this case will suddenly become exemplars of our encyclopedia. Every time I read the term "uninvolved administrator" it makes me laugh. Guys...really...write your proposals with the same eye as you would your articles, and we might actually get somewhere. As it is, you're all mom and apple pie and absolutely no substance on the proposed decision page. Risker (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This was not added after other arbitrators had voted; it was part of Newyorkbrad's initial proposals. Jd2718 (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't need asking, Risker. Your trust was not misplaced. A complete note by email, with link, was sent to all other arbitrators to advise them to recheck or critique, at the same time as the modification. That's the sort of thing that (lapse of mind aside) is pretty automatic. You'll often find arbitrators slightly refining others proposals here and there, whilst in proposed form. That's in part what the 24 hour close rule is for - to allow everyone one final review. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, FT2. To me, the change in emphasis was significant enough to be considered equivalent to a change in wording; perhaps that is simply because I tend to read such things from my real-world perspective, where what many here might feel is a minor change would have been considered an entirely new proposal. Risker (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Is User:Jd2718's point valid, that by striking the phrase "A majority of the committee concludes that", the proposal, if passed becomes clearer? Newbyguesses - Talk 23:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Repeating my warning

This sentence: "the absence of usable checkuser findings and other factors prevent a definitive conclusion from being reached." is going to cause a lot of trouble for administrators working at WP:SSP. Puppeteers tend to be the wikilawyering sort, and you are giving them a beautiful excuse to challenge any finding of sock puppetry that does not involve checkuser. There are many situations where checkuser is not effective, such as stale edits or proxy usage. Please, please, please edit this sentence so it does not have the unintended consequence of providing an excuse for bad actors. Jehochman ^Talk 19:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Feel free to suggest language that would make clear what's always been the case regarding checkuser and sockpuppetry. Telling wikilawyers "oh shut up" can indeed be made easier by a properly worded decision. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• A majority of the committee concludes that the weight of the credible evidence taken as a whole is suggestive of or consistent with a relationship between the two accounts, but that it is not necessary to issue a definitive conclusion at this time. This is one of those situations where saying less will reduce drama. Jehochman ^Talk 20:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

and change entirely the meaning of the sentence, so as to be less fair to me.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The future ramifications of this, since people tend apparently to take the AC's rulings as law and basis for new policy interpretation, makes this bigger than "you". You're a historical footnote, nothing else, in this context. Lawrence § t/e 20:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

So take out the word "definitive" if future wikilawyering is the problem, and leave the rest alone. "Historical footnote" notwithstanding, I think fairness needs to enter into it somewhere, circus atmosphere and massive external pressure notwithstanding.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching this case since its inception, and I can say that there has been absolutely no "circus atmosphere" in this arbitration, other than your constant and increasingly shrill claims that Wordbomb/Bagley is behind all this. I might have been able to have more sympathy for your side of the case if your tone was not so hostile towards your opposition. Dr. Extreme (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You just raised Bagley, not myself, but the fact that the p.r. director of Overstock.com has been pushing for a circus such as this for two years is relevant to this case, just not to this part of it. [53].--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I was commenting on your overall tone throughout the case, as a response to the "circus" allegation. It was actually rather ill-considered; I'll remove it. However, the fact remains that you have consistently been hostile towards this entire process and most of the people involved in it who presented evidence against you. Dr. Extreme (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Extreme, I was being stalked by Judd Bagley off-wiki and on-wiki, for the purpose of achieving very much the present case, long before you became an editor. Please don't lecture me about the "tone" that results from that. Have a nice day.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"less fair to" you, Mantanmoreland? Um, hello. First of all, Wikipedia is not inherently designed to be fair. it's a project to build an encyclopedia. Everything has to be matched against that standard, that goal. This isn't a moot court, it isn't a system of justice or a government or a society. I for one really don't care a whole lot if you think things are fair to you or not. Your contributions are pretty worthless compared to, say, Giano, and the trouble you've caused far far outweighs even HIS contributions, much less yours. Having you banished forever, along with WordBomb, where the two of you can fight it out elsewhere, while the rest of us get on with writing an encyclopedia, is no big loss in the grand scheme of things, in my view. Second, all that said, I think actually, the rest of the community has been way way way more than fair to you. You and your socks have been given lots of chances to be a good contributor over the last two years or so, and everyone has bent over backward to enable you to participate in this process over the last month or so, and you come up far short in the being fair to everyone else department, not to mention the actually answering things raised without repeating memes, unsupported denials and excuses department. I'd suggest strongly to you that you knock the shrill rhetoric off, or I'll block you myself, take it to AN/I even before the case is over, and take the consequences... Third, what we're talking about here is being fair about tagging you as a socker. You might as well get used to that idea, you're already wearing that tag, at least in the minds of most of us, whether ArbCom chooses to admit it or not. ++Lar: t/c 21:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I can't "get used to the idea" because Samiharris is not a sock. There it is, another "unsupported denial," but it's not true.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, at least he hasn't socked in this Arb case! At least, not apparently. But after reading this decision I'm not sure what standards of proof it would take to establish that or not. Amerique^dialectics 21:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Requiring "a definitive conclusion" is an impossible burden of proof. It is higher than "more likely than not", "substantial", "clear and convincing", or "beyond a reasonable doubt". You do not want to make "a definitive conclusion" the required standard. You do need to clearly state what the standard is. +Kablammo (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The standards held to here (though more of a genetic analysis than a duck test) are incapable of providing a "definitive conclusion," but that's an unrealistically high bar to set in cases such as this. Dr. Extreme (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(Has been being discussed since 1st raised.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Then what is the standard of proof required? Is it "a substantial weight of credible evidence" (P-4), or is it evidence sufficient for "a definitive conclusion" (FoF 2)? Kablammo (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

A "definitive conclusion" is impossible to provide with circumstantial evidence. I'd gravitate more towards P-4, a substantial weight of credible evidence. Basically, even though there will always be an element of doubt, that's no reason to make your decisions toothless. Dr. Extreme (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If as suggested a "definitive conclusion" is required, that standard will not be reached absent conclusive checkuser evidence. As that can easily be avoided, sockpuppetters now have a road map forward. Kablammo (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still trying to keep up with and overcome the stun factor at everything that has been posted so far, but I think I can sum up the frustration and concern I'm hearing by saying that a large number of undesired roadmaps forward will be provided if this decision stands. Not only are future standards on sockpuppetry, classes of editors to whom different standards apply, and admin actions set by this proposal: of equal concern is the Conflict of Interest editing that is becoming so prevalent and accepted throughout Wiki. This has become the norm: from vendors pushing their products on anti-stuttering devices to practitioners promoting themselves at social stories to politicians who are said to "own" their Wiki articles and are claimed to have set up subnet IP masks in several countries to evade Checkuser, to persons employed by advocacy organizations editing articles to insert POV and openly stating as much. Wiki has increasingly failed to take a strong stand on COI editing, and this decision only weasles even further on the matter. Ignoring that a clear double standard is set, that we're undermining future sockpuppetry investigations, and that categories of users are established to whom different rules will apply, we are asking users – who apparently a significant number of other editors believe have already gamed the system and can't be trusted – to declare conflicts of interest, rather than simply banning them from those pages and stating that Wiki simply won't be part of this, period. Which part of this proposal will reassure the good faith editors who keep their noses clean, stay out of dispute, edit neutrally and without COI, and work to generate Wiki's best content that the buck stops at ArbCom, that when a light is shone on problems they are addressed, and that their efforts to improve Wiki are worthwhile? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Kablammo: Not if we don't let them. One thing is clear here, whether on purpose or not, ArbCom is saying to the community in effect, the community has to step up and handle this. I'm frustrated that the deeper issues here are being swept aside but I think I'm going to be a lot more forceful in supporting blocks of sockers who happen to evade CU but who have a solid DUCK pattern, and a lot more forceful in supporting blocks of people who wikilawyer, for whatever reason. If arbcom can't lead in this matter, it can get out of the way. Which maybe is what the arbcom is actually telling us in any case. ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Lar, I hope you are correct. Despite a prior case where sanctions were imposed on the basis of evidence that “demonstrate[d] that it is more likely than not” that one user was a sockpuppet of another, here the arbitrators refuse to impose sanctions because a “definitive conclusion” was not reached. The committee seems not to understand the inconsistency in and difference between those two standards, and the uncertainty their decision (or lack) has created. Kablammo (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is more than just ArbCom, and in fact ArbCom has the power the community gives it, not the other way round. The community can, and should, act, with maximum practical fairness and rationality, when clear damage to the project may be preventable by so acting, whether or not ArbCom agrees. I suspect I am not the only admin that feels this way. ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope SandyGeorgia's comments are not going to be lost amongst the other voices here. I think that both FT2 and jpgordon have been attempting to answer the points raised by SG, but in response to others raising the same queries. What we have in SG is someone who has come in to this with fresh eyes and no agenda - and her responses are going to be far more indicative of the outside community (both on and off Wiki). Sometimes debating the nuances forgets the overview that might be held by others not familiar with the situation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Look, the proposed decision doesn't say the _community_ can't make a finding of sockpuppetry; rather, it says that ArbCom is sufficiently conflicted so as not to make such a finding. But I think I'll oppose any finding that mentions checkuser at all, since a negative checkuser result is exactly as powerful as if checkuser did not exist. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(It didn't say arbcom can't either FWIW. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

That didn't parse for me. ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

jpgordon is saying the proposed decision isn't preventing the community from making a finding of sockpuppetry, and FT2 is saying it's not preventing ArbCom from doing the same...just that [the proposal says] ArbCom is too conflicted to make such a finding right now. 66.241.9.26 (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Substantial burden of credible evidence" is the most realistic and reasonable answer, "definitive" is way too I. FWIW, I work A LOT at SSP and once had the backlog to ZERO. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope SandyGeorgia's comments are not going to be lost amongst the other voices here. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Please feel free, whomever, to refactor my comment near her first one so it's out of the way. ++Lar: t/c 23:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-factoring would be beyond my purview. User:SandyGeorgia commented again, two sections down, "Thought for the day" here. But her comments in this section still bear thought and answers. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Question for The Uninvited Co., Inc.

Uninvited, on the decision page you write:

I believe that attempts to identify sock puppets through behavioral patterns is harmful to the project due to the likelihood of false positives, especially in situations where there may be a deliberate effort to discredit an editor by imitating their behavior.

Did you intend this as a general principle only, or one with specific applicability to the Mantanmoreland/Samiharris case? Does the final clause refer to the theory floated by SV that Samiharris might be a strawman sockpuppet created by Wordbomb? If so, can you explain how you find this plausible? If Samiharris were operated by Wordbomb in order to discredit Mantan, wouldn't Wordbomb have made Sami go in and edit one of Mantan's posts? Finally, if your skepticism balks at the idea that Mantan could operate Sami for so long without making a mistake, why is it indulgent of the idea that Wordbomb could do the same?

Sorry for the barrage of questions. I stress that none of them is rhetorical. If the answer to the second question is "no," and the subsequent questions thus superfluous, please accept my apologies.--G-Dett (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thought for the day

Based on all of this, which just crossed my mind. I have no answer:

In the future, if sockpuppetry investigations, conflicts of interest, a "right" to and protection of anonymity, and integrity of article content/neutrality intersect, which is more important? Which is least important, and expendable? Which is the acceptable loss? One has to be. Because, if we can't enforce COI investigations/sockpuppetry investigations because of outing real people, and pulling away the curtain to reveal our own little Henry Gales influencing things for their own gains, something will have to give. Is it our puppetry investigations? Our COI investigations? Right to and protection of anonymity? Integrity of article content/neutrality?.

I personally feel that anyone who says integrity of article content and neutrality is not the most important is wrong. But am I wrong? I'd urge the Arbcom to consider that how the values they place in the decision are the right ones. What is most important, for looking forward six months? A year? Two years? Lawrence § t/e 22:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This is just me, but if it came down to a choice between, say, fixing a BLP issue and letting a socker get away, or nailing the socker but leaving an article in a state where it damaged an innocent third party, it's a no brainer, BLP considerations trump "justice". This project ain't about justice anyway. I can't see that choice ever facing us but I would say yes, article content and neutrality are the most important, short only of real people getting hurt. ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, u:Lar, but hurt how much, in what way? Their persons attacked? Their reputation attacked? Their poodle insulted on a website? How much BLP does it take to out-weigh a SSP? Newbyguesses - Talk 22:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't take much at all. SSP is an internal Wikipedia matter; BLP is article space and has real world ramifications. SSP issues are annoyances; BLP issues can do real damage. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes but how much damage? What specific damage (obviously guns are out)? What if some External link said "George Bush's poodle is ugly" Or "Some one you have never met is both short, excessively slim and unknown to you?" Is that insulting to a LivingPerson? Does that make that site, and every site that copies it a BADSITE BLPvio, and therefore taboo? Newbyguesses - Talk 23:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Article content, neutrality, and civility: doing our best to conduct Wiki in such a way that editors who contribute to those aspects are retained and valued, while others are restricted or shown the door. Consistency, so the little guys who don't play the power games feel that they are laboring for a just and worthwhile venture, not relegated to a second class by a decision which creates a hierarchy of users and preferential treatment. Does this proposal advance retention of our finest editors? Does it advance COI, POV editing? What does this proposal do to the troops who churn out most of the content while avoiding drama and dispute? They're watching, they know the stakes, and they count on ArbCom to reassure them that Wiki is not a farce. Add to this the loss of editors like Giano and Bish (and for whatever drama ArbCom feels Giano created or furthered, at least he wrote featured content) ... discouraging. I enjoy what I do here. How much will I enjoy it if a year from now instead of passing beautiful articles like Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion, Great Fire of London, DNA, Red Barn Murder, Queluz National Palace, Battle of Edson's Ridge to featured status, I'm passing marginal COI articles, because that's the door we left wide open, while showing out the others? Anyone can delete BLP violations and police trolls and vandalism and many will willingly do that if they feel they are part of a just and worthy venture; creating beautiful content that showcases the best of what Wiki purports to be is not so easy. ArbCom decisions should further the kind of editing that results in fine content and editors who further civil behavior. The BLP protection and deletions will be taken care of by those editors, unless they're gone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I'll buck the trend: content integrity. Now we have a BLP guideline onsite and I'm all for enforcing it strictly. That said, one of the biggest motivators we've got for people to avoid conflict of interest manipulation is that actions taken onsite are public record, and if they're sneaky about it then they look all the worse when that finally gets uncovered. Be polite and assume good faith and try to lead them to the right path within reason, but if someone wastes tons of volunteer time and deliberately misleads the public at the world's most popular reference site, then their day of reckoning ain't my problem. I'll follow policy, absolutely. But I won't tear my hair out wondering how to protect someone like that from the consequences of their own incorrigible bad judgement. Durova^Charge! 23:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What are the worst consequences, if some person deliberately sets out on a path which could end up destroying their own reputation? How best can WP avoid adding to that person's self-induced distress? While keeping ARTICLE INTEGRITY paramount? Newbyguesses - Talk 00:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Explain policies, try to show them how it's to their own advantage to abide by them. Ask them to play by the rules. Most will, if asked nicely. A few stubborn ones insist on doing it their way. Show them the door politely and quietly, if possible. But ultimately, in terms of offsite consequences, basically don't go out of the way to draw blood...and don't try to play paramedic either. Durova^Charge! 01:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying then, that if a website, which otherwise would be considered a ReliabeSource, publishes "Smithee's reputation is shot", then WP can safely link to that site, keeping in mind WP:UNDUE. But, it is not the place of WP to initiate, and endorse, any unprovoked attacks on Smithee's reputation, real-world or otherwise, absent any previous such, that are verifiable? Newbyguesses - Talk 03:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be one way of approaching at it. For the last couple of days I've been chewing on different part of that steak. The bone I keep gnawing looks like this: if there's a credible chance that WMF and/or some genuine productive volunteers could get dragged into a real world court case, then that's worth taking into account (note that a credible chance might exist without explicit threats). That consideration earns my respect. Regarding the rest, the community elected ArbCom to serve the interests of Wikipedia and it would upend the purpose of arbitration to sacrifice the site's interests for the benefit of someone who has already exploited the community. Durova^Charge! 03:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom members, who are paid nothing, are legally out on a limb as it is stated WikiMedia policy that the WikiMedia Foundation is not the publisher and not legally responsible for the contents; the individuals and community are the publisher. That's one of the reasons I believe the English language WikiPedia community should have a formal legal existence that among other things raises money for the legal defense of our volunteers - especially arbcom members. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose few following this issue are unaware of the potential for real-world legal situations; I haven't followed it closely, and even I get it. But ArbCom really should throw some kind of bone to the community, to restore some sense that we do actually believe in and uphold the WP:5P. Even if the sockpuppetry allegations create a sticky wicket, I'm not understanding why the involved accounts aren't at least banned from any of the involved articles, as that would send a message that Wiki won't tolerate even the appearance of COI editing and dragging here of off-Wiki conflicts. An article ban might help the community believe that, even though ArbCom does restrict "drama-creating" featured article writers, they also restrict editors who create even wider drama while never gracing our main page with excellent content. Of course, a ban might not be very useful if we are, in fact, dealing with accomplished sockmasters, so perhaps the proposal allows better possibilities for nailing things down later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Specifically regarding the chance of ban evasion, that's been attempted many times as an argument against banning and I've never seen it hold water. Durova^Charge! 04:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

in re Sandy's comments: I'm concerned that the committee doesn't uphold the WP:5P, and agree with your comments. Unless something unpredictable happens, the community is in for more coi-wikilawyering-sockpuppet-pov-pushing-consipiricy-laden-argumentation and disruption than I think many have the patience for. I certainly don't, and I'm not even admin who is going to have to deal with it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

<--Yes, SandyGeorgia, your input is helpful, and requires answers. I will just here, though, briefly raise another aspect, please.

Any material submitted to any article or talk page is subject to challenge and removal, if it fails verifiability. And, WP:UNDUE has to apply, irrespective of further BLP issues. Now, what are the further BLP issues, regarding this case (publicly known ones, that is, I dont know what the "confounding issues" are). Well , it is that the LP is of minor importance, ENC-wise, and so there is little verifiable about them, but heaps of posts to obscure, or non-reliable sites, which the subject of the article clamours to add in, or delete, depending on whether they are flattering to [the subject]. That is not helpful to the encyclopedia.

And, in the case of Weiss/Bagley, and Mantanmoreland/Wordbomb, if they be different, there is plenty of evidence of an unpleasant OFF-WIKI campaign, which should not have been brought over to WP.

Also, I would argue that, if a subject is mainly interested in linking to their own opinions, blogs etc. in order to create a favourable impression of themself, that that constitutes a sanctionable breach of COI policy.

And, if the subject of an article has concerns, valid or otherwise, about the standard of the article, or possible attacks in the article, then those concerns ought to be addressed by the [Subject] raising a(n) Rfc, or other dispute resolution mechanism, not by resorting to sockpuppetry to enforce their point of view. I believe the Arbcom are working towards such a finding, it is just that apparently, they do not wish to make such as a specific finding re Mantanmoreland and SamiHarris.

I would argue that a COI-conflicted editor, whether the [Subject] of an article or not, is expected to be more, not less, scrupulous in applying NPOV, and more, not less, candid with other editors, or when presenting evidence to Arbcom.

So, I am not seeing it proved here, if that is the argument, that in some way, BLP should be allowed to trump VERIFIABILITY. That appears an extra hurdle that some editors, but not all, want to see put in place. And, as SandyGeorgia noted, if the arbcom does not find conclusively re MM & SH, that may in fact be because better options then become available to the community, at Rfc or whatever. Newbyguesses - Talk 04:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

some insightful comments

• "inadvertantly and in good faith"

Disputed.

• "editors who are prone to sensationalizing may be restrained."

And medicated and electroshocked, I suppose?

• UC: "I believe that attempts to identify sock puppets through behavioral patterns is harmful to the project due to the likelihood of false positives, especially in situations where there may be a deliberate effort to discredit an editor by imitating their behavior."

Um, is there any evidence pointing to, or even remotely allowing for the conclusion that SamiHarris was created by an opponent of Mantanmoreland with the intention to disparage the latter user's reputation? This is certainly how it comes across, so some explanation would be greatly appreciated. Further: The quality of the presented evidence is considerably higher than in many cases. Indef blocks for similarity of editing patterns per WP:DUCK are and have always been commonplace — for the better or worse. What makes this case an exception? If grown-ups decide to take it onwiki, it's their own fault if their RL reputation ends up in the gutter. Their own fault, and I for one couldn't care less at this point. They are grown-ups, and now they should face the consequences of their own voluntary decisions. Otherwise, the project and community will inevitably face the consequences instead.

• "6) The pages associated with Arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia."

Please help on this one. I can't imagine that this case was any worse than the average arbitration request. What makes this proposed principle necessary when other proposals are being declined as obvious and therefore unnecessary? It sounds a bit like an attempt to lay the foundation for spurious blocks against anyone with reasonable concerns. May be my own private paranoia, but I don't think so.

For the greatest possible degree of clarity: Is discussing any of the matter the evidence seems to back up onwiki, now or in the future, considered as sufficient grounds for the harassment of established users by threatening and/or issuing blocks, as has happened before in the dispute surrounding the namesake of this case (see also: inadvertantly and in good faith)? May I or may not write and post to any Wikipedia talk page the sentence: "To me personally, the evidence appears to thoroughly justify the conclusion that Gary Weiss has edited his own biography, as well as used (and was the first in this dispute to do so) Wikipedia as a battlefield in a real world dispute, by editing several related articles, with several different accounts which he used in an abusive manner over a prolonged period of time." ?

This is not in the least intended as disruption, so ignore it as you prefer. My concerns over free speech and especially, more importantly common sense being curtailed are however very real and I want them heard, because I get the feeling the ArbCom is not at all there for the community. Well, I'm sure their motives are pure.

As to MML and his continued refusal to comment on evidence like the Varkala edits and the timeshift situation appears far more logical now. I think it's because he expected to be protected by the ArbCom, for whatever reason. Ok, well, I've lost interest in this and am now unwatching all of the case pages. Have fun everyone. Dorftrottel (ask) 03:40, March 2, 2008

PS: When can we expect the evidence and all the other case pages to be courtesy oversighted? Dorftrottel (bait) 03:49, March 2, 2008

The first proposal you quote is FT2's, and the second quotation is from UninvitedCompany, so I'll let them respond. Proposal 6, which is mine, is adapted from a principle that passed unanimously in the Jim62sch case, and I thought was relevant because there have been some posts on these pages that were not helpful for the reasons given. Recall that the evidence and workshop pages had to be protected at one point for edit-warring. The proposed principle is a general comment and reminder, and as it happens, I generally do not favor any sort of sanctions based on comment on the arbitration pages, except in extreme circumstances. Regards (if you are in fact still reading), Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The pages had to be protected mainly because of Crum375, who incidentally has acted "inadvertantly and in good faith" before. Dorftrottel (taunt) 04:47, March 2, 2008

I will claim the right to reply here, it is my very first Arbcom. My general impression is that civility is observed pleasingly by most at most times. I have been advised that some of my posts seemed inflammatory; if that is so, i believe it evidence that the tone of this forum is reasonable, since i know that my efforts, at least, were seriously meant.

The danger we have not avoided is in being pulled away from the nub of the matter time and again if the posts become in the slightest personal, or a bit obscure. (Yes, I am getting your point FT2, thanks.)

So, CIVILITY commended, and FOCUS needs work, but overall, thanks to all sincere contributors. And to the clerk and Arbs. I am even going to thank Mantanmoreland here, there have been one or two laughs from that quarter, also. And, remember "I am not the bad guy"—I didn't even get a look-in at the edit-war(s). Newbyguesses - Talk 04:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

PS I share, as you can see, some of user:Dorftrottel's concerns: that no specific findings will be made re MM/SH, but that specific resolutions will pass that may allow action to be taken against a good-faith user, whose post is judged, by some standard, as disruptive, when in fact there is no avoiding it - HARD QUESTIONS SOMETIMES NEED TO BE ASKED. Newbyguesses - Talk 04:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that Proposal 6 is probably one that requires more precise language. Edit warring and editing of other people's evidence is neither a personal attack nor strident rhetoric, and more particularly it is far outside of any description of "incivil." So say that those specific behaviours are unacceptable. The "incivil" term is one that is used regularly as a weapon to silence critics and create strawman arguments. And one reader's "strident rhetoric" is another reader's "brilliant prose." Arbcom cases place individuals under intense public scrutiny over the course of several weeks, often having to deal with extraordinarily negative commentary about themselves; to expect people to calmly and politely accept the Wikipedia equivalent of Chinese water torture is unreasonable. This applies to all individuals named in Arbcom cases. Right now, I know this is as horrible for Mantanmoreland as Sir Fozzie, or as it was for Durova or Giano or a certain Vanished User in other recent cases. For those of us who "choose" to involve ourselves on these pages, I agree that we should be held to the usual behavioural standards of the encyclopedia. But for named parties, I think there needs to be a little slack cut. Risker (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

An enormous amount of slack is cut as a matter of routine, and the statement that excessive stridency "should be avoided" (with no reference to a sanction of any kind) is hardly a threat to my way of thinking; but I will give further thought to the concerns expressed. As I mentioned, this wording passed 10-to-nothing in another case with no one expressing a misgiving of any kind—and that, too, was a somewhat high-profile case, though it moved more quickly than this one. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with the ease with which the 'bagely meme' block/ban arguementation is likely to come back into play. Another issue, is that unless it moves really quickly and some users who are quite observant are away, no community sanction will be possible in this case either. Perhaps if there is a specific finding that nothing in the decision is binding on any community sanction that might be imposed? Otherwise there will be enough admin opposition to derail community sanctions. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Though I do now understand some of Giano's lashing out and disruption. Not os excuse it, but I understand better the feelings that might engender that sort of inapproriate action on these pages. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of this is very good

Thanks for your reply above, Newyorkbrad. While I share the concerns of many with respect to how best to handle the sockpuppetry issue, and I will probably always be a stickler for very precise language especially in situations where the decisions are likely to be referred to in the future, it strikes me that there is a lot of "good stuff" in this decision. I find Principles 2, 5, and 8 and FoF 3 are particularly on the mark. Risker (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Joe job

It is troubling to consider that Sami Harris could be operated by anybody. A very clever puppetmaster could seek to emulate the style and editing pattern of Matanmoreland and set them up. If this is the suspicion that prevents a finding of sock puppetry, the Committee is doing Matanmoreland a disservice by not explaining this. Most editors accused of sock puppetry do not have a motivated adversary capable of such subterfuge. Here, I think there is at least a credible possibility. Jehochman ^Talk 04:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

While the possibility is technically credible, the feelings seem to run to high for the opponents of mantanmoreland to stick it out for a full year or more. If this is what is holding folks up, I don't know how angry to be. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Heck, even Mantanmoreland, on one of the other case talk pages, said that he was convinced that SH was not a WB sock. GRBerry 05:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally wonder if the hundreds of emails Samiharris is said to have sent to JzG are consistent with this, or if Mantanmoreland's are consistent with not having any idea who this person was who showed up to support all of his positions over the course of a year (including many very sharp attacks on Bagley). I doubt it, considering even MM has downplayed the idea. Mackan79 (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You know what, for all the commotion this has caused, I wouldn't be at all surprised if MM actually were a WB sock all along and has been stringing us all on for a ride. Amerique^dialectics 05:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

So, the paid propagandist for Overstock.com seeks to discredit "Mantanmoreland" by posting uniformly negative publicity on Overstock.com and it's officers (including himself) for over year.

*takes a sip of tea*

My first reaction, is: I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Even without examining the improbability of unrelated accounts never editing at the same time, this theory is an order of magnitude wackier than our "paranoid" witch hunt.

Anyhow, I do agree with Jehochman. If this is the honest rationale, please post it. Even if it's absurd on its face (as I think it is), such a finding will at least keep our DUCK standards intact for most cases. Cool Hand Luke 05:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the section above, one of the arbitrators seems to indicate that this is a possibility. This theory is really far fetched given the lack of overlapping edits. Another logical possibility to consider is that one person could be operating both SH and MM, but this person is an adversary of GW, with the goal of discrediting GW. Jehochman ^Talk 05:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose. Amerique suggests that above. It's a good argument against trying to "out" the editors, but they're still sockpuppets in either case. Cool Hand Luke 05:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Two reasons why that is incredibly unlikley: 1. there are quicker and surer ways to get GW's reputation destroyed using sockpuppetry on wikipedia, making the socks more obvious to start with. 2. GW mentions wikipedia, the relevant articles and wordbomb frequently on his blog - he sure as hell isn't going to miss out on telling everyone about the person pretending to be him. There is only one conclusion given the evidence, they are socks and more circumstantially they are socks of GW. Viridae^Talk 05:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but if it were more obvious, it wouldn't have been dragged out for a year and a half - and GW might have picked up on it (he might well miss out on telling everyone about the person pretending to be him, if that person managed to avoid the appearance of pretending to be him by _just enough_ to fool GW). —Random832 07:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In the first place it is absurd to doubt a near certainty using the possibility of a near impossibility; and in the second place Wikipedia is better off with both warring sides gone. Since when has allowing someone to edit been more important than the encyclopedia itself? Allowing someone to edit is for the purpose of helping the encyclopedia. If it doesn't help the encyclopedia, you don't get to edit. Period. We kick people off all the time for not being here to help build the encyclopedia. MM will be kicked off because wikipedia is better off without him. Only arbcom does not want to be the one to do it and keeps coming up with literally unbelievable excuses why not. So when arbcom is done, the community's task is to finish the job. WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree somewhat. MM will not be community restricted or banned, because there will be some administrator who will object and be willing to undo a block, and/or appeal it back here. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Any admin that wheel wars over a community ban of either side should be blocked immediately. This two year war must end. WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not how community bans work. —Random832 07:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly how they work. What do you think would happen if a random admin decided to unban Wordbomb? They might not be blocked immediately themselves but after a reblock, discussion, consensus that the block should remain in place, how about if they unblocked him again? How long do you think that could go on? The only question is whether there really is a broad consensus to ban a particular user, and a will to enforce that, or whether there's actually a substantial amount of dissent (not just a lone admin). Policy is whatever the community decides it is; only the WMF can change that and they're not going to. (To save people time commenting on it, no today's dynamically assigned IP hasn't had any previous contributions, yes, I could cycle until I found one that had, no that wouldn't affect the content of my comment.) 87.254.75.242 (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A community ban is "no admin is willing to unblock" - if an admin is willing to unblock, a user is therefore not community banned. —Random832 01:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't use logic if you want to understand how wikipedia works. For every "rule" that say X there is a rule that says "not X". Read WP:IAR to get the flavor of wikipedia rule making. We follow rules that anyone can edit at any time. Unless they are locked. But policy is what we do, not what is written. Unless the rule is prescriptive, when policy is then what we have consensus about being best practice rather than consensus on what we do. And consensus is defined as when everyone agrees. Except we are too big now for everyone to agree. So it is really a "rough consensus". Which we determine by voting. Except voting is evil and against policy. Are you getting the idea? People are community banned when any admin who would unblock them would be reverted and threatened with being desyoped/blocked. How do admins know what would happen? Private mailing lists and the like for starters. Ohhh we are so damn transparent! (Sorry for the rant. I love wikipedia, but its governance is anarchy.) WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is wordbomb?

I note that User:Wordbomb hasn't posted to this forum; oh, Wordbomb (talk · contribs) is blocked indefinitely. Now, i am beginning to see that the Arbs are concerned with "forward-looking" and "minimizing disruption", as a viable strategy leading to the community then being enabled? to follow up at Rfc,

so - is the matter of injustice to a user who is blocked for, possibly, no worse offence than it appears Mantanmoreland will once again get to slide by - is such percieved injustice sufficient that the community will still at this stage balk at the findings being presented?

Not meaning to be disruptive, but at this point, it seems that Wordbomb might be the elephant in the (foyer of) the room. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This hearing it still not about wb, and shouldn't be. Wb has his own issues, and they are not the same. ANYTHING to do with wb is off topic, and not particularly helpful. I'm sorry to be harsh, but it's time to focus. The elephant is not hiding, he's respectfully waiting outside until we are ready to deal with him. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean WordBomb (talk · contribs). --NE2 05:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I have mis-understood how many editors there are in agreeance with this -

MM - I'm going to make this really clear - the main reason that only your behavior is being examined here is not that anyone thinks WordBomb hasn't done anything wrong, but rather because WB is already banned and no-one's seriously considering unbanning him. —Random832 20:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

from above here. Or, perhaps the majority view is still that which i formed early in the case - we are better of without both camps fighting out on WP. (User:Jehochman, do you still think that?)

Or, the Arbs, in not finding against Mantanmoreland, are both displaying the utmost in civility to that user, and opening the way for the community to follow up as appropriate, without constraining the way in which the community might come to follow up?

I am inclined, again now, to adhere with the Arbs here, if I have understood it right. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Even assuming WordBomb was banned unjustly, his behavior since, both on and off-wiki, makes him thoroughly unwelcome. The point is that off-wiki battles, such as that between Weiss, Bagley and Byrne, have no place here, and the decision will at least allow admins to stop the battling on these articles, even if it does not go far enough for some. If WordBomb really wants to edit unrelated articles about tree frogs or something, he can create a new account and do so, and as long as he stays away from Overstock and naked short selling and such, no one will even know he is here. Thatcher 16:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, well said Thatcher. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Pls leave our fine tree frogs out of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Even assuming WordBomb was banned unjustly, his behavior since, both on and off-wiki, makes him thoroughly unwelcome. Why so? Had Wordbomb not been unjustly assulted, his behavior most likely would have been entirely different. The idea of who initiated the unjust action and who defended, is not just a childish argument for the backseat of your vacation car. It's the basis of law, both international and domestic. Hiroshima must be understood in the context of Pearl Harbor-- you can't disentangle them. SBHarris 00:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about making an encyclopedia, not about being fair. Regardless of what is fair, WordBomb has created enough hostile emotion against him that letting him back in under that name or his real name would be unacceptably disruptive; especially when there is nothing preventing him from editing as an non-disruptive anon. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the best anyone can hope for is for him to go into "retirement in good standing" like another user recently did. But I don't think that's likely to happen, either on the community's end of things or on his. —Random832 16:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What effect do all of these comments have on the committee?

Obviously a rather significant number of very established users have weighed in with the point of view that this proposed decision is, well, crappy. I'm sure there are always folks who have problems with how these cases come out, but the indignation being expressed here strikes me as rather exceptional. To members of the committee, I'm wondering if the fact that so many find your approach so problematic gives you pause. I know that if I am thinking of taking a certain action and a couple of people I respect say "That's a terrible idea!" my general inclination is to scrap my plans or at least rethink them. Now that the agreements you worked out in camera have seen the light of day and been widely derided, are you open to the possibility that your approach was wrongheaded and should be rethunk? And if you remain convinced that you are doing the right thing here, how do you explain the fact that so many smart, respected editors feel you went off the rails? There seems to be a troubling disconnect between the community and the committee on this issue and I would like to hear your thoughts on that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a perfectly legitimate question. It being almost 1:00 a.m. here, I will answer it in the morning. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I too am a bit concerned about this. There are parts of this decision that are actually very good, as I identified here[54], and others that I'd like to see a bit more wordsmithing on (Principle 6 is the one I've noted above), but are essentially sound. To me, it appears the very strong community feeling about the sockpuppeting issue has overwhelmed the discussion of the proposed decision. If we were to remove all the commentary about that one aspect, this page would be relatively empty. Risker (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom doesn't make policy. Unfortunately, the current proposed decision has negated chunks of existing policies and processes by denying the legitimacy of WP:DUCK. I think this could be fixed with wordsmithing. Jehochman ^Talk 06:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to come around to the view that they have not denied the legitimacy of anything, including DUCK. The have just remanded most of this back to the community to handle. They gave their reasons. The sock stuff and the article restriction stuff, if enough admins stick together, will stick, and the community, maybe after a fair bit of drama, will handle it. (if enough admins stick together, repeated for emphasis) The wider allegations, not so much, but again, the arbcom (or at least FT2's view of arbcom thinking, given as one person's statement) gave their reasons for not dealing with those either. It may be time to let most of this go. My little petition above probably is not going to get an up or down vote on the sockpuppetry to happen, there are enough arbcom members arguing that they need the right to have private views that it won't happen. Might not agree with that either but there it is. As I said before I will, if necessary, take a more active role in helping things stick, and others have indicated they will too. ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent and judicious summary statement of the way forward. I tried to say something similar in the last paragraph of my "types of evidence" section above, but the noise of my style drowned out my point.--G-Dett (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As a way forward on sockpuppetry allegations, possibly; the door is still too wide open for COI editing that is increasingly accepted throughout Wiki. I hope everyone will take a look at tightening up WP:COI, as it currently allows for too much advocacy and POV-pushing. We shouldn't have people bringing their real world advocacy battles to Wiki articles; asking them to "declare" COI on talk pages in an anonymous environment isn't likely to resolve this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Our policy is descriptivist, not prescriptivist. If enough admins get involved to tighten up COI enforcement, the WP:COI policy will follow along. There are a lot of voices here saying they are going to be doing just that. The proof will be in the pudding, but yes, let's hope that is exactly what happens. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As an established editor, let me weigh in with the view that the proposed decision is very fine work, displaying an understanding of the nuances between intervention and taking sides, and seems set fair to resolve the problems with the affected articles quite cleverly. There are some problems that might arise if some editors misunderstand arbitration committee findings as setting some kind of precedent (they do not) or providing fodder for wikilawyers (only people receptive to wikilawyers and setting their commonsense to one side could post such a danger). I am confident that my encouraging comments, which I've no doubt speak for many experienced observers of the arbitration process, will have the requisite effects on the committee.

I'm especially pleased that other editors whose opinions I respect, and who earlier expressed reasonable reservations about the decision, are coming around to the view that it's actually a pretty good bit of work--if in places a little rough in the drafting--and the arbitrators have recognised some criticism and are tightening the wording where necessary. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"established editor" and your account was only made on Feb 23, 2008, and you admit to using other accounts? Hmmm. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look at his talk page, the email address prominently displayed should reveal Anticipation's former identity. This is innocuous. alanyst ^/talk/ 17:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's Tony Sidaway's alternate account Whitstable 17:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry if it isn't blindingly obvious. My email address (tonysidaway@gmail.com) is on the page, the old account page points to the new one, and most of the userspace subpages have been moved. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You can say all you like that there are no precedents set. Let me point out that the arbs have two options: they either accept that some people will use this as a precedent and tighten things accordingly; if they do not, they accept that people will want to know why this isn't a precedent, which will mean the community will have to continually revisit why this case was 'special' and required special circumstances. If anyone thinks that that is a healing procedure, good luck to them. No amount of blathering about only wikilawyers getting the wrong idea is going to change the fact that it's pretty far from healing. Relata refero (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a precedent for the same reason that all other arbitration findings, unless otherwise stated, have no intrinsic precedential value. This case-by-case method has been the way the arbitration committee has worked since the very first formal cases. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am absolutely terrible at getting this point across, but even if cases don't have 'intrinsic precedential value', the community tends to mine them for precedents anyway. A finding of fact that says that this evidence is insufficient will have the same level of precedent-setting value that, say, the dubious MONGO principle that set off the BADSITES problem did. On this page we revisit the evidence here in comparison to 7oD and Poetlister. When Durova was under fire she specifically made comparisons to the Alkivar case. I don't know what world you're living in; claiming that because things are not supposed to be precedents, they won't be treated as such seems to as much wikilawyering as claiming that only wikilawyers believe in precedent. Relata refero (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The community is of course free to examine arbitration case rulings and taken them, in their whole context, as the thoughts of some of the best minds in Wikipedia. That has nothing to do with precedent, however. Arbitration rulings are not binding in that way.

As for the BADSITES kerfuffle, it has always been true that linking to offsite attacks in order to import an attack to Wikipedia is not permitted. The arbitration committee didn't make up that policy. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(insert) Yes, but when did linking to verifiable information provided by a reliable source become dis-allowed, as per the worst extremes of BADSITES, or per a pig-headed interpretation of BLPVIO, as some editors will insist on? Newbyguesses - Talk 21:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero is of course right that, though ArbCom cases are not designed to be precedent setting, they very often set a precedent. Past cases are routinely invoked, for a variety of purposes, by editors, admins, and members of the committee. Certain wording used in past decisions is often imported into new decisions and principles from previous cases are routinely referenced. We all know this and it's silly to pretend otherwise - the reality (past cases do affect future Wiki problems, cases, conflicts) is far more important here than the supposedly (that is by the book) limited scope of ArbCom rulings (i.e. they do not set precedent).

I'm still mainly interested though in hearing a response from Brad (or any other members of the committee obviously) to my original questions when they get a chance. Even if a number of folks are finding things they like in the proposed decision and muting some of their earlier criticism there are still a significant number who have major problems with it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the worry here is that the reluctance to make a concrete finding of sock puppetry here (where no credible finding of concrete wrongdoing is on the proposed decision, both editors have clean block records, etc) might lead to problems further down the line in similar cases. I don't see this as a problem at all. If all we have to substantiate an allegation of wrongdoing is that user X's edits are from a proxy and user Y's edits are not, then no finding of wrongdoing can be made. However it might be a good idea for the Committee to limit the use of proxies in certain cases (as here) in order to remove suspicion.

This case shouldn't affect the majority of sock puppetry cases, where actual credible evidence of concrete wrongdoing is presented, not merely the suspicion of a conflict of interest and the suspicion of potential sock puppetry.

It is also possible that in future some evidence could become available in this case, which would show that a concrete offence had been committed. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you have reviewed all of the evidence (which obviously is much more than "someone edited from a proxy, someone else didn't"), but if you have than we obviously disagree about the persuasiveness of that evidence. A large number (a clear majority in fact) of editors, myself included, find the very thorough evidence presented by several users to be quite damning by the "duck" test and further feel that the apparent sockpuppetry certainly qualifies as "abusive." ArbCom apparently cannot come to agreement on one or both of those points and indeed will not even offer a direct vote on those questions. Many folks find that problematic, and my question to the arbs in this section is whether or not the significant objections raised by the community are having an effect on their thinking about the sockpuppet issue, perhaps even causing them to reconsider their approach, and if not, why not. You like the committee's approach and that's a perfectly legitimate point of view - I'm wondering how the Arbs feel about the editors who have voiced extremely strong objections to said approach which is also a perfectly legitimate point of view and seems to be the view of the majority at this point--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC).

With all respect to you as an established editor, Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The, you still appear to be unfamiliar with the details of this case.--G-Dett (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If the evidence were persuasive, the Committee would have been persuaded by it. It would be quite a simple matter for the Committee to determine that either or both of the accused had acted abusively in his own right, which would simplify matters greatly, but to the contrary, the only findings on the proposed decision currently note that both editors "have or had clean block logs." If persuasive evidence of disruptive editing should show up, we may yet see a simple remedy of the kind you evidently believe is merited. But until such evidence shows up and is considered by the Committee, here is where we are. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's beginning to be clear that you haven't the vaguest idea about the evidence or about the level of disruption involved here. In future, I suggest spending a little while longer reading through the admittedly messy evidence and workshop pages, and spending a little time at the disputed articles. I'm sure the ArbCom is happy to find that if they've said something, then that's good enough for you, though I find it a little amusing that that's precisely the problem that we will face further down the road - and which you're vociferously denying will be a problem right now. Never mind. So much of this case has been a waste of my time, why should replying to you be any different? Relata refero (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You sound very bitter about this. I can only reiterate that, if there is no independent evidence of wrongdoing, no amount of speculation about socking is likely to be persuasive. And yes, if your case does rely on the presupposition that these chaps are sock puppets, and nothing else, it was always going to be a hard sell. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bitter, schmitter. ArbCom has let everyone down by this sort of pussy-footing for anyone to be bitter about it.

And again, you are showing yourself marvelously unaware of the situation. And are you unable to see that evidence of disruption if they were puppets is present in ample amounts? And where does any case rely on a presupposition? And where is it 'my' case? Good lord, man, do yourself a a favour and get a clue before you comment. Relata refero (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to act tetchy. The conditionality of much (almost all) of the evidence has already been remarked upon. I've even looked at your evidence of tendentious editing on naked short selling but it seems to highlight, at most, poor focus and dilatory research (which are annoying traits in a Wikipedian, but not, sadly, actionable abuse). The most egregious case you found here, so far, was removal of a tag added by another editor, which Samiharris justified on the talk page. He was not challenged. He was informed about the German exchange but indicated that he thought this was already mentioned. Since there have been very few editors on the article at all in the time period of this discussion, it's lamentable that only Samiharris was paying much attention to it and he either doesn't seem to have thought enough of the comments to do much or simply lacked the ability to do act on them, but this falls considerably short of tendentious editing. Failing to act on driveby comments is not abusive editing. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Consistently failing to act? That is "at most poor focus"? Given that the only challenges to ownership were banned as puppets, you do realise you are making absolutely no sense, right? I provided more than one instance of open lying ("...there are no academic surveys"), more than one instance of pushing a marginal theory (GW's pet theory) etc. etc., and you are claiming that on articles where the "opposition" was banned that wasn't disruptive? Son, I have a bridge I want to sell you. Relata refero (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I shouldn't be responding, see Talk:Naked Short Selling#Assessment explanation, and stop nit-picking. Relata refero (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

These chaps don't have block buttons so I don't think you could blame them for excluding banned users. I'm looking at talk:naked short selling now. Who said there were "no academic surveys", and when? I could have missed it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The, please don't imply that you are informed of what has and has not persuaded the committee. They have made it clear that they see special circumstances in this case. They have not told us what those circumstances are. It is entirely possible that they find the sockpuppetry evidence persuasive but have elected not to pursue that line for reasons that they are not willing and/or at liberty to disclose. The same may hold true for any evidence related to conflict of interest. This continued leaping to conclusions (on all sides) is not helpful. Risker (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You've misread my comment. I don't speak for the Committee, or pretend to, and I know of no special circumstances, disclosed or otherwise. The Committee is fully empowered to make findings of abusive editing, where adequate evidence is presented. No such persuasive evidence has yet been presented to the committee and considered by them. In saying this I also allow above that such evidence could yet be presented and considered. Contrary to your claim, the committee has not declined to consider evidence against either of the accused; indeed one of them, user:bainer, has recently solicited it. [55]--Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is also possible that they do not find the evidence persuasive (as AoaNLA,T suggests) and that they are simply making a mistake by coming to that conclusion - i.e. they are "wrong" in some vaguely objective sense. I don't have enough confidence in the committee (or indeed in any group of people) to assume that because they do not think something is the case it therefore is not the case. I'm going to stop commenting on this though and wait for Brad or some other Arb to respond to my initial question--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course they could be mistaken. If that's so, overwhelm them with evidence of abusive editing. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

With – again – all due respect, I wonder if your comments here are having a positive effect. Lar's comment further up suggested a way for those who find the committee's decision uncompelling to move on. And I think there is some nascent willingness to do that. When you step in with obviously counterfactual statements ("all we have to substantiate an allegation of wrongdoing is that user X's edits are from a proxy and user Y's edits are not") and tautological appeals to authority ("as an established editor," "the best minds of Wikipedia," "if the evidence were persuasive, the Committee would be persuaded," etc.), it has the effect of squashing that nascent willingness, rekindling indignation, and adding to the stock arguments of those who would have us believe that "something is rotten in Denmark."--G-Dett (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(insert) Yes, (and yes tony seems rather uninformed here, for all the input). This is Lar's comment, which I also regard as helpful. Users please take note of it. ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC). No offence meant, TS —Newbyguesses - Talk 15:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(esprit de l'escalier) You've probably been somewhat selective in your reading, then. I've not denied that the pair of them may be community-bannable given sufficient evidence. My recent posting on wikback is alarmingly close to an elaboration of lar's suggestion: have arbcom establish that these chaps have been doing something actionable, something requiring a remedy of some sort. Remedies apply to the person, not the account, so if there's community consensus that two accounts are socks, the remedy applies to both. As an alternative, some kind of community remedy, but those are less secure and you've brought the case to the attention of the arbitrators so you might as well give it a go. For an ignoramus, I think I'm pretty much up to speed on the case. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh I don't think my comments can possibly be read as squashing anything except a few misconceptions about the soundness of the case. I have asked for more evidence to be procured, and that cannot in any way be construed as an attempt to squash the willingness to provide it.

I don't believe I've misrepresented the evidence of socking. Indeed the counter-arguments seem to be to the effect that no, contrary to Uninivited Company's statement, it is possible for socks to go undetected for an extended period of time. Now while such reasoning can be used to argue that the two accused could be socks (and who here denies that?), it is not proof that they are socks--any more than the absence of evidence to the contrary is proof that any other pair of Wikipedians are socks.

This argument wouldn't be taking place if the Committee had considered compelling evidence set before them and arrived at an inevitable conclusion justified by that evidence. If it has been presented, make efforts to bring it to the Committee's (and the community's) attention. If it can be procured but has not yet been presented, present it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying that the only evidence that's been presented is one of the two accounts using proxies. As a matter of fact – not opinion – that is false. Myriad forms of evidence have been provided. Presumably you don't find these many forms of evidence compelling, but you don't say that – you just keep claiming, falsely, that none has been presented. Indeed you do not give the impression of reading any of this very carefully; the "willingness" I suggested you might be squashing is not the willingness to provide more evidence (though you are squashing that as well, by indicating that any such further evidence will not even be acknowledged, much less considered, by you); rather, as was clear from what I wrote, I was referring to the willingness of the community to move on (water under the bridge) from an arbcom decision an overwhelming majority find unsatisfactory.--G-Dett (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to work out what you could mean by evidence: that both editors edit little between the hours of 0700 and 1200? That the editors have been known to express agreement with one another? That they have edited the same pages, and the same discussions, at roughly the same periods of time (if you extend the period over several days)? That there are no periods when their editing sessions intermingled? Excuse me, but I think those would be best filed under "overactive imagination". If these chaps are up to no good, find some credible evidence that will stand independently of an allegation that requires us to believe that they are a single person who is clever enough to scrupulously avoid occasionally editing from the wrong account but stupid enough never to arrange for a simultaneous editing session. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

tum quoque marmorea caput a cervice revulsum gurgite

cum medio portans Oeagrius Herbrus volveret,

Varkala vox ipsa et frigida lingua a miseram Varkala!

anima fugiente vocabat: Varkala toto referebant flumine ripae.--217.16.219.117 (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett: Let's be clear that the overwhelming majority in "overwhelming majority find unsatisfactory" is those people here. NOT the entire community. I don't think you mean that per se but it's good to underline. I suspect 99%+ of the community is happily editing away on unrelated matters, unaware of this. And I say that as one of those here who wish things had come out differently. We should be careful not to overstate. Tony/Ant: The evidence that shows correlation also includes a lot of analysis of edits. That analysis includes word usage, patterns of speech, and the like. It's rather exhaustive. I'm not sure you've reviewed it sufficiently yet, because you seem to be understating what it shows. ++Lar: t/c 00:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. I am very wary of the kind of rabbit hole one can easily fall down once one starts textual analysis. Most socking cases are far, far more open-and-shut than this one, and in the absence of independent evidence of wrongdoing one should--you know--assume good faith. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Anticipation, etc., you asked which pieces of evidence I found most compelling. In no particular order: Mantan's extensive prior history of abusive socking and lying, conclusive evidence of Mantan's COI problem, Samiharris's prompt debut just as Mantan was leaving pages he'd been warned away from, dramatic drops in Sami and Mantan's editing at a time simultaneous with a dramatic drop in Weiss' blogging, Sami and Mantan's common use of distinctive phrases (see my stylistic evidence and Luke's) and other editing tics (see Alanyst's statistical evidence). Then there's Cool Hand Luke's timestamp evidence, which seems to be the part you're familiar with (because it was near the top?). I found this also very compelling, especially with the statistical comparisons. And then of course there's the edit that started this all, where Mantan responds to a question posed to Samiharris. So that's the formally presented circumstantial evidence; for DUCK-y stuff there's Sami and Mantan's indistinguishable writing "voices," and the consistent pattern of response when Mantan's socks are revealed: secondary account promptly and quietly retires, Mantan issues categorical denials, claims "harassment" and engages in bizarre misdirection and/or outright lying.

As for my own evidence from the tombstones of Tombstone, having acknowledged its peculiarity qua evidence, I will say that yes, I do find it compelling. You'll as soon convince me that Weiss didn't populate his kabuki theater with the ghosts of Boothill as convince me that the chapters of Joyce's Ulysses aren't patterned on The Odyssey. Yes, I have an overactive literary imagination, but then so does Weiss.--G-Dett (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Lar, point taken, "the community" is a bit of a grand phrase. I meant those who had reviewed this case and commented. --G-Dett (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) "Most socking cases are far, far more open-and-shut than this one" ummm, no, not really. R. Baley (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No kidding. MM has been established as GW’s online presence by not only by MM starting GW’s bio, but the shift in editing times when MM was around the world in India, but also by their separate mention of an obscure Indian town, in different media. SamiHarris’ first edit on Wikipedia, ever, was to GW’s TALK page. You don’t think that quacks? Then moved to Overstock, shortselling, etc. Okay, now add that GW has a fascination with Jewish cemetaries, and with Tombstone, Arizona, as per MM’s proven sock Lastexit. The last person to remain buried in the Tombstone Jewish cemetary is a child named Sam Harris. Okay, you say, coincidences, all. Coincidental name, too. And it's coincidence that MM and SamiHarris coincide in certain editorical comment tics better than thousands of other editors. Same time zone, same language tics, same interests (finances, Tombstone, cemetaries, interest in journalist GW, blah). But wait: something else-- SamiHarris and MM went from a reasonabie edit frequency to both nearly quitting editing from the end of October 2007 to Dec 1 2007, when they both picked up again on Dec. 1 simultaneously. It’s a gap clearly visible to the cleaning lady on the graph— you don’t need statistics for it. So these two users not only share the same interests, from geologic to personal to financial, same time zone and sleep schedule and language tics, and one has a name out of the other's past vacation--- but they share the same vacation schedule too. Overactive imagination, you say? What? SBHarris 00:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize (well, at least, note by way of explanation) that I have been tied up in the real world today. The comments being offered on the proposed decision are being taken very seriously, and I do intend to respond to this thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If the evidence were persuasive, the Committee would have been persuaded by it.

If the evidence were persuasive, the Committee would have been persuaded by it. - Thanks for that Anticipation/Tony.

It make sense, though a bit tautological. The sense that i am getting fron this section, is that the Arbs are near to majority vote on a number of findings, proposals, and that there will not be a finding against Mantanmoreland, through a supposed paucity of evidence that all Arbs will acknowledge. The Arbs, as a whole, seem to be opening the way for the community to resume actions (Rfc etc.) which were suspended due to this appeal to the Arbs. The Arbs are de-fusing, I hope, a fraught situation, as is their purview. Though their input does not go far enough for some, who see the SP charges as utterly proved. But this is a workable way forward, if users come to see a clear path. Arbcom rulings do not, as such, set precedent, but they are highly influential of peoples' thinking. (HTH)Newbyguesses - Talk 21:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, with limited exceptions, nothing the arbitrators do or say can pre-empt the consensus of the community. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible alternatives to a sockpuppet finding

Perhaps it is time to provide the committee with some alternative considerations that they might find more acceptable. One possibility would be to article-ban Mantanmoreland and SamiHarris from the articles named in the decision. Another would be to ban those two accounts from editing under any other account name, either anywhere on Wikipedia, or in those specific articles. A third possibility would be to hold both of those accounts to 0-revert status on those articles and any related articles.

While it still leaves a bit of a bad taste in the mouth, any of these solutions would likely be more palatable to the community than the current proposal, which leaves open the door for continued drama. Crossposted to a similar discussion on Wikback Risker (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, if they _are_ the same person, your proposal amounts to "you may only have the one sockpuppet". Which you can probably see the problem with. —Random832 06:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I for one would be open to hearing more evidence about the edits made by these accounts to the relevant articles with respect to content policy, of which there has been essentially none presented so far (save for a brief section by Relata Refero). --bainer (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone had mentioned at the time that more was required, I would have provided more. Gary Weiss history is a treasure trove; and I didn't even look beyond a few months for examples. I was under the impression that this ArbCom was about sockpuppetry, so I merely demonstrated that if sockpuppetry had occurred, it was disruptive. I didn't know at the time that ArbCom would cop out again, of course. (Though if I'd known I wouldn't even have bothered to the extent I did.) Relata refero (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Risker just suggested that we misunderstand how the Committee has framed this case. I guess that Risker's right.

I suspect that some editors would be willing to work on such evidence if you're willing to accept it. This is precisely why I thought you should have posted findings long ago; it's not at all clear what kind of evidence you would find useful. Cool Hand Luke 07:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Bainer, a workshop proposal was presented here based on Relata refero's and my evidence sections. I also addressed the issue in more detail here. At least on Gary Weiss, I think a couple examples of what has kept other editors from improving the article can be seen here and here. I'd note this may not be worse than WordBomb’s early editing, but it doesn’t seem much better either. Mackan79 (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Samiharris diffs there need to be viewed in the context of the original discussion, archived here [56], after which was this.[57]. These edits were in keeping with talk page concensus, and were certainly not tendentious or disruptive.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The context of that original discussion is indeed important. Cla68 argued that a New York Times article on Weiss was valid per WP:RS; Sami responded aggressively with a familiar speech about "Bagley memes," saying "we are not going to link to Bagley's smears in any way, shape or form," even if it's the New York Times, and accusing Cla68 (and me, and a few other editors) of being fixated on advancing the "agenda of Judd Bagley"; Jimbo eventually stepped in and said something ominous about "shooting on sight"; Cla68 was blocked and I was threatened – all for holding steadfast that the New York Times was a reliable source. This took place shortly after the banning of Piperdown as a Wordbomb sock, a determination made on no other evidence than that he had edited articles of interest to Mantan and Sami and showed the temerity to disagree with them. (I asked one admin involved in the ban, "would it be fair to say that Wikipedia's current working definition of a WordBomb sockpuppet is anyone whose edits focus (either wholly or in part) on naked-short-selling-related articles, and who opposes User:Mantanmoreland and User:Samiharris?" to which he responded, "I would say so.") In the link provided above by Mackan, Sami pointedly warns Cla68 that he was already blocked once for suggesting the New York Times as a reliable source, suggesting the perils of revisiting the topic.

So yes, a certain tense calm had descended upon the article by that time, an atmosphere of fear which Mantan refers to here as "consensus." That "consensus" – and in my view it does considerable violence to the English language to call it that – was arrived at through a fallacy known as argumentum ad baculum, a problem indeed at the heart of this whole matter for the last two years.--G-Dett (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Question to FT2

The statement "In this case a more cautious and conservative standard was needed, due to confounding issues discussed internally by the Committee." has two possible meanings. Did you mean this:

• "the confounding issues that everyone is familiar with create a necessity for a more cautious and conservative standard", or did you mean

or this?

• "there are confounding issues that are not known to those outside the committee, which reate a necessity for a more cautious and conservative standard"

The former interpretation has been disputed, so if this is what you meant, a little more justification should be provided. The assumption that the latter was meant (the statement about it having been internally discussed, and the fact that the former seems ridiculous on its face, lend themselves to this conclusion) has led to a lot of unhelpful speculation, and if this is the case you should tell everyone as much as you can about what issues exist. —Random832 08:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If this ArbCom whitewash makes the scales fall from your eyes, may I suggest how to get around it? – Patrick M. Byrne

Joseph Kennedy said, "Don't get mad, get even." No reason to get mad about this whitewash. For me, it was pretty much entirely expected. However, instead of banging your head on what the Jesuits called "impenetrable ignorance," may I suggest an alternate course of action? This not only bypasses the whitewash, it goes to the heart of their purpose in the whitewash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PatrickByrne/Whitewash_essay

Respect, Patrick PatrickByrne (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This really isn't an extraordinary case. Since the first arbitration case I attended, there has always been at least one faction, and often two or three, in any case, that believed its case so fanatically that it would brook no dissent. The arbitration committee was wrong, the evidence was being skewed, or ignored. Evil was being done without recourse. If only we would listen!

Editors have gone off into the wilderness of a twelve month ban with dire warnings that Wikipedia was being manipulated by evil forces that we in our naive and idealistic way were powerless to comprehend and against which we were defenseless. Wikipedia, we were warned, was doomed. Now if you've any idea what has happened in the three years or so since then, you'll know what I think of such warnings. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 04:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Jeremiads are routine, but this case has at least one distinguishing feature: it inspired an admin to revert about 10 times against everyone, getting himself blocked. I hope no one tries that again on PatrickByrne's new subpage. Cool Hand Luke 05:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"if you've any idea what has happened in the three years or so since then.." yeah, Wikipedia's got a lot more political crap. IF you ever spent some time in the real conflict areas - those that correspond to intense RW disputes - you'd know how ridiculous you sound. Relata refero (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I probably do sound ridiculous to someone who gauges the quality of Wikipedia by its most contentious and abuse-prone articles. The general quality of the articles has improved immeasurably in my experience of Wikipedia, and its popularity as a reference work has gone through the roof. Problem areas remain, and there will always be problem areas, given our open editing model. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting information, PatrickByrne. The financial information largely corresponds with what I was told by some real world stock specialists of my acquaintance. Of course, until this RFAR is complete and the final decision is rendered, Jimbo's "shoot on sight" instructions may well remain operative, so like many others I am hardly inclined to edit the subject articles at this time. (In fairness, even with the various reading lists, I do not feel conversant enough with the subject to do it justice.) If nothing more comes of this ArbCom case than that the subject articles are returned to the conservancy of the community as a whole, the encyclopedia will still be further ahead than it was three weeks ago. Risker (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that Patrick's piece overestimates his own importance. For me, the problems in ArbCom are two-fold: (1) the judgement of some ArbCom members is so far off that they should not hold their positions; and (2) the rest of ArbCom seems to believe that consensus and collegiality are better for WP than is transparency and allowing the community to evaluate the problems and act. In the short term, they are correct - questions over the judgement of ArbCom members will be very disruptive - but the longer term consequences of not acting will (I think) be worse. The institution of ArbCom itself is being damaged by the push for least common denominator consensus. This single case is not a great revelation of a massive conspiracy - it is just a symptom of a system under strain from internal pressure, and for which I can see no solution that will restore confidence and address the problems without transparency and some change in personnel. Jay*Jay (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Byrne's essay doesn't seem to me to saying that there is a "massive conspiracy," nor that Wikipedia has fallen into the hands of "evil forces." Such melodramatic interpretations seem almost like willful misreadings of what Byrne actually wrote. BCST2001 (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we did read different essays at that.

• "Sadly, as you have seen through this evidence page, throughout this evolution an enormous amount of energy has been expended spinning this story by certain Wikipedians and their protectors, culminating in this whitewash by ArbCom"
• "As many others here have noted, Mantanmoreland made sure that within Wikipedia every possible misrepresentation of my position was cited, from blogs and the very journalists whom I had accused of being part of the problem, yet any news stories that accurately portrayed my position (let alone said something positive about me) found themselves dismissed on the flimsiest of excuses. Thus, did a self-reinforcing Kafkaesquilibrium come into existence."
• "I am a guy who is trying to use his position to expose a financial crime that may be worse than any we have seen in our lifetimes"
• "an obvious whitewash by an agenda-ridden ArbCom."

Now I don't know anything about stocks and shares, but I do know when a fantastic amount of handwaving is going on, and I do know when someone is claiming that two editors (or one, if the sock claims are to be believed) have secured the connivance and complicity of the arbitration committee and a substantial number of administrators and other editors in order to effect some terrible injustice involving the Russian mafia and other distasteful types. Ten out of ten for ambition, but really it's the same old jeremiad we've seen on arbcom month in, month out for years. At least we've been spared, so far, comparisons to Minister President Vidkun Quisling. But I don't want to put ideas into Mr Byrne's head. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 07:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, your posts in this arbitration have looked to me like a fair amount of handwaving, while openly acknowledging a lack of familiarity with the discussions. Several article have been kept in a very poor state; this has been shown to the extent it isn't obvious, and has happened by a couple of aggressive accounts who have convinced various authority figures to take their side. I think we look better the less we look for ways to ridicule outside commenters, and the more we read for content, particularly if the idea is being pursued that ArbCom's hand is forced by a desire not to take sides. Mackan79 (talk) 08:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

We're faced in any arbitration with a number of parties who know they are right; all I know is that I don't know who is right and who is wrong. If I appear to be waving my hands it's because I am--it's a case thin on evidence but thick with accusations. You're in the same boat, so are all the people waving their statistics around. We have our suspicions but we don't know.

But obviously Wikipedia doesn't want to get involved in this fellow's fight, which for all I know is very good and will improve life for all of us. We don't want to get involved on anybody's side. This applies to the whole of Wikipedia, not just to the arbitration committee. We don't want to take sides, we just want to produce the best free encyclopedia we can.

The good news (and the reason all this socking stuff is just a sideshow) is that we can easily get the article back on track, and the committee has already formulated a methodology for doing it. Simply ban use of proxies on the articles covered by the dispute. Sorry, there's a lot less drama in that, because it doesn't require us to make a rather controversial sock puppetry determination. But I'll take parsimony over drama any day. Let's leave Mr Byrne to get on with his battles. We've got an encyclopedia to write.

What, you say, the arbcom is being manipulated? Not a bit of it. If as I suggest the committee simply leaves the sockery stuff to one side and addresses the problem (that proxy use sometimes makes it impossible to resolve an accusation of socking, so in certain limited cases such as this it may be appropriate to ban its use on certain articles) then the encyclopedia wins, the Committee saves itself an unwinnable fight to convince everybody it made the right decision in the absence of decent evidence, and we all get on with it. Those who want us to fail are left gnashing their by-now badly worn teeth, as usual. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 08:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, that's not so different from what Byrne said. Unfortunately, I'm not sure the neutrality issue has been answered. If Wikipedia unblocks WordBomb and decides that a tighter behavioral leash is all we need in these situations, that's one approach. It will just start to send the message: go to ArbCom often and early, because unless you've been there recently they aren't going to do anything. But somehow I don't think that is what people want. Rather, people seem to be saying if someone has abused the community to the extent of making it go through all of this mess just to figure out what happened, that the committee owes it to the community to resolve the issue or next time people may just stay away. I'm not sure if that's what the committee wants either, but I think it would fail the committee's mandate to resolve the community's larger disputes. Mackan79 (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in some arbitrations you are left with a fringe that wants revenge, retribution, punishment, etc. That isn't what arbitration is about. This isn't such a big dispute, really, it just has a higher profile than usual. I don't think the arbitration committee is going to feel like making huge remedies when it can resolve the problem with very small, very economical ones. I can get an arbitration call wrong, and completely misread the committee's mood, but it doesn't often happen. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 09:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah! The ArbCom makes little economic adjustments, while leaving the scorched-earth tactics to individual administrators who are never held accountable? What happened to little economical adjustments back when people were being indef-blocked as Wordbomb socks after writing just one wrong line in one wrong place? And hundreds of people got blocked because they shared an ISP with Bagley in Utah. And Jimbo was saying "Zero-tolerance, shoot on sight." So now that the OTHER guys are caught socking and COI editing, just as was originally alleged, what happens? Moderation. We wouldn't want to have any revenge, retribution, punishment. I could go on, but I'm going to quit, because if I say what I really think, I'm going to be in for some retribution and punishment. SBHarris 10:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You're probably not going to get anywhere sensible if you see it as a matter of taking sides. That's part of what we mean when we say that Wikipedia isn't a battleground. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 10:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Taking sides? You mean like "Your friend Mr. Bagley and my friend Mr. Wales"? Are you so blind, Tony, that you are unaware of the fact that people don't like the feeling that authority is arbitrary? And if you continue to think that ArbCom has resolved any problem with "small, economical remedies" recently, you are really pitifully out of touch. Hop over to WP:AE, why don't you. (Try not to comment the moment you're there.) Relata refero (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You may not be aware that for a long time I was practically the only admin servicing arbitration enforcement requests. Please don't talk cryptically, though. Say what you mean. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Simply ban use of proxies on the articles covered by the dispute. No mechanism for doing this has been proposed - what, I'm supposed to stick my neck out and file a RFCU request on people who are editing the article in one direction or the other? I'd rather keep my clean block log, if it's all the same to you. —Random832 13:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't even need to file a checkuser request publicly. Simply contact the Committee; they all have checkuser permissions. I don't see what filing a checkuser has to do with being blocked, however. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the fact that the person who filed the checkuser request that started this case was immediately blocked (and though it turned out they were a WB sockpuppet, there was initially no checkuser confirmation of this) might have something to do with a connection between filing a checkuser and being blocked. I really think you should familiarize yourself with the case more before commenting. —Random832 13:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we already know that this is a very dirty culture war. Crum375 seems to have blocked on a heavy hint by Thatcher [58] that Palabrazo was a ringer. I think it's somewhat disingenuous to imply that any user who asks for such a checkuser faces a similar certainty of being blocked (though of course people asking for a checkuser should be expect to be checkusered as a matter of course). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

When users have been in the past blocked for suggesting the use of the New York Times as a reliable source in an article, I don't think there's anything disingenuous about implying that people may be blocked for anything at all. —Random832 14:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

New Lover, etc., it's hard to say what whistleblowers will face in the future. But before this case, anyone who tried to bring NPOV to naked-short-related articles, and in doing so had the temerity to contradict Sami or Mantan, was accused of being part of an Overstock conspiracy to spread "Bagley memes." The most vociferous conspiracy theorists (after Sami and Mantan) were several influential admins.--G-Dett (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Relate refero has, in the course of trying to demonstrate that Samiharris and Mantanmoreland were engaged in tendentious editing, cited several examples of people with whom they disagreed on the subject of the naked short selling article. Because he neglected to say that they were accused of anything, and has rather concentrated on the polite but dismissive character of Samiharris's response, I've gotten the impression that attempts to improve the article have foundered on neglect and incompetence. And (if he can show it by providing good evidence) possibly deceit. Your account is inconsistent with his. Did these accusations of "Bagley memes" and "overstock conspiracy" occur on the talk page of some other article?

In any case I notice that, apart from a few fiddling edits on a scandal-related list article and a few perfunctory tweaks related to Harry Potter and the like, I've been spending far too much time on this discussion. I hope my dissection of the rather weak evidence presented so far will spur those of a diligent cast of mind on to document cases such as those you suggest, all the manipulation, unmerited banning and blocking that is supposed to have taken place on the articles at the behest of these two (or one) editors. Their methods of manipulation (I hesitate to say mind control) should also be documented. The perhaps the arbitration committee, seeing the true extent to which Wikipedia has been abused by the anti-Overstock conspiracy, can take appropriate action. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bwahahahahahahaha. You're funny, Tony. Oh wait, you're serious. My apologies. The level of evidence provided is 900% as much as normally needed for a DUCK block. And I see you take you're talking up the Mantanmoreland "This is all a vast Overstock conspiracy" points. They have pills for that, you know. SirFozzie (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Dissection"? "Mind control"? "Anti-Overstock conspiracy"? Are you a troll, Tony?--G-Dett (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The scales fell off my eyes a long time ago. I've spent a little time editing in some of the social conflict articles, where there is no end to the supply of culture warriors on both sides to keep disputes going forever. One should hope that when all the various people with a vested interest in the combat over this specific set of issues are persuaded/forced to back off, those with no immediate interest in the matter can write something that is accurate and complete. My personal suspicion is that all the accusations are true and that all parties are guilty, but then I've gotten rather cynical of late. But if uninvolved parties survey the literature and find that the world judges you culpable, Mr. Byrne, your beef is with the world, not with us. Ditto for you, Mr. Bagley, and for you, Mr. Weiss, wherever you may be. Fix the world's opinion, and we will fix ours to match. Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Mr Byrne - I fully intend to get even. I want to ensure that nobody with an agenda gets to manipulate these (or any other) Wikipedia articles in the future. That I have been acting to have Mantanmoreland's bias and corruption of WP principles brought to light and held accountable does not mean that I would wish to allow another party to include their bias in the same articles. This may come as something of a surprise to you and AoaNLA,T but being anti the influence of GW does not mean being pro Byrne/Bagley - we are just dealing with the parties that have been allowed undue weight, and are not proposing that any other should be allowed too either. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  Hear hear. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I believe that there is an acronym that addresses what might best happen in this thread: WP:DFTT. Tony Sidaway, or as he likes to be called now, "Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The", has been booted from Arbcom cases before for this type of editing. There is no need to respond to the arguments of people who expansively expound on a serious matter while admitting that they haven't bothered to read up on the issue, and think that Lolcats are appropriate commentary for adult conversation. Risker (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the standard memes and character assassination, no more, no less. It wasn't impressive when MM did it, and it's even less so to see someone else come in, take a five-second brief scan of the situation, and then to throw out terms like "mind control", etcetera. SirFozzie (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me it's a little funny some have paired the idea that the evidence doesn't indicate much along with the idea that it could all be Bagley's ruse. Some subtlety on his part, I guess? This may be part of what doesn't seem totally square. Mackan79 (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

To put this in other words upon a little more thought: anyone who was struck by the possibility that SH could be Bagley, but now claims the evidence may not show anything, should consider whether they are neutrally evaluating the evidence. Mackan79 (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

argumentum ad baculum

Hmm - argumentum ad baculum - what a wonderful phrase, redolent with meaning. To be followed up, (after) Arbcom finds, I guess. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

heh. I would be surprized if we didn't go back to that situation in the locus of dispute of this hearing within just a few weeks. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't quite follow these comments. Please clarify so I can try to respond. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe they are referring to the comment by G-Dett above,[59] where he indicates the blocking of Cla68 for using the New York Times as a reference, and Jimbo's "shoot on sight" post, could be interpreted as argumentum ad baculum. Risker (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

See also Samiharris' warning to Cla68 here, for an example of argumentum ad baculum in action.--G-Dett (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Risker is correct (about my response anyway). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Transparency, elections, and the Arbitration Committee

I think that the community is entitled to know what position each arbitrator takes on the issue of "is SH a sockpuppet of MM" so that each editor can make his/her feelings known come December. If this is not done, I for one will be voting against all members of the current committee in the next three elections, for this shocking rejection of answerability. —Random832 19:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

One is recused, see above. One is inactive and became so in the 24 hours prior to the posting of the proposed decision. I'd recommend giving at least the recused Arbitrator a pass on that. But in general, this possibility is why "private opinions" is not a reasonable rationale for the committee to decline to come on record individually about this. GRBerry 19:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There's a couple arbcom folks who have let me know publically or privately their feelings on this issue (one each publically and privately, and also one seeing it as compelling and the other not seeing it as actionable). Even though I disagree quite strongly with UC on his viewpoint, at least he had the common courtesy to not duck the question and take the heat for his beliefs. I'd rather vote for someone who has the courage to state their thoughts, no matter how wrong I consider it, then someone who hides behind a star chamber wall and try to speak as if they're a monolithic entity. SirFozzie (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I do have to agree with that - I do respect UC more for that (even though he's completely wrong), and I'd go so far as to say that I'll exclude him as well as the recused arbitrator from my own oppose votes on this issue. And make no mistake, I'm reasonably sure everyone here knows where this "anti sockpuppet finding" attitude is coming from, but if neither they nor the ones who are convinced are willing to stand for anything, I'm not sure they deserve the confidence of the community. —Random832 20:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how I feel about this. My sense is that I won't be active enough come december to bother with arbcomm advisory votes. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I voted only for Giano at the last election on the premise that Jimbo has the ultimate choice and need not follow the wishes of the community. Unless there is another Giano (or a change in the procedure) I shall not be voting again. I also refused to vote in the recent Stewards election on the same principles. Anyway, I wouldn't want an Arb to be beholden to my vote... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. People cannot make their nomination for ArbCom talking about their beliefs, philosophies and so forth, and then go to an anonymous pool when it comes time to see accountability and answerability. Achromatic (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Tons of sentiment already in this section. Should have a show of hands. Cool Hand Luke 20:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I count 17 editors seconding (and seventeenthing!) Lar's suggestion in the section above that we "poll the jury" so to speak. Add to that two editors who did not comment there but have in this section, plus a number of editors who did not specifically ask for a poll of the arbs on the sock question but who clearly want it, and I'd day we have between 25-30 folks taking this position. This is a significant number for any Arbitration case, I think, and it also seems significant that most all of these editors are very experienced and a good number are administrators (i.e. the complaints are not coming from run-of-the-mill POV pushers and other problem users as often happens in controversial cases).

Unfortunately it seems that the Arbs are not going to be persuaded on this particular issue so I don't know how much it good it does to continue to bring it up. Holding their ground is, of course, their prerogative, but it seems very likely that the reputation of this committee will take a hit as a result. If the Arbs want to stand on whatever principle they are standing on when they refuse to vote on the key allegation in this case they are welcome to do so, though I personally hope they feel at least some discomfort at being so out of step with the strongly held (and eminently rational) point of view of so many respected users who have given this case a great deal of serious thought and effort. I think we can all agree that there is nothing good about the disconnect there.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of arbitration is to resolve a problem that the community cannot. The problem, as I see it, is a series of conflicting claims about interference in the editing of certain articles related to naked short selling. Focussing on sock identities seems to me to be a bit of a sideshow. If the socks are as good as alleged, merely banning won't help, or rather banning won't stop further accusations of socking, on the same grounds that the socking is almost impossible to detect except by certain specialised behavioral analysis methods whose discriminatory power is, to be charitable, unevaluated. Presumably the solution to the socking allegations is to make some kind of more sock-resistant environment. I'm glad I don't have to do that job.

I therefore suggest that it's a mistake to focus on sock identity. Further, since arbitrators aren't experts in evaluation of socks, pushing them to a vote if they're not comfortable with it won't get us anywhere. We elected them to resolve otherwise intractable disputes, not as glorified checkusers. The checkusers themselves have come up with a blank on this matter, so recruiting non-specialists is unlikely to resolve anything. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"the checkusers themselves have come up with a blank on this matter". That's not exactly true, or perhaps it's too narrow a framing. This checkuser said, and stands behind, the statement that the results from using the checkuser TOOL are inconclusive, but I also have endorsed the pattern analysis material worked up as showing a strong likelihood of correlation. Other checkusers can speak for themselves, and have. Some of them, among them some ArbCom members, have said they are not as convinced as I am. Facility with the CU tools does not imply facility with evaluating pattern analysis results, of course. ++Lar: t/c 00:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

With that caveat, then. As I've said elsewhere, I'm impressed by the quantity of the analytical work, but it's very easy to see pattern where there is none. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 03:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for myself alone, the adverse community reaction to the form and content of the decision is troubling. This does not mean that the decision is incorrect, but I intend to provide a more detailed description of why the decision reads as it does, at some point when the real world allows me to come up for some air. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as an avid kremlinologist, the more light on the thinking of the arbitrators the better. I notice that some proposed findings have been carefully tweaked in order to make them more refractive to misinterpretation, and that's good, too. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Brad, I'm not at all trying to rush you into a response to that question (which I also asked above in the "What effect...?" section obviously) and appreciate your willingness to engage with it whenever you get a chance.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The truth is that I thought that, with the input of other arbitrators and with a goal toward achieving consensus among the committee members, I had drafted a decision whose methodology and goals would be clear to all sides of this dispute. I did not expect everyone to agree with the form or content of the decision, but I did not at all expect the degree of disagreement nor the expressions of the view that it represented an abrogation, a dereliction, or a cover-up—expressions that have come not just from partisans in the dispute, but (minus the last) from administrators including respected experienced admins (including clerks and checkusers) who work daily with the committee. In fact, I seem in this decision not to have communicated effectively with many editors at all: it is as if I had written the decision in Martian. I clearly owe it to the community to make another try at explaining myself here, and when I am sure I have found the right words this time, I plan to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that, Brad. Durova^Charge! 00:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and hope that we understand better where the committee is coming from, as I still don't get it. My view: moving on is fine, and needed, but there has to be an expression of understanding of the past before that can happen. So, the decision needs to address a)sockpuppet and coi, b) administrative good faith error that protected one side of a content dispute, c) content dispute remedies that move foward (we have that part). If the committee really cannot address a) due to internal divisions, then a finding that the community should in no way be restricted from addressing those issues, would go a long way towards actual lessening of the disruption this off site dispute has engenendered on en.wikipedia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly look forward to the response from Newyorkbrad, as there are so many unanswered questions swirling around in this case. It is good to see that a few ArbCom members - most notably NYB and FT2 - have been participating here and trying to shed some light onto the proposed decision. It may be a misinterpretation on my part, but the proposed decision reads to me like an attempt to draft a decision to which almost all the ArbCom members can agree, and to paper over the internal divisions in the earnest (but, in my view, mistaken) belief that ArbCom consensus is important for the community to have confidence in their actions. Again in my view, NYB has acted in this way previously - choosing not to formally propose his alternative for the MH decision, not posting a motion on the present EK appeal, and I gather something similar happened in the IRC case (which I didn't follow in any detail).

In my opinion, the community is entitled to know what individual committee members think. I accept that their reasoning may at times be based on evidence unavailable to the community, and that is fine. But it seems to me that consensus for the sake of protecting the reputation of ArbCom is actually undermining that confidence. Of course, it is true that ArbCom members must exercise their individual judgement, and must be allowed the discretion to act as they see fit. But, is that discretion completely unrestricted - and if so, should it be? Surely discretion should be limited to a range consistent with community expectations of reasonableness. Further, when discretion wanders beyond that range, shouldn't there be a mechanism for this to be addressed. At this moment, I would support motions of no confidence about several ArbCom members on the grounds that they have lost the confidence of the community. Going down such a route - especially whilst trying to figure out the rules, since no mechanism appears to exist - would be disruptive, but I think less disruptive than allowing ArbCom to be diverted from its task. Forward looking approaches are fine, and this does at times mean treating the past as past - but when the past is still here, and the wound still open, moving forward without treatment is not forward looking; it is procrastinating - putting off acting until tomorrow in the hope that it will become easier. Perhaps it will be easier - MM and SH will be community banned, in my opinion, but I am unsure that it will stick. But, the rancour about 'shoot on sight' inspired misdeeds will not abate - justice delayed is justice denied, and asking the community to rule a line and move on from past injustices without acknowledgement will not work.

There has been a lot of debate in Australia over the injustices to the Aboriginal people associated with the 'stolen generations'. Former Prime Minister Howard spent 10 years refusing to make an apology, and urging the community to move on - and the wound festered, and outrage (whilst quietened) did not diminish. In a symbolic gesture, the new Prime Minister issued an apology at the first sitting of the new Parliament, and this ws absolutely necessary for closure to be possible. This case is vastly different in scale and scope, but the same issue arises. Without an acknowledgement that wrongs have occurred, no ruling off of the issues is possible. This need not necessarily include sanctions against individual admins, but it is my view that refusal of formal recognition that they happened will simply perpetuate the community division. Jay*Jay (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I very heartily endorse Jay Jay's last paragraph. The rest, I'm not so sure about. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

At one time the UK Princess Diana inquest was going to be strictly limited in scope, but Mohamed Al-Fayed successfully argued for the inquest to cover all the issues. In the interest of openness and transparency there should similarly be no attempt to hobble this arbitration case. Any unpalatable facts which have a bearing on the case need to be faced head on, rather than swept under the carpet because they will surely cause further rancor if they are not honestly and openly discussed prior to a final decision. Now is as good a time as any to bring closure. Relevant issues to be placed openly before the committee in full view of the community for an open and transparent vote to be held. Also, suggest that the committee invites amicus briefs from recognized experts in the articles concerned - this could aid both the case itself and also help to benchmark the articles--luke (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

While I shudder to think that we might as a community ever descend to the level where we identify with the bitterness and delusion of Mr Fayed, tragic and untimely though his bereavement was, I agree that it's Wikipedia's custom to keep things out in the open wherever possible. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

...and then what?

Before too much more goes under the bridge...

For the sake of argument, assume that the case that there's been sockpuppetry by SH and MM is given and that everyone accepts that they're likely to be the journalist of the day.

Let me now ask: ...and then what?

There are numerous claims that there was a conflict of interest. Failure to disclose real-world COI issues policy violations are self-evident, but actual abuse of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS are not well documented in evidence.

There are numerous claims that there was abusive sockpuppetry in violation of policy. Backing each other up on arguments / creating the impression of more support for a position? A few cases. One listed double vote, some time ago. Possible further abuse by older, apparently abandoned socks which were not acknowledged but are old news.

The level of sockpuppetry abuse demonstrated here, with diffs, is insufficient for permanent sanctions.

Where are the diffs? I just went through all the diffs, and half of them were to other unrelated people's edits, or edits outside the timeframe, with the rest largely diffs without any context to show evidence of inter-account sockpuppet policy abuse.

If you assert Arbcom is clearly wrong for failing to act more stridently here... what's the specific evidence that argues that abuse requiring serious sanction is there?

I don't think anyone other than MM is likely to object to a pro forma finding of duck test similarity here. And the double vote and a couple of other things in evidence are enough of a sockpuppet policy abuse for a pro forma month block and warning to not do it again, sure. But surely we didn't just go spend weeks figuring this all out just to block someone for a month. There has to have been some more serious abuse going on which justifies having spent all this effort to make the identification.

I assumed for the sake of argument as this started, that the "prosecutors" here not only had a case for sockpuppetry which would hold up, but a case for abuse which would hold up. The former is advanced effectively, the latter not. Without the latter, this was in fact a collossal waste of time.

Please point to it. Links and diffs, in the evidence page. Please start new subsections for it so that it's clear what you're pointing to.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe some folks are compiling that right now. The challenge is that comments from committee members during the first part of the evidence phase gravitated towards questions about the sockpuppetry investigations, so other than a few examples evidence of abusive action was not researched. While the abuse may be limited (even sensitive by usual pov pushing nutjob standards), it is also pervaisive and was ongoing for 18 months after warning by an arb FOR ABUSIVE SOCKPUPPETRY. so, while a first time offense of this magnitude might get a month and stern admonition to knock it off....this is beyond that. And even without a ban for it, the community needs the committee to stand up against abusive coi pushing in all it's forms. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points to GWH. First of all, there do seem to be members of the ArbCom who "object to a pro forma finding of duck test similarity here" - that's why there is no finding relating to that as of now. Given that, it does seem to be a bit of a waste of effort (at least right now) to develop further evidence of abusive sockpuppetry since the committee will not even agree that socking happened at all. I happen to think that the history of past abusive sockpuppetry, for which the user was warned, combined with double voting and a number of efforts to influence discussions (including an ArbCom case) using two accounts is certainly abusive enough for a long term block. But if that is not good enough for you George, what about Mantan's behavior in this entire weeks-long process? Assuming the allegations are true as you do above, do you not find it incredibly disruptive for Mantan to deny these allegations for weeks at a time, lash out at those veteran editors developing evidence and accuse them of carrying water for a banned user, all the while wasting an enormous amount of time of folks who could be doing better things - yourself included? I think that's arguably the most disturbing thing of all and I would ask George whether or not that bothers him. If the allegations are true than the blame for the "collossal (sic) waste of time" should be placed squarely on Mantan's shoulders - why not just come clean and deal with the consequences? And do we really want someone so willing to bend and even break the truth working on this project? Again this assume the socking allegations are true, but that's the assumption with which George started this thread.

In general I'm all for more evidence of abuse along the lines of that presented by Relata Refero, I just personally think the current evidence is sufficient to demonstrate abuse and at this point am not willing to dig up more when it might well have no effect whatsoever. If an Arb asked for it that would be different obviously.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, what Arbcom decides and what the Community then do are both in play. Even if Arbcom decides as a body not to act on the sockpuppetry complaints, there's an active discussion lifting off about a community ban. Regardless of where it comes into play, what was done with the presumptive sockpuppetry is entirely appropriate. If the current set of presumptive socks committed serious abuses, it should be easy to lay out what those were. The diffs posted to date aren't persuasive. I don't presume that there isn't evidence there... but there's no evidence in evidence, as it were. Might as well lay out the case in its entirety here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see/forgot about this at first (maybe you did or maybe you didn't, there has been so much evidence presented one loses track of it) but see FT2's chart on SirFozzie's original investigation page here which lists most if not all of the pages which both Samiharris and Mantanmoreland edited. FT2 listed a couple of instructive diffs at the end - [60] and [61] - which show both users commenting on the "Attack Sites" Arbcom and on WT:NPA (obviously two of the more contentious issues in recent Wikihistory, though I personally had nothing to do with either of them and know little of the specifics). If you don't have a problem with a user double voting in AfD's and one RfA, double commenting on a contentious ArbCom case and on an important (and equally contentious) policy page, giving the impression of consistent agreement by two different users (who are in fact operated by one person) about articles in which the user in question has a COI (again using your initial "journalist of the day" scenario here), while all the while going through great lengths to maintain the non-socking fiction and refusing to be forthcoming about the socking when it is revealed then so be it.

But let me actually rephrase that as a direct question. Do you really want someone who engages in abusive socking (even if it is limited, but you cannot deny that the sock policy was violated repeatedly) after doing it once (or twice) before and being warned by an Arb, and who uses socks in an effort to advance their own real world interests (i.e. editing articles with two accounts about which they have a COI), and who when confronted with evidence denies it ad infinitum while casting aspersions on their accusers and forcing into a weeks-long process ending (maybe) in this messy arbitration - do you really feel that person should just run off and edit away happily? Stripping away all of the background noise of this case and pretending this is totally hypothetical situation about "Editor X," would you seriously argue for anything less than a one-year block?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing I can find in evidence that the COI led to other violations of the policy such as non-neutral articles. It raises the question in a big way, but we know that the people who started this aren't anywhere near neutral either, and their claims that the mere identity means bias have to be taken with a grain of salt. This isn't a question of "They edited!", it's a question of "This thing they inserted is wrong/biased/unsourced" or "This was tag-teaming here and here and here and 3RR violations" and that sort of thing. We know they edited the articles. Please show us the specifics where it was abusive.

There's nothing I can find in evidence that the SH or MM edits would in fact advance the real world interests of the journalist in question. I don't see how the journalists' employement, income, professional reputation, or other factors are improved by the articles one way or the other. There certainly could be such - there are ways that someone could do those things, using Wikipedia articles, we've seen them elsewhere - but the specifics aren't in evidence here.

How bad the abuse was is directly related to how bad it was. Say hypothetically we discover that Cla68 and G-Dett are the same person in real life - ok, they're socking. Then what? I don't know of anything other than this debate and some ANI edits where they're editing together. One could make a case that they're to some degree violating the policy by both participating in the same administrative discussion and reinforcing each other. One can easily make the case to block one indef for policy violations - but the other one? This is traditionally "Roll your eyes in frustration at them".

What's alledged about MM and SH is more than that. But how much more? Cut the hyperbole - supply diffs. I will read diffs. I may argue about interpretation of them, but they're evidence. I want the evidence. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I used hyperbole, but I'll try even harder to avoid that. Before continuing I really want to make sure I understand one thing (I mean this as a very straightforward, albeit lengthy, question and would appreciate a direct answer). Assuming the content of the edits were kinda "okay" in some vague sense, are you saying you would find it at least somewhat acceptable (i.e. a lengthy ban would not be necessary, for both accounts) if, after I had been warned for policy violating sockpuppetry in the past, I used two different accounts to edit no less than 25 of the same pages (in article and Wikipedia space) often with weeks, days, or hours of each other? Forget about the COI stuff or new diffs for a moment, I just want to clarify that first.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok? No. Block all your accounts indef except main for a year? Would be overreaction. Further abuse could change that to not an overreaction. The hyperbolic suggestions are potentially into that range - the question is, are the underlying facts of what was edited when and how. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot parse all of that last comment, but in any case I started a new section below with a diff and some evidence and such. Let me know what you think.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly believe that undisclosed sockpuppetry is inherently bad and reason enough for a long, if not indefinite, block. I'm not talking legitimate alternate accounts (those that disclose the link, or edit completely different articles/topics, or else take the place of a retired account), but two accounts secretly operated during the same timeframe by the same person and interacting with the same articles or individuals, superficially appearing as independent accounts. I can think of no justifiable reason to do this. Not only does it undermine the "one editor one voice" underpinning of the Wikipedia concept of consensus, but it's a fundamental betrayal of every other editor's willingness to follow one of the core pillars of Wikipedia: Assume Good Faith. I need to be able to assume that the editor I'm dealing with is editing on the same basis as myself and not gaming the system. Deceiving others to amplify one's voice or gain an advantage over single-account editors is plain wrong. There may be mitigating factors allowing for nuanced remedies where necessary, but the general principle should be to block such sockpuppets because they undermine good-faith collaboration. alanyst ^/talk/ 08:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. Deceptively maintaining distinct identities in the same field of discourse distorts the community decision-making, even if it's just two socks discussing matters on a talk page. When a number of separate identities are maintained by just one or two people to keep focussing on a subject, the impression given by the multitude of identities can be quite intimidating and, for instance, will tend to chill attempts to explore other side of the subject. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 10:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Generally agreed, but the damage done is in proportion to the proximity in time and topic that the multiple accounts appear to support each other.

I would like to see the Evidence page lay out those proximity edits properly to assess that. If the edits tended to be days apart or in different subsections of a Talk page then there's less damage than if they're in the same subsection ping-ponging back and forth in a debate between one and the other. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well per your suggestion I made a point of laying out some evidence both below and on the evidence page. Can you please explain what you think of that evidence here? Is it a persuasive single example of abusive, COI socking? Combined with other evidence already mentioned how concerned are you now? How much more do you need to see? I'd appreciate your thoughts since you were the only person asking for evidence like this and I took the time to provide some for you.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Some evidence from Talk:Gary Weiss

This may or may not be worth my time, but per Georgewilliamherbert's request I found a diff (this diff) which is an old version of the Gary Weiss talk page. Above GWH asks the following: assuming SH is a sock of MM, and assuming MM is a certain journalist in the real-world, where is the sockpuppet abuse? Well for one example scroll down to the sections "RfC" and "Replies to RfC" in the diff above and read through that (perhaps someone already mentioned this somewhere in this terabyte-long discussion...I have not bothered to check as this is just the first thing I found after a lengthy 240 second search of the first page that came into my mind).

You'll note that Cla68 opens an RfC about including some material which references criticism of Weiss by Judd Bagley, including the notion that Weiss had engaged in "unethical or bad faith behavior." Now remember we are assuming that SH is a sock of MM and MM is that one guy. The first reply, in a "replies" section, comes from MM who says "This material is clearly not relevant to Weiss' notability." Less than 24 hours later (in a different section, the original "RFC" section above that), SH chimes in with "In the past, three editors -- myself, Mantanmoreland, JzG and Jayjg -- have opposed adding the material" and then goes on to explain why. (I would point out that, though it could actually be an honest and routine counting error, Samiharri's reference to "three editors -- myself, Mantanmoreland, JzG and Jayjg" is mildly hilarious given...well you know). Before JzG archived that and other talk page discussion, both SH and MM had weighed in twice (each in different sections) arguing that information critical of Weiss should not be added to the article.

Maybe they were even right about that, but that's hardly the point. GWH wanted evidence that MM/SH/a certain reporter (assuming they are one and the same) had used sockpuppets in an abusive fashion which also violated our COI policy. As I said I found that example in a matter of minutes. It probably does not do much good in this ArbCom, but might be of use for the community later (assuming someone else did not already lay this out and I just missed it). I'm curious as to what GWH thinks about this example.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Not forgetting, of course, that somewhere in the terrabytes of the evidence is MM warning off Cla68, by invoking the overstock meme, regarding the GW question whereupon SH shows up recommending that Cla68 take heed of MM's warning. I don't have the diff to hand, but I am sure Cla68 can supply it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, "how many fingers, Winston?" (of course if I were him I would have said "all five, dammit!", counting Mr. Weiss as a separate entity). Hopefully this has been or will soon be added to the evidence page on the off chance that somebody is still reading it. — CharlotteWebb 13:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and add this to the evidence page just so it's on the record in the appropriate place.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Further examples? Certainly that was not the only thing we had this huge fight over... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

How many more do you need George? 2, 5, 10? Can you ballpark it for me? What's your threshold as far as when this gets into problematic territory for you (and don't forget about the other evidence on the evidence page)? Is that threshold based in policy, or is it just your own opinion? As I said I found that example in just a few minutes and wanted to see what your reaction was but you did not offer a reaction other than "more?" If you are honestly maintaining (let's recount the evidence again) that a user who has abusively socked in the past; been warned for it; then used socks to votestack, influence discussions on policy pages and an ArbCom case, and help prevent critical material from entering that user's own BLP article does not deserve a block than I'm afraid I'm a bit nonplussed. If we took your view we would have to conclude that it is okay to use sockpuppets abusively to influence a BLP article about yourself so long as you don't do it that often. I hope you understand that that appears to be exactly what you are arguing for.

I really don't care for the way in which you keep demanding more evidence without even explaining how you feel about what was already provided. What do you think of the new piece of evidence I brought in? How big of a problem is it for you? How about the new stuff Mackan79 added here? This evidence was added specifically at your request (and no one else's), yet rather then react to it (or even offer a polite thank you and then your thoughts) you simply say "Further examples?" That's rather uncouth from where I sit.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

More evidence, please

We are now rapidly approaching a half megabyte of text on this page alone discussing this. Why is this level of energy not being put into finding diffs of specific policy violations for the evidence page? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know George, but maybe you should ask that question of yourself. A lot of the "half megabyte of text" on this page is you asking other people to produce evidence so you can look at it. Why not have a go at gathering evidence yourself man? A couple dozen other editors have already done that (some for hours on end), so maybe it's your turn. Scroll through the Naked Short Selling article and talk page histories, see what you can come up with, and go from there.

You already asked for diffs once, myself and Mackan provided some, and then you asked for more without commenting on the new evidence provided. Until you're willing to contribute a little more light and a lot less heat to this discussion I'm not going to bend over backward providing evidence to convince you of something of which most of us on this page are already convinced. Quite frankly at this point I'm not sure you can ever be convinced, though if you were willing to do a bit of digging on your own that would help matters.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

With a little looking; MONGO RfA - support #'s 24 & 73. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Submitted for consideration: 1) GWH's opinion here means no more than anyone elses. The fact that we should try to convince him with evidence, or him require certain users to personally convince him with evidence, is a bit offensive. 2)GWH is very unlikely to change his views, in my opinion. Further, it seems he would like you to submit evidence to him so he can dismiss and rebuke it--which is fine--if this was a time period when evidence collecting was in full force. 3)If GWH is indeed curious enough about this case, he would take the time he uses to discuss and use rhetoric here and investigate it himself—indeed, it appears that the only way he will be convinced is if he stumbles upon evidence himself, which isn't necessarily a bad thing (I'm a bit like that myself).

In conlcusion, I humbly state that submitting evidence here simply to convince GWH is not worth the time. This case has been done. Burnout for those who have contributed heavily to this case is imminent. The same old questions are being asked and the same old answers are being given. There is no progress. I wish that the arbom would do whatever they feel necessary and, respectfully, get out of the way. daveh4h 16:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Clarification regarding secret evidence

We're getting conflicting stories here (I'm talking flat out black/white things here), so I'm posting it here, so both FT2 and Uninvited Company can respond to it, and see if we can get our stories straight here.

(quote of UC on WikBack)[62]

Second, the committee does have some evidence which cannot be made public, which tends to support the view that MM and SH are different people.

Which flatly contradicts what we're being told ON wikipedia, from another ArbCom member

From FT2 here on the Proposed Decision Talk Page: [63]

We could then have openly confirmed for the record that in fact, there was no "secret evidence" in this case of any note. The only non-public evidence was the great amount of prior discussion and past incidents reviewed that indicated how matters in this dispute have tended to go. No new or recent "secret" matters of any kind were presented of any note here.

Is there, or is there not secret evidence in this case? This is flat out contradictory here. SirFozzie (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I echo SirFozzie, and note also that UninvitedCompany has referred to postings by MM and/or SH to a mailing list ("notably different writing style in offwiki (mailing list) participation"). I have not seen any evidence presented regarding this mailing list: which list, who participated, and how it was ascertained that the identities of those posting to the list correspond to the operator(s) of the MM and/or SH accounts. I asked UC about it on his talk page but have had no answer (not unjustifiably; I'm sure UC is very busy). If anyone can shed light on this I'd appreciate it. alanyst ^/talk/ 06:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well as SirFozzie says that does need to be explained, though I would not be surprised if there is a valid explanation. To Alaynst, I believe (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong and/or elaborate on this) that the list in question was the "stalker/harassment" list (I'm sorry but I don't remember the exact name, but it was to deal with issues of harassment of Wiki editors apparently). Both JzG and Jimbo Wales had referenced receiving hundreds of e-mails from both MM and SH (many if not most from this list I assume) and both suggested that the writing style for SH and MM was different. As far as I know it is still unclear whether the ArbCom formally reviewed those e-mails, and there was some discussion about whether some of those e-mails might (with the appropriate users' permission) be released for a review by editors not on the committee but obviously nothing came of that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions to nobody in particular: Why has this silly conjecture about Samiharris == WordBomb been put forth if MM and SH were trusted members of a stalker/harassment mailing list? Certainly the operators of that list would take great pains not to let WordBomb infiltrate it. And, if checkuser cannot show that MM and SH are related, and word analysis and editing time patterns are not to be trusted, then how can anyone claim that MM and SH here on Wikipedia are known to be the same individuals who posted to the mailing list? If their emails reveal their identities, why are the arbitrators not saying that the two are known to be unrelated? Conversely, if the emails don't reveal their identities, what makes them reliable sources of evidence regarding the WP accounts in question? alanyst ^/talk/ 06:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the Samiharris == WordBomb theory is that it has neither evidentiary basis nor explanatory power. Even the rankest conspiracy theory usually has something juicy to offer by way of the latter. This brain-belch by contrast substitutes Rube Goldberg for Occam's Razor, and for what heuristic payoff? The right of "skeptics" to believe that the CEO of Overstock paid somebody to do everything he could to defame said CEO and said company on one of the most popular websites in the world, for over a year, so that in the fullness of time a sockpuppet investigation would take place and possibly get covered by major international news organs, such as The Register. And the right to believe that the genius charged with carrying out this complicated shaggy-dog hoax wouldn't think to have his strawman sock, Samiharris, go in and edit a Mantanmoreland post and give this tribunal of head-scratchers their smoking-gun. As WAS 4.250 elegantly phrased it, "it is absurd to doubt a near certainty using the possibility of a near impossibility." And it is distressing that at this late stage, people presenting themselves as 'skeptics' are doing just that.--G-Dett (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There exists a quite reliable method of tying a particular email address to a particular wiki account. We use it all the time on the Checkuser list to validate new checkuser subscriptions. It does nothing to validate that either the email or the wiki account are anyone in particular, but it solidly links the accounts. Basically, you email the account claiming to be the wiki ID with a nonsense string, and ask them to make an edit while logged in with the account, with that nonsense string as edit summary, and mail the diff back. There is no meaningful way to spoof that unless you're dealing with a compromised wiki account or meatpuppetry (in which case it doesn't really matter). It does nothing to establish different identities but it could definitively link MM on-wiki to the email used by MM on a given list. ++Lar: t/c 15:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the additional insight, Lar. Is there any evidence that this took place for MM or SH? alanyst ^/talk/ 16:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking, could you clarify? I have no knowledge about what list moderators of lists I am not a moderator of may or may not have done. ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. What I mean is, if the technique you describe was used to verify their identities, we should see an edit summary (or enigmatic edit) with the nonsense string, somewhere in their user histories. I haven't seen anything resembling that sort of thing in their edit summaries, but I wonder if anyone with a better idea of what to look for might have spotted something. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Nod. I was not moderator of any list that SH or MM was on, to the best of my knowledge so I really can't say one way or the other what either or both of those IDs were asked to do. I would however point out via an example: "nonsense" edit (with apologies to fr:user:Clem23 for picking that example but it's recent and remembered so...) A nonsense string doesn't have to be gibberish per se, it just has to be one that I (or whoever) selected and specified in advance. If you were scanning contributions, would you necessarily pick that out as a nonsense string? I don't know if I would have if I hadn't known what to look for. I don't know if that helps you or not... did want to offer it up though. Different people's nonsense strings can be different. I go for witty, and sort of related to the userid, sorts of things rather than gibberish. No one could guess in advance exactly what I would specify so it's not spoofable. ++Lar: t/c 23:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"Great pains" does not include requiring providing real-world identification to the list operator or members. Nor, let's be clear, do any other Wikipedia related groups inside or outside, other than OTRS and Foundation Board elections. Do you actually factually know who anyone on Wikipedia Review really is, for sure? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just pointing out the obvious: This type of thing is what "conspiracy theories" are made of, whether they are simply misstatements or not. What is causing all these strange actions and statements coming from the very few arbom members that are commenting? Information/evidence/case overload? Thankfully you all aren't commenting! Can you imagine that? Perhaps now I understand why so few arbs are commenting; It doesn't appear they know what they are looking at or what they should be deciding. That may sound terrible; I wish I could word it more tactfully. However, it seems that if deliberations were carried out more publicly, gaffs and blatant contradictions like this and others could be avoided. This is getting stranger by the day, isn't it? daveh4h 07:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"Tis best to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt"? Is that the gist? LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)May I suggest an explanation? Perhaps various members of ArbCom saw different levels of significance to the offsite evidence. Reasonable people can weigh a circumstantial case differently. Durova^Charge! 19:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Normally, that would be the good faith way to view it, Durova, and I can agree that could be the case. I'm just looking askance at the sheer black and white nature of things. "There was evidence the public is not privy to that confirmed the belief that MM/SH are different people". versus "There was no non-public evidence at view here". SirFozzie (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

But that no new evidence had an important caveat: significance. It could simply be a matter that one arbitrator thought something was insignificant and another found the same thing persuasive enough to raise reasonable doubt. Durova^Charge! 23:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The various hypotheses on identity are beside the point. If it was discovered that I (who have never been involved in this affair) am WordBomb, or that Sheila Knott (who as far as I am aware has never been involved in this affair) is Samiharris, it shouldn't change things much except that I might get a little less fan mail. If we cannot tell whether or not Samiharris is WordBomb, it does count for something, but perhaps only if you think who they are matters more than what they do. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think we should worry, because if we don't worry then that would send the message that recent double voting isn't important. Durova^Charge! 19:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if my example was misleading. As far as I'm aware, Samiharris, Sheila Knott, WordBomb and I have never participated in the same discussion. Of course it would matter if we had deceptively socked (and perhaps my choice of example wasn't so clever). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What's actually at issue, though, is the linkage between Mantanmoreland and Samiharris. They voted together as recently as MONGO's RFA, and also at arbitration elections. That compels us to treat this seriously, and not attempt a myopic interpretation of forward-looking, because the next time there's legitimate reason to question whether two established accounts are vote stacking, people need to have enough trust in the process that they believe it's worth the enormous effort of doing things the right way. It took a year and a half to uncover Runcorn, remember. If the Committee and respected Wikipedians sidestep that issue with it's not important/don't do it again, then the inevitable result will be more Wikipedians creating their own vote stacking socks. It's much easier to make them than to catch them, so why not do it if people get off with a caution? Durova^Charge! 23:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

On Sirfozzie's question above, I've argued on wikback that, by my parsing, there is nothing contradictory about Uninvited Company's and FT2's statements. I don't know the facts about which they're talking, but the statements do not seem to be contradictory. They use different words to describe what they're takling about, and there's no reason to believe that they're subdividing the evidence in identical ways. FT2 sees no "new or recent "secret" matters of any kind...of any note", while Uninvited company speaks of "some evidence which cannot be made public, which tends to support the view that MM and SH are different people".

Firstly, what Uninvited company thinks is significant may not be of note as far as FT2 is concerned (this is because FT2 and Uninvited Company are different people). Secondly, when FT2 speaks of "new or recent" matters he may be excluding older matters of which Uninvited Company is speaking.

Thirdly they're both grown-ups and can presumably clarify if the feel the need to. :) --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not relied on any non-public evidence in this case.

As promised above, I have been drafting some comments further explaining my thinking behind the proposed decision. At the moment, the draft of my thoughts is thrice as long as it should be and contains too many stream-of-consciousness ramblings. As soon as it is honed to a reasonable level I will post it here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Again thanks for that Brad, but if any Arbs have relied on non-public evidence should that not be clearly stated in the decision? Is it not possible, without breaking any confidences, to characterize the nature of that evidence (most of us assume it is the "600 e-mails") and give a general sense of why some Arbs felt it belied the possibility of a Mantan-Sami sock connection? I fully understand privacy and confidentiality and all that, but can we not have a bit of a rough idea of what (if any) the off-wiki evidence was, who was persuaded by it, and why? Uninvited Company seems to be suggesting (over on WikBack) that he can say absolutely nothing about it, but it's extremely hard to imagine a reason why that would be so. As GDett has pointed out on UC's talk page (a question that remains unanswered) it's also hard to imagine how someone who rejects the "word choice analysis" (which UC does apparently) would be convinced by a side-by-side analysis of writing styles (I'm not trying to pick on UninvitedCompany here, in fact I appreciate the fact that he has been relatively forthcoming with his opinion).

There are clearly questions which need to be answered here. Since Brad has not relied on any non-public evidence, I hope that those who (apparently) have will step forward and give us a sense of what was going on there. This "secret evidence" ball has been in the air since the beginning of this case - Arbs who relied in small or large part on off-Wiki evidence cannot pretend that the rest of the community is going to take it on faith that they evaluated that evidence appropriately. We are well past that point and we need as much open discussion of this as possible (we certainly need more than "none"). This is an important case, we all know that, but the waters only seem to be getting muddier as we go along. Not good.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Brad, and hi to FT2. Now I do not wish to speculate in any way, so I wont, I will ask for clarification, regarding the nature and extent of secret evidence, if it is being taken into account at some weight by some Arbs. If such secret evidence is being taken into account, and if some substantial part of the evidence concerns the 600emails, then why was not a satisfactory answer offered to my evidence at /Evidence#Evidence presented by Newbyguesses, months ago days ago, at the/Evidence page?

Or has an answer been given that i did not see? And, if the 600emails do constitute evidence, to what extent is the Arbcom going to disclose the (non-BLPvio) nature of that evidence, and the reason for considering it?

That is, to be clear, if the 600emails are not under any condideration, then I have no question, and have wasted this post, sorry. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been following this case for a while and never felt the need to really get involved in the discussion but Newyorkbrad's latest comment really kills me. If the ArbCom is not relying on significant non-public evidence then the timidity of the proposed decision is baffling. I don't understand how anyone can look at the evidence presented over the last few weeks and arrive to any other conclusion: in all likelihood, SH and MM are either sock accounts or at the very least meatpuppets who have repeatedly, deceptively and often destructively worked in tandem. "Ah but what if SH is just a devilish long-term joe-job stunt?" say the conspiracy theorists. So what? Either way, this account needs to be blocked indefinitely.

The proposed "Allegations" says that evidence is inconclusive about SH = MM: I'm kind of scratching my head over this one, but hey, let's say I can understand how a very very careful ArbCom may arrive at that compromise statement. But the statement completely avoids the MM = GW issue. (or MM = GW's wife, GW's son, GW's dog or anyone else so close to GW that for all practical purposes MM = GW) The latter has been established beyond the shadow of a doubt and if ArbCom thinks otherwise, they should definitely say so. Because it's also a well established fact that MM has repeatedly denied being tied to GW, it's established that MM has used sockpuppets abusively in the past, it's established that he's been editing the Gary Weiss article without disclosing his conflict of interest, has systematically been involved in editing disputes concerning articles in which he has very personal reasons to edit tendentiously.

In its obsession to be fair to MM and SH and to avoid sanctions on these accounts without 100% steel-grade über-smoking-gun evidence, the ArbCom is forgetting that its prime responsibility is to make decisions which, all in all, will

a) help Wikipedia grow as a NPOV, quality encyclopedia,

b) help safeguard Wikipedia from the growing pressure from pseudo-editors who are interested in promoting their personal agenda and

c) ensure that the Wikipedia community can continue to self-regulate effectively.

Fairness? We, the community of responsible editors, are not asking you to be fair. We're asking you to help us. And your answer is "look, this is too delicate for us to really make a definite call, so why don't you handle it?" Well, gee, thanks a lot, but we're kind of sorry we asked your opinion.

In the process, you are setting a precedent which will make it almost impossible to impose sockpuppet blocks without going to RFCU and actually getting the smoking gun. You are refusing to acknowledge the fact that, regardless of the irresponsibility of WordBomb, Byrne, Bagley and co, and regardless of the harassment that MM, SH, GW (all three of them...) may have been the target of, the contribution of these accounts has been overall quite negative. Speaking as an admin who has never been involved in protection of these articles or blocks on the various parties, I believe it will be difficult for the ArbCom to dispel the impression that this case has not been treated in a transparent way and that who you know actually matters on Wikipedia.

I think it would be interesting for individual ArbCom members to say whether they agree with the following: "I believe that keeping the accounts of SH and MM unblocked will make Wikipedia a better place in the long run". This, we can all agree, is the real question. So why are you voting on absurdly convoluted statements such as "It has been alleged that editing of these articles may have been affected by abusive sock- or meat-puppetry, and/or conflicts of interest" and "A majority of the committee concludes that the weight of the credible evidence taken as a whole is suggestive of or consistent with a relationship between the two accounts, but that the absence of usable checkuser findings and other factors prevent a definitive conclusion from being reached."?

This case is extremely disappointing and I can only hope that very very few wikipedians will be made aware of it, because the little faith that they may still have in structures of authority on Wikipedia will vanish. What ArbCom is telling the community is "come to us if the case is sooooo simple that you could have handled it without coming to us". Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: in light of Dave4h's comment below, I've just added a few line breaks to (hopefully) help in reading. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Immediately above are fantastic comments by Pascal.Tesson. It could use some line breaks, but it's very good nonetheless! I suggest anyone interested in this case read it. (Incidentally, many good comments are lost in the shuffle on these talk pages—I find wiki talk pages a very difficult system in which to communicate with more than about 10 people, but that's another issue entirely) Thanks for your thoughts, Pascal. --daveh4h 08:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Editing content

In response to numerous comments, I created another section in evidence here on why the socking is relevant. The main point is that this is part of a long pattern of using alternate accounts to push POV, before asking that only the edits under the main account be considered. I think this is why the socking issue would ordinarily and should be addressed. Mackan79 (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Mackan's post makes for essential reading.

An important thing to realize here is that while traditional forms of sock abuse have occurred (double-voting, false consensus, etc.), examples of these are limited because there was a sort of baton hand-off to the SH account just as the MM account was leaving the articles in question – having been, as we now know, warned off of them because of the appearance of COI. Unacceptable as vote-stacking and so on are, the larger pattern of abuse here was one of gross POV-pushing by multiple socks, backed up by an implicit argumentum ad baculum. In light of strange comments by New Lover Etc. about "mind control" and so on, I want to stress here that I absolutely do not join him in conflating such a systemic failure of encyclopedic neutrality – even one as apparently total as this – with some kind of "conspiracy." There are many reasons admins backed Mantan so solidly, despite his occasional deceptions and regularly awful editing. Widespread concern about off-wiki harassment was a big factor, obviously, and was to some extent justified, and certainly deserves our understanding; strategic alliances MM cultivated seem also to have been a factor, and these deserve our cynicism – or better, our self-scrutiny. But in general I think it would be fair to say that a zealous institutional culture developed around the Bagley-Weiss wars on Wikipedia, attributable to both of the above factors and probably others, but not at all to any conspiracy, or to any top-down problem, Jimbo's "shoot-on-sight" episode notwithstanding. The fact that the block against Cla68 in the wake of Jimbo's comment – a block that in my view epitomized the institutional culture that had taken hold – was carried out by Durova, who has in turn been one of the most sober, circumspect, and assiduously fair-minded voices in the present investigation, is itself an excellent piece of evidence that the issue of systemic bias does not mean bad faith, and has no taint of "conspiracy," whatever New Lover Etc. might say.

I had planned to add an evidence section of gross POV-pushing, which would overlap significantly with Mackan's, but wondered (and continue to wonder) if anyone needs it? I have organized diffs if anyone wants them, but as Mackan says on the evidence page, the best thing to do is go and read the articles, especially in the state they were in before this case opened, and look at their histories.--G-Dett (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree very much with Gdett's comments here. I think for many editors it is exactly this lack of acknowledgement of good faith but wrong actions by a number of folks that is lacking from the proposed decision and a lacking of a specific pov/coi finding about both mm and sh if the committee cannot find it in their hearts joint the two accounts. The acknowlegement doesn't mean desysopping anyone, or other sanctions, but just acknowlegement that folks were wrong in the way they protected mm in the offsite dispute that has festered here. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To the extent I've been able to observe, that has been fueled by a mix of disbelief and surprise. We're all human beings and it isn't easy to back away from a position that one has acted upon for a while. Some individuals honestly doubt the strength of the circumstantial evidence, and others who have been persuaded maintain public silence because they still have a strong distaste for the methods that had been used to pursue this case for so long. This isn't a black and white situation. People who know that the "Wikipedia cabal" conspiracy theory is false have an understandable reluctance to attach their names to a position that might lend credence to other conspiracy theories they seriously doubt. Durova^Charge! 01:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, nobody would blame the ArbCom for noting that some of the harassment that went into pursuing this case is unacceptable. But the unacceptable behavior of one party does not prevent us from recognizing that the other party has also acted way beyond what is considered acceptable. Sure, it isn't easy to back away from a position that one has acted upon for a while. But if anyone here is acting to save face rather than to help the project, shame on them. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This issue was another reason I chose to introduce the enabling meme to this conversation back on the Workshop page. In reality, it can take some enablers years to realize that they are helping someone to abuse them - and some never realize it. Once we understand that people really thought they were doing the right thing, we also realize that for various reasons different people will take longer to realize that their actions were not actually helpful in effect, despite the good intent. To the committee, I will point out that you can't successfully lay these peripheral issues to rest without first solving the central issue. Putting dealing with MM back in the community's court will inevitably lead to the community also discussing the enabling again. GRBerry 04:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a single one of us has exercised the wisdom of Solomon throughout this situation. Some remedies do need to be enacted, yet it's also gracious to look inward and ask What did I contribute to this mess? How could I have acted better? The more people who step forward with that and state their own role candidly (on both sides), the more likely we'll be to learn from it and avoid a similar mess in the future. Durova^Charge! 04:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the Arbcom ruling is

I have lost all faith with the way Wikipedia works over this. For me, as soon as the Varkala evidence was shown, it was clear that Mantanmoreland = Gary Weiss. Before all of this I had no idea who Gary Weiss was. Random US financial journalists do not register on my radar, to be honest. But an encyclopedia that is meant to offer a real and neutral view on the world did once hit my radar. That a person can clearly game the system and use it to further their journalistic career is a disgrace, and shame on everyone who has allowed it to happen. I don't care if I am banned for this or whatever. But I will take to my grave the knowledge that Gary Weiss used Wikipedia to further his career. And I think everyone involved in that case knows that. Thanks for building a project we can all use as a resource, but no thanks for building an infrastructure that people can use to enhance their careers. Whitstable 02:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I can sincerely understand where you're coming from, and your frustration all over this. All I can say is, the fight will likely continue, no matter how ArbCom works out. It sucks, but that's the way it is. The project needs more editors to stand up and say "no, that's not right.. and I won't stand for it". Illegitimi non carborundum, Whitstable. SirFozzie (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand whitstable's frustration (though I wouldn't go as far), and I will say that this has cut into my enthusiasm for the project pretty substantially. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the Nth time I've seen the "...W used Wikipedia to further his career...". I still haven't seen anyone put forwards a good theory or evidence of how doing these edits would, in fact affect the career in any way. Will someone making the claim please explain how you feel this is so? I don't dispute that it's possible to advance off-wiki interests on-wiki, but nothing I've seen or seen alleged here seems to do so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

George, did you see the comments from the Gary Weiss AfD discussion I posted in my evidence section? The Weiss article was so obviously being used for publicity by the article's subject that most of AfD participants commented on that. Cla68 (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

...And? We knew that. There's a (again, presuming the ID / sock conclusion) COI there, but the article's been under extreme NPOV review pressure for some time by uninvolved admins and editors. If there are specific diffs of MM or SH making non-NPOV edits there and so forth, present them.

It is not evidence to point to controversies that these accounts were involved in. Evidence is "They were involved here, and did [[this]], linking to a diff or a specific comment or so forth which shows a specific policy violation.

Don't be lazy. Make the case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The case has been made in the context of Naked Short Selling, where a marginal theory unsupported in academic literature was aggressively pushed on the page. Do try not to be lazy and do some reading. Relata refero (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that there has been substantive NPOV work by "uninvolved admins and editors" on the articles that are the locus of dispute. Cla68 was blocked for a reasonable attempt to work on NPOV of one of the articles, not that long ago. And the founder said to shoot on sight anyone who esentially disagreed with mm/sh's pov. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There have been a truly ludicrous number of Wordbomb socks involved over the last few years. Those, we are nuking with prejudice and without formal reading of charges, yes.

Normal editors are not being sanctioned for getting involved.

The specifics of the Cla68 block were, as I recall and without going back to the complete discussions, Cla68 repeatedly reinserting stuff which had been inserted originally by Wordbomb, after being warned not to. That's not NPOV review - that's the specifically prohibited acting as a proxy for banned user meatpuppetry abuse that we can and do regularly block people for. Cla68 does not come to this with clean hands.

I have seen other editors and admins edit those pages, who haven't been involved on or off wiki with SH or MM discussions to my knowledge, who appeared to be working on NPOV stuff. That said, I have tried to stay out of the content disputes, because I neither care about the Journalist's career / biography nor the technical financial topics involved, and it's all been rather unseemly. My knowledge on the specifics of who's done what is mostly "what perked up to ANI or I happen to have seen on a quick article history review?". This is part of why I'm asking for the specific diffs. In the past I've looked at claims of COI or other abuse, and not been satisifed that the claims were well founded. But I am not living and breathing this incident, and if one accepts the posited identity / sock conclusions it's worth revisiting. So, I'm asking for diffs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an absurd interpretation of Wikipedia's banning policy. You seem to be saying that anything put in by a banned editor must be taken out, no matter what. Suppose WordBomb found a blatant copyright violation on Wikipedia and blanked it, marking it with the standard {{copyvio}} template. Would we be obligated to restore the copyright violation, and block anyone who restored the template or tried to delete the infringing material? What if a banned user fixes a spelling error — do we keep the bad spelling in place permanently to spite them? How far does this go? No, banned users don't get any say in how the encyclopedia is written, but Cla68 is not a banned user. He, using his own independent judgment, decided (correctly, in my opinion) that The New York Times was a reliable source for the article and that keeping it out on the grounds of "Bagley memes" was a clear violation of WP:NPOV. I don't care if the original edit was by Satan himself. To interpret the banning policy in the way you want is to institutionalize the ad hominem and Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacies into Wikipedia. *** Crotalus *** 04:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Crotalus, for this excellent summation of what, to many people, is one of the core issues here. Achromatic (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Cla68 was blocked for acting as a proxy for a banned user. Anyone who'd spent time to discuss on the talk page and justify the action, as opposed to merely and promptly reverting the banned users' edits back in when they were removed, would have been treated differently. The same action preceded by consensus-building on the talk page would not have resulted in sanctions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

he was blocked because the normal consensus building procedure of a content rfc was responded to by archiving and shoot on sight comments from mm/sh protective folks. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Cla68 and others including you are still quite grumpy about this. But we still have mountains of evidence of actual CU confirmed WB socks and IPs and meatpuppet accounts, and a number of other editors who behaved in a similar manner and timeframe. When you walk like a duck and talk like a duck in the middle of a duckpond, in duck season, you get quacked from time to time. Wordbomb and Byrne's ludicrous actions at the time required a ludicrous amount of response from a wide variety of editors and administrators. There are something like 100 known socks with thousands and thousands of edits. If someone wants to set up a side Request for Arbitration on it, Cla68 can lay out the case that they were sanctioned by an evil secret cabal, others can lay out the case for Cla68's proxy edits for banned users, others can lay out the context of the number of blocks, bans, reverts, socks, and so forth we've been dealing with, and Arbcom can determine who was misbehaving, who stepped in front of shitfans by accident, and who stepped in front of them on purpose. That's not this case. I'm still waiting for more diffs here in this one. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, WBsocks have nothing to do with this case, which is about/Mantanmoreland. WB is banned, cannot give evidence, and everyone agrees, probably, that WB is not the "elephant in the room". I really do not see what point you are making here. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that it's not the normal pov pushing nut job stuff, but when I read the talk page of GW, it looks alot like sh or mm scolding users for being wb socks/meats/following the lead of evil people. I have not studied the articles, as I don't give a crap about the subject, I'm concerned with abuse of the community. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC) And as far as normal editors not getting sanctioned? see User:Piperdown. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with SirFozzie, Whitstable, and I'd encourage you to stick around. While this particular case may be pretty blatant, I'd venture to guess that many, many Wikipedia editors have enhanced their careers in some form or other by writing here. I personally know of two editors who have only ever written here for the pleasure of writing and sharing information, but who have been offered paid writing jobs in the real world based on their Wikipedia work. Hundreds of students have honed their writing and researching skills, indirectly boosting their grade point average and thus their marketability. I've become a better copy editor, a skill that's translated into heightened esteem for my work in my field of employment. We're all here for our own personal reasons, some of which are more altruistic than others.

Wikipedia is not a utopia, no matter how hard some people try to make it that. The current emphasis on "civility" (which seems to be defined as "behaving like me, except when I'm being a jerk") has overridden some of the other behavioural norms within the project. This is probably a temporary situation, and the pendulum will swing again. Sadly, despite all of the other evidence people have or could come up with in respect of this case, SamiHarris and Mantanmoreland haven't been particularly rude to anyone, so it may be impossible to sanction them in this current climate where social niceties are of prime importance. Again, stick it out - in a few months, there will be a bigger issue - probably COI or something similar - that will become the focus. (And George - I think I have answered your question here as well.) Risker (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Again presuming the conclusion, but how would someone already established as a professional journalist and book author gain experience with writing, research, etc by contributing pseudonymously or anonymously here? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I feared precisely this interpretation. The main event is not whether or not Gary Weiss used Wikipedia to further his career. That is incidental. The main event is that Wikipedia is being used as an instrument of mass mind control in the cover-up of a financial crime that, just today, the SEC denounced in a public hearing while proposing a change of rules to address. Wikipedia is now downplaying a crime that even the last-to-get-it regulators are now pursuing. ArbCom has reinforced Wikipedia's hermetically-sealed version of the truth so that the gap between it and reality grows wider every day. If you want to make sense of this whitewash, see more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PatrickByrne/Whitewash_essay PatrickByrne (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You have contributed nothing to these discussions that did not violate our policies WP:BATTLE and WP:SOAP. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

George, did you read the above section? I had your concerns specifically in mind. Mackan79 (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Which above section by whom? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The section immediately above; it references the evidence section added here. As to Byrne you might also consider that he's speaking not as a standard Wikipedian but as an affected individual, which should come with different expectations. Mackan79 (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as violating Wikipedia policy - regrettably it is likely true. I have not, in fact, mastered the intricacies of Wikipedia policy. Once all of this is over, and I have a better sense of the standard oeprating procedures around here, I would love to come back and edit the articles relating to Daoism and Zen. However, in the meantime, I am trying and, as someone points out, for better or worse, I am at the heart of this controversy. If you folks promise not to hold my neophyte errors against me I will promise not to rely too much upon that indulgence. PatrickByrne (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2) George, advancing a career also takes other forms than merely gaining experience, though I can see how Risker's post misled you to think that was what was going on here. Beyond a certain point in the career, knowing the basics of a field pretty much becomes taken for granted. Making more money by promoting a book (GW's explicit reason for starting his blog), moving from C list to B list blogging by spamming links to the blog and gaining peer prestige, being seen as good at understanding controversial areas because a reference work backs you up... All of these are ways of advancing a career. And MM did all of that here for GW. GRBerry 04:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

...And all of which should have easily citeable diffs for specific COI / NPOV violations. Why are we not yet flooded with diffs? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

GeorgeWH, this is classic diversionary tactics. If you truly just do not want to know, despite anything, why not just put in some ear=plugs and be done with it? I don't know whom you are trying to represent here, but it is not any set of editors who have actually read the evidence. Are you off noah's Ark, or a visitor from the fairies at the bottom of the garden? Either way, between your posts and tony's, there must be some prospect of an ig-Nobel prize being awarded here for the advancement of pseudo-scientific theories. Have you really not seen enough evidence? This page alone takes over a minute to load to my computer. Best of luck,Newbyguesses - Talk 05:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a little harsh. GWH is one of the folks who has been involved in the constant blocking of wb hosiery. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That rather badly broaches WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Uninvolved admins / clerks? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Newbyguesses: this page is almost entirely populated by people arguing with each other. People arguing with each other is not evidence of MM / SH / GW Conflicts of Interest, sockpuppetry policy abuses, etc.

This case was alledgedly brought not because MM / SH are sockpuppets, but because they were violating sockpuppet policy abusively. The evidence for the abusive behavior is being posted in bits and pieces here and there. There are some votes, some bad hand / good hand, some reinforcing each other / making it appear that more people support a position. But there have only been... eight? total diffs posted along those lines last I looked, which actually showed something which might be abusive. Why are we not buried in diffs? If they've been abusively sockpuppeting for years, why are there not hundreds of diffs?

We cannot possibly have spent all this time and effort for eight specific point policy violations. Can we? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Whilst determining violations of NPA and CIVIL, do be sure to cast an eye over this assertion: "You have contributed nothing to these discussions that did not violate our policies WP:BATTLE and WP:SOAP". Achromatic (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I put a motion up on the Workshop page, with diffs, to support that statement. Patrick Byrne has admitted such above in a civil and constructive response. Whether the motion is taken up by Arbcom is up to them, but I did not make the statement without having appropriate backing evidence. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Georgewilliamherbert, my personal apologies for the ill-considered post, which I struck. One thing, I do know for sure that yourself has been following this case closely, from the start, since I have read your#Evidence. I meant no disrespect, as you say there is a lot of wasted argument on this page, which is frustrating, it takes too long to load, and to read, so I lashed out.

Now, I would urge people, whether new to this case or not, to again review the material on the/Evidence page, and the/Workshop page, that material is superior to this page for finding facts, and DIFFs. maybe it's a big ask, TERaBytes of stuff, i don't know, I am no giant brain and i have read it over; I cannot claim any clever understanding of what is going on here, but I try. I know you are trying too, User:GWH, thanks, I urge others all respected, to review those pages, that's where it's at. Newbyguesses - Talk 07:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

George, it doesn't appear that you are listening. I have never seen it required to provide a list of 50 difs that are completely absurd on their face. That isn't how POV pushing happens. It happens through a large number of subtle problems, and then every now and then something extreme that jumps out of the rest. I am sure that I could find many more examples, but frankly it would seem you owe it to give a better response to what has already been provided if you'd like to keep demanding more evidence. People don't have limitless time to pull up difs for every new person who comes along and doesn't appear to be reading what is already there. Mackan79 (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And yet they do have time to write a half-megabyte of argument here? I am listening. I see some stuff in evidence. I don't see a slam-dunk case, the sort of thing we instaban people for.

People are alleging the slam-dunk case. Over and over again. But won't provide enough or more evidence? This makes no sense. People have spent what appears to be many man-weeks on statistical software generation and analysis, on correlating real-world activities with on-wiki edit patterns on times and dates.

Why is the same standard not being applied to the "...and it was abusive..." clause of the "abusive sockpuppetry" suggested finding?

I want to be convinced one way or the other. Evidence has come to light regarding identities which If ind decently convincing; I can quibble with bits of it, but some pieces are unanswered and pretty strong on the face of it.

I want you and everyone else to step up to the plate, and convince me that beyond that assumption, enough actual serious abuse happened that I should support a community ban following this, even if Arbcom doesn't impose one.

So... ? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"[C]onvince me that [...] enough actual serious abuse happened" Here's a start: Double voting -- Lastexit and Mantanmoreland. Yes, this is not SH and MM, and yes, the matter apparently was dealt with by Fred Bauder to Fred Bauder's satisfaction (not to mine, and I hope not to anyone's), but it's abusive sockpuppetry and helped Mantanmoreland get in the habit of further abusive sockpuppetry. More to the point, take a look at votes #24 and #73 at this Mongo RFA. And there's more at SirFozzie's investigation page. I'm not sure this goes so far as to say "asked and answered", but it's abusive sockpuppetry, if you accept the evidence given that there was sockpuppetry, and it doesn't rely on deciding whether or not the two accounts were POV-pushing.Noroton (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC) (rewrote last sentence to expand and clarify Noroton (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

I don't think you see how your tone is coming across. You claim to be listening, but I don't see that you have spent more than 10 minutes between your various posts here to actually review what has been presented. You come back instead with the number of difs that you claim to have seen. That tells me you aren't listening. Mackan79 (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Part of this discussion hinges on why Cla68 got blocked. So I'll clarify: he did not get blocked for adding a New York Times citation to an article. The reason for blocking was this: JzG had archived the article talk page because the talk page contained looser speculation than the article itself. I endorsed that decision and so did Jimbo, who added the shoot on sight statement. Cla68 followed up with a post which, in my opinion at the time, amounted to turning on the gas stove beneath the frog in the saucepan. I didn't want the page to degenerate into a free for all. Obviously there were flaws in that decision, but that was my thinking at the time, and that's why I was obligated to look into this situation more thoroughly later on. Durova^Charge! 05:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing Cla68's edits at the time, I find Jimbo's statement and the block utterly incomprehensible. It's notable that Samiharris thought Cla68 was blocked for suggesting the New York Times. Cool Hand Luke 05:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The context is WB sockpuppets and ongoing abuse. Assume potential for overreaction or mistaken targeting in the immediate vicintity of any WB sightings. As further context - the offsite harrassment campaigns which were going on and being discussed offsite contemporaneously. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Also assume what was in fact the case: that the failure of legitimate editors to explicitly distance themselves from problematic behavior raised questions about their judgement, and that pushing the envelope at that particular juncture was not a good idea. At the time, I had trouble imagining why Cla68 was tarnishing his sterling reputation over the matter. Durova^Charge! 06:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Because NPOV matters. It's Foundation issue #1 - not just a core principle, but the core principle of this website. And he clearly thought (and I agree) that excluding an article from one of the US's most respected newspapers that makes two people both look bad from one of their articles while including it in the other's article is as clear a violation of NPOV as you'll find. Having an article on someone who's such a "non-public figure" that we can't even include criticism of him that appeared in one of the US's most respected newspapers, is a NPOV violation. I guess some people care more about our core principles than their own reputation. —Random832 17:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't give up on the project yet

Yeah, it's demoralizing, but it's not worth quiting yet. I admit there might be good reasons that ArbCom is doing this. It's surely chilling to realize that a Wikipedia verdict might find its way into a real-world court battle some day. I would hesitate to sign such an opinion myself.

So I'm just waiting for the community to get the case back. I have a lot of real life work to do in the next two weeks, so I've got to stop following this impotent ArbCom; I'm taking a Wikivacation.

I find that this discussion has become unreadable anyway. It's also increasingly populated with people radically unfamiliar with the evidence, who ask asinine questions about what "SH" means. I've also been disappointed with the Arbitrator's candor. For example, I'm not sure how many times I've asked about the supposed stylistic dissimilarities between Mantanmoreland's and Samiharris' emails, but no one to date has answered this question. I can only assume that either (1) we're found contemptible by certain members of the community, or (2) that these claims are based on analysis significantly more prone to selection bias and mysterious methodology than anything I've posted.

Someone email me when the community has the case back. I suggest three remedies as a starting point for discussion:

1. Indefinite block of User:Samiharris, an account which has engaged in prolific POV-pushing, and is also apparently a sockpuppet. Some suggest that he might actually be WordBomb. I think that claim is absurd on its face, but if you really believe that, then he should still be blocked—unless we honestly believe that WordBomb is welcome to edit here. Pascal.Tesson summarizes this case very well.
2. Topic ban for User:Mantanmoreland on W/Overstock topics, including naked short selling. I think the community can safely draw a conclusion of COI from this evidence, and based on apparent promotional and POV-pushing edits. I also think it's a reasonable restriction. We're only talking about five articles here. Except NSS, Mantanmoreland has been avoiding these articles since September anyway. I should hope that the Wikipedia community, acting on sound and public evidence, should command as much respect as SlimVirgin's private request based on a hunch.
3. Optionally, a block of Mantanmoreland for sockpuppeteering. I don't think this is absolutely necessary, but there has been severe gaming of the community's trust here. I think the block on MM should be shorter; perhaps three or six months, and certainly not over a year.

Anyhow, good luck with this ArbCom. Cool Hand Luke 05:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, but enjoy, u:Cool Hand luke, you have contributed majorly, and will again, so you certainly deserve a break if you want to take one! Now, you have reminded me, that, many days ago in my#Evidence, I posed this very question concerning the 600emails, and have had, I think no satisfactory reply, which is to say, no reply at all. Therefore, I with low esteem at this point, do assume that i newbyguesses is also found contemptible here, but, helpfully, not by all here. I respect the Arbs. and their deliberations, and may not give up just yet, though I am due a break, especially as i mis-speak at times, and am harsh in my own ears, Ah, well—Newbyguesses - Talk 07:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The community has always had the case - delaying community action to allow arbcom to finish is done out of respect for the committee - respect it seems to be rapidly losing (I'm waiting for Newyorkbrad to post his thoughts as he said he would, before I give up hope.) —Random832 17:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The real harm to the project

"Comment on the content, not the contributor" it says in the nutshell for WP:NPA, but that very philosophy is what the entire encyclopedia is all about. GWH in this edit summarizes one philosophy: that edits by a banned user are automatically bad edits, and once a banned user makes an edit, anyone repeating that edit is by definition acting on behalf of the banned editor. I describe this philosophy as the socialization of content. The other philosophy is that it does not make a difference who makes the edit, the only issue is whether or not it adds or detracts from the article. I call this the who cares, is it good for the encyclopedia? philosophy.

It doesn't matter who is a sockpuppet of whom here. The harm that Mantanmoreland and SamiHarris (whoever they may be in real life) have brought to our encyclopedia is the ritualised restriction of content, regardless of the value of the content, in several articles. That other good faith editors were blocked, humiliated, and threatened when pursuing the improvement of the encyclopedia is the real damage. That administrators, many no doubt acting in good faith or having had their own personal foibles taken advantage of, protected articles, deleted RfCs and blocked editors, and have now had their own reputations tarnished by those decisions is another harm that has come to the encyclopedia.

We keep being reminded that we're here to write an encyclopedia. Anyone who gets in the way of good faith editors doing that, not once but repeatedly, should not be here. Risker (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to give a concrete example of the issues I raised above with regards to "proxying for a banned user" and how broadly this should be interpreted.

Not long ago on WikBack, Gregory Kohs posted a question that asked whether certain BLP articles were appropriate. I reviewed the examples he gave, and determined that some of the articles he pointed out were indeed not appropriate for Wikipedia. I nominated Leah Mates for deletion (and it was deleted), and I moved Elecia Battle to Mega Millions lottery fraud incident to reflect the content (this article was later prodded by another editor, and then deleted). In my judgment, these actions were appropriate by Wikipedia policy and helped to improve the encyclopedia by removing material that clearly failed WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. Other editors clearly agreed with this.

But Gregory Kohs is a banned user (MyWikiBiz). Does that mean I was obligated to disregard his statements on WikBack? Was I acting as a "proxy for a banned user" by making these changes and should I be blocked as a result? Again, I did not make these changes simply because he said to; I made them because in my own judgment they were the right thing to do. (Other articles named by him, in my opinion, did not fall into the same category, so I did not propose deleting them.) If Daniel Brandt pointed out another instance of plagiarism on Wikipedia (as he did before) should we refuse to correct it on the grounds that this would be proxying for a banned user?

We ban users. We don't ban ideas or concepts. The notion of "proxying for a banned user" was obviously meant to apply to cases where people were posting whatever else someone said to, without applying judgment or discretion. It was not meant to apply to established editors. *** Crotalus *** 06:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I must say that I concur with u:Risker's setting out, and with u:Crotalus' supporting the case for the "who cares, is it good for the encyclopedia? philosophy." as well. So, I will state then as I should, a counter-argument; and that is: this philosophy is most appealing when it is evident that all observers are, um, intelligent and independent-minded. There does arise the danger, however, of a feedback loop, and the bandwagon effect, whereby more and more (people) become convinced, in toto by actually less and less (real evidence). I believe it was this type of worry which was uppermost in some minds at the time of the banning of u:Cla68, and perhaps is still uppermost in some minds, I wonder, User:GWH.

I will ask then, for now, as I sure have no answers at this stage, sorry: on behalf of which set of abusers, and sock-puppets is it that we should be most afraid, if we are afraid, at this time.

And if we are not afraid, then what considered and conclusive action do we, in our full splendour, and candour, take? Newbyguesses - Talk 07:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A case study in “Jihad”: BLP, smear campaigns, and Wikipedia’s complicity in same

GWH, you’ve asked people to “step up to the plate” with diffs that convince you serious abuse has taken place. Others have provided you with excellent evidence of traditional sock abuse – vote-stacking, manufacturing consent, 6RR, and so on. As you may know, I’m much more concerned about gross violation of NPOV by Weiss’s sock farm, coupled with a systemic failure to correct it so absolute that it amounted, in effect if not intent, to systemic unwitting complicity in a campaign of propaganda, self-promotion, and defamation. In other words, pretty much the worst sort of abuse conceivable on Wikipedia.

The components I’ve studied most closely are self-promotion on the Gary Weiss article and character assassination on the Patrick M. Byrne article. In this post I’ll focus on the latter, both because I think long-standing defamation on Wikipedia (in this case almost two years) is a more serious issue than promotional puffery, and because I think your tart remarks directed at User:PatrickByrne above are inappropriate. He’s not here to improve articles on tree frogs; he’s here representing his real-world self, as a victim of a campaign of defamation in which we are all somewhat complicit, some of us more than others; we owe him a collective apology, not smug links to guidelines covering our internal etiquette, which isn't his problem.

The problems with the article Patrick M. Byrne are manifold, but my case study will focus on a single word: “Jihad.” From early 2006, when the first pair of Weiss socks arrived at the article, until last week or so, when the article was finally released from Weiss’s OWNership, the word “Jihad” was used (with ever-increasing prominence) to describe Byrne’s campaign against naked short selling. The word was first added to an ordinary paragraph by one Weiss sock, then was promoted to a subheading by another Weiss sock, and at one point was even installed into the lead sentence (!) by Mantanmoreland himself. Once ownership of the article was handed off from Mantanmoreland to Samiharris, the latter did any necessary revert-warring to keep it in. In the history of the article, apart from a couple of whole-sale reverts by Fred Bauder of multiple edits by WB socks, I can’t find any non-Weiss-sock who supported the material, or who generally thought “Jihad” was a good NPOV synonym for “campaign” – in the English language generally, or in this article on a living person specifically.

The various Weiss socks argued that “Jihad” was the preferred term of Byrne himself for his campaign. Two minutes of research reveal that claim to be a rank deception. Here’s the background: in late 2005, after a particular bad third quarter for Overstock, Patrick Byrne said self-deprecatingly, “Some will criticize me for taking my eye off the ball to pursue a jihad." Then, when Byrne's father stepped down as chairman of Overstock, he told the Wall Street Journal that he "couldn't tell whether this jihad adds to the value of the stock or subtracts from it, but what it does is take from Patrick's time." That's it.

The real-life Gary Weiss immediately seized upon the possibilities for character assassination afforded by Byrne’s self-deprecatory comment. In early 2006, on his attack/harassment site, garyweiss.blogspot.com, Weiss wrote that Byrne’s use of the word “jihad”

got me to thinking about his politics. What other "jihads" does Byrne endorse? After all, my only personal experience with jihads is this one, which happened down the street from me a few years ago. It was unpleasant, but I'm willing to keep an open mind on the subject. Maybe there are some good "jihads" out there that Byrne can suggest...[64]

...and so forth and so on, blah blah jihad blah blah. "This one" in the passage above is hyperlinked by Weiss to photographs of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

In early April, Weiss’s “Tomstoner” sock added a brief paragraph about the father’s resignation, quoting the word “jihad.” This is a justifiable edit. If foregrounding the word “jihad” skirts the edges of WP:UNDUE, it does at least give the flavor of fatherly exasperation with the junior Byrne’s management style, which after all is what made the story notable in the first place. Then a couple weeks later Weiss’s other sock Lastexit changes the title of the section on "Media Attention" to "'Jihad' against naked shorting"; LE's new edit also featured a sentence that read "Byrne subsequently commenced what he described as a "jihad" against naked short selling."

In October of that year Mantanmoreland joins in with the "jihad." After a series of skirmishes with a WordBomb sock over whether The Register was a reliable source (nota bene: this was before The Register had published material critical of Weiss, and both Mantan's position and Wikipedia's at that time was that The Register was reliable), Mantan performed a curious edit, which claimed in its edit summary to merely "rv POV pushing" by the WB sock, but in fact installed a new lead sentence that had never been introduced or discussed before. It read, "Patrick M. Byrne is President and CEO of internet retailer Overstock.com best known for his "jihad" against Naked short selling." He then edit-warred four more times in October to protect this extraordinary lead. [65] [66] [67] [68] After more edit-warring from WordBomb socks, Mantan finally settled for a lead that read "Patrick M. Byrne is President and CEO of internet retailer Overstock.com. He is best known for his allegations that naked short sellers, whose alleged leader he referred to as the "Sith Lord", targeted the stock of Overstock.com." The last clause – this is the lead sentence of a BLP, remember – refers to a jokey Star Wars reference Byrne made in a phone interview.

One thing should be clear by now. As awful as the Byrne article has been for the last two years – that is, as grossly as it violates BLP and NPOV – we have, by and large, only WordBomb socks to thank for its not having been much worse. No ordinary editor was going to go in there and fix the grotesquerie, and when Cla68 – an editor of sterling reputation – tried to fix problems in related articles – he was accused of being a WordBomb sock. One of the wilder conspiracy theorists on Wikipedia – the same editor now floating the theory that Samiharris might be Wordbomb – even suggested she had undisclosed evidence that Cla68 lived in Utah. And you, GWH, are still claiming – with what I would call breathtaking audacity – that Cla68 acted as a sort of meatpuppet, that his hands are somehow not clean, to which I can only respond that no hands remain clean after scooping up Weiss’s leavings. I do not think that statement of yours merits much response, but I will say that either your impossibly high standards of evidence for sockpuppetry and COI are coupled with alarmingly low standards of evidence for meatpuppetry, or pridefulness has gotten the better of your reason with regards to the present matter.

Back to “jihad” on the Byrne page. After the baton hand-off from Mantan to Sami, Sami took up the mantle of edit-warring over prominent references to “jihad.” Here he is in March of 2007, “adding reference to "jihad" oddly omitted from article", but of course not simply adding a reference but adding a prominent heading, changing “Campaign against naked shorting" to "'Jihad' against naked shorting." Then again here ("reverting POV changes and removal of sourced material and links by SPA") and here ("rv vandalism by SPA"), and here ("rv", no further explanation).

This is a case study of one word. As Mackan has eloquently pointed out, however, the process of strangulation of an article by propaganda has to be looked at holistically.--G-Dett (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this excellent evaluation of one piece of the problem. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The various Weiss socks argued that “Jihad” was the preferred term of Byrne himself for his campaign. Two minutes of research reveal that claim to be a rank deception. One minute of research reveals seventy media references to Byrne's use of the term "jihad."[69]--Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)