Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: This discussion was combined from separate discussions on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Related material to consider includes:

Contents

[edit] Request for more admin eyes on an issue (RE:RfCU result)

First off, this has the potential to get very heated very quickly, so I ask that folks PLEASE do their best to be WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF of each other.

One of the long-running fights between Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review was banned User:WordBomb's contention that the accounts of Mantanmoreland and User:Samiharris were controlled by the same person. The two accounts seemed to have common interests, specifically in stock-related articles regarding Naked Short Selling and other articles like Microcap stock fraud. The two accounts have backed each other up in these articles, as well as on related articles for deletion, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Investopedia [1].

Recently, a checkuser was done (admittedly, requested by an account who has since been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of WordBomb), which came back as Inconclusive for the following reason: One of the accounts involved has only edited via open proxies. This was later confirmed by a second checkuser. The open proxies that which ever user it was (CheckUser did NOT release that information, per privacy concerns), have been confirmed as blocked. However, that leaves us with a sticky situation.

The fact that of two seemingly related accounts, CheckUser is impossible to confirm any relationship due to the use of open proxies fills me with great concern. It means that we have to fall back on an imperfect standard, that of The Duck Test to find a correlation between the two accounts. That means we have to take action based only on actions, editing patterns and common quirks between the two accounts. I find the evidence credible, but this may assuming bad faith that a common person would know that due to the history about these accounts, that using open proxies would be a requirement to avoid showing a link because sooner or later, CheckUser would be asked for on these accounts.

I freely admit that I am admittedly a biased source, having had a run-in with one of the two accounts that was.. rather acrimonious. What I am looking for is folks to weigh in on the following question:

Knowing that no CheckUser check can be done due to one account uses open proxies only, do you find the accusation that the two accounts are similar under WP:DUCK to be credible]]?

I would request a DISCUSSION (not bombast, threats, or the usual suspects agreeing/disagreeing with each other about this.) I also know that WR has posted off-Wiki information supposedly linking the two accounts, to a real-world IP address and person. I am not endorsing this or linking to it, because quite frankly, I found the tactics.. well.. not to my liking. I am going STRICTLY by the On-Wikipedia evidence here. SirFozzie (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Unclean hands is a part of US Common law for good reason. It should be a part of wikipedia common practice. He sockpuppeted to counter Wordbomb's odious disruption (if he even sockpuppeted at all)? Cry Me A River. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I disagree. If we want to have the so-called moral high ground on our actions, by God, we'd better be acting the way we preach. That means following the rules (No, double voting on AfD's and constantly propping each other in arguments won't fly as an WP:IAR action. I don't care who the messenger is, as long as the message is true.. which it seems to be. SirFozzie (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
How does allowing odious Wordbomb to harass our good editors grant us the moral highground? This must have been part of the lecture on morality I missed. Perhaps it was between "do not harm other people intentionally" and "don't hold grudges." PouponOnToast (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
PS - could you think of any reason why someone who was defending naked short selling on wikipedia would want to make themselves functionally anonymous? I can! PouponOnToast (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
That would be understandable.. IF the two accounts didn't act as a team on many arguments and double-!Votes. SirFozzie (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
If I edited from open proxies only, would I be a sock puppet of Science Apologist for agreeing with him and voting with him a lot, and having reasonably the same daily editing schedule? PouponOnToast (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a bit difficult to use this as an example, because if you've seen the off-wiki information you'd naturally have a different opinion. However, in general, I would not have a problem blocking account per the duck test if they pass the "reasonable person" test - i.e. looking at the contributions, would a reasonable person assume that they are the same editor. Indeed, for certain CU-avoiding long term vandals and POV-pushers, we eventually have little option but to listen for the sound of distant quacking. Black Kite 21:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the evidence is clear. Near-identical editing patterns; CU-confirmed open proxy abuse; documented evidence such as answering questions intended for the other account; a duck is a duck. Mantanmoreland has been using an alternate account abusively to influence discussion and votes as if he were two users. :/ krimpet✽ 21:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but responding to a post by one of the WordBomb socks by saying "this has been asked and answered a dozen times" does not a near identical editing pattern make. We intersect barely and I have made it a point to avoid stock market conspiracy related articles because of just the kind of harassment that Samiharris is getting off-wiki. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but this does: Another administrator who had access to an analysis tool useful to compare two accounts ran a comparison of the two accounts, and considered the technical evidence striking: Here's the analysis:
Common edit time: Approximately 3:30 PM on each side (the two accounts differed on median edit time by only 13 minutes)
Number of articles which both Samiharris and Mantanmoreland have jointly participated: 45
% of articles that Samiharris has edited that were also were on pages that Mantanmoreland has edited: 27 percent.
% of edits that Samiharris made that were on pages that Mantanmoreland has edited: 60%
The evidence of Quacking is growing in my eyes. SirFozzie (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Is weak evidence like that presented above appropriate? "Another administrator" "an analysis tool?" Could you please provide confirmation of the other adminstrator and the tool used? Since said tool would require no access, perhaps just providing us the output of the tool would be fine. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
PouponOnToast, the tool in question was written by me. see some of my recent WP:SSP edits and the {{usercompare}} which is what they are using. Ill run it and post the info in ~3-4 hours when I get back to my main PC. I have given limited access to users to run their own checks when ever they want, but due to server resource issues the tool is not public. but should anyone want access Ill give it to people that I know will not abuse it. I will also run a user compare when asked. I have not looked at the data and make no comments on the actual results. βcommand 17:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Betacommand/Sandbox βcommand 04:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I was the one who compiled the statistics and provided them to SirFozzie. Anyone could do the exact same thing with a calculator or a spreadsheet. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


Actually, that fails the duck test. It's evidence of similarity of interests, and in conjunction with other interests would potentially be part of a duck test analysis, but the degree of non-similarity you demonstrate above is something that true sockpuppet accounts are rarely able to maintain over time.

-

I think you've provided Mantanmoreland and Sami with great evidence for the defense. Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

-

Uh.. ok, whatever you say, GWH. Whatever you say. For your next trick are you going to Prove that black is white and get run over at the next zebra crossing? SirFozzie (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
By that I mean, you're awfully flippant about insisting that evidence that several admins find highly compelling of a duck test, means just the opposite. SirFozzie (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I got yelled at quite a bit for defending the Piperdown duck test results last week. Piperdown admittedly posts a lot at Wikipedia Review, and admittedly was editing the same articles repeatedly as WordBomb had, an article set overlap that approached 100%.
Had the evidence for Piperdown being a sock been as weak as the evidence that Sami and Mantan are socks, people would have been calling for my and David Gerard's admin bits.
It is not reasonable for it to be OK to use much much less strong article interest overlaps as evidence against non-abusive, longstanding Wikipedia editors but not ok to use 100% similarity against WP critics. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have had some interaction with User:Samiharris (full disclosure, he GA'd Option (finance) of which I am a principle editor). I found him to be knowledgeable and serious. It's hard for me to reconcile what I know of him with the accusation of crass sock-puppetry. The evidence seems pretty thin. Ronnotel (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not edited Naked short selling in two months[2], and then it was to revert some blatant POV pushing by a WordBomb sock. [3]. Samiharris has been all over that article before and since, which is precisely why he is being targeted by Judd Bagley. I have never edited Option (finance). Another biggie for Samiharris is Patrick M. Byrne. He is all over that and I haven't edited that in five months. Point of information: Byrne is Bagley's (Wordbomb's) boss. Bagley is director of communications of Overstock.com

Check out the revision history of Patrick M. Byrne in 500-edit mode. [4]. Wordbomb sock after WordBomb sock and me last editing on Sept. 19.

Oh, I forgot: Talk:Naked short selling.[5] My last edit was Dec. 7. Samiharris's last edit before that was Oct. 16 and his first edit after that was.... aw gee, no edits. But there is John Nevard, who is also being targeted by Wikipedia Review so I guess that counts. Zowie! Me and my sock didn't coordinate too well that time. Got to get my spreadsheet out to figure out where that one went wrong.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Am I the only one wondering how hard Bagley is currently laughing at the disruption his sockpuppet caused by logging this checkuser request? The whole thing is caused by a checkuser request logged by a checkuser blocked sockpuppet of WordBomb. Back when I was a lad I was taught that anythign created by a banned user while banned was eligible for immediate deletion, WP:CSD#G5. Even if we don't do that, CheckUser came back "unlikely", and although some good people are re-examining the entrails I don't see much evidence that this will change. Bagley is a known net.kook and absolutely not above forgery, the "evidence" he presents off-wiki is questionable not just because he is a vicious agenda-driven troll but also because the times have been called into question. In the absence of hard evidence, or indeed of evidence of an actual problem with the edits made by either account, I am strongly inclined to point Bagley in the direction of the colloquial version of Genesis 1:28 and leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Note the juicy irony in User:JzG citing "anythign created by a banned user while banned was eligible for immediate deletion, WP:CSD#G5," when JzG has been caught in the past deleting content that was created by banned users when they weren't banned, then claiming WP:CSD#G5 as his reason for doing so. Whatever a super-admin wants, he gets. -- Man On The Scene (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant. WP:CSD#G5 is policy, unambiguosuly so. Created by a banned user while banned = speedy deletion, no questions asked. Oh bollocks, I got trolled by a Kohs sockpuppet yet again. When will I learn? Sigh. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This is exactly what I was expecting when I posted this section, that the usual suspects would turn this into the latest "OMGBADSITES" discussion. And as I said on the RfCU talk page.. if something smells bad on Wikipedia, and someone who points out that there's a bad smell, and it turns out there really IS a bad smell, I won't sit there and ignore the bad smell because I don't like the person who told me there was a bad smell. Come on Guy. SirFozzie (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
What is "bad for Wikipedia" is that confirmed sockpuppets of the Director of Communications of Overstock.com have been repeatedly editing articles related to the CEO of Overstock.com, as can be seen from the edit history of Patrick M. Byrne. That same corporate executive is now using your favorite anti-Wikipedia website to further the campaign on behalf of his employer. That is bad for Wikipedia, and so is your pushing this jihad without bothering to do proper due diligence and check the contribution history of either myself or Samiharris. Instead you just parroted Bagley's allegations here.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't be daft. WordBomb logged the CheckUser request, it should be nuked. If not nuked, it is inconclusive. As noted above, the mere fact of being interested in naked short selling is enough to get WordBomb on your case; he is an obsessive troll. And I thought we'd learned our lesson about "sleuthing" established editors. It's got nothign to do with that other site you're involved in, other than as the venue for Bagley publishing his possibly fraudulent evidence. I don't know why anyone would give him the time of day, he's so obviously off in laa-laa land on this subject. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary Break

Please notice: I have not referenced this "possibly fraudulent" evidence, other then to note that it exists. I relied SOLELY on On-Wikipedia evidence, such as the CheckUser report, and a comparison of ON-Wikipedia edits. And as for "sleuthing" editors.. I can understand why it's got a bad reputation after recent events, but, as administrators, in cases where CheckUser cannot establish innocence or guilt (due to one account solely using open proxies, as here.. so no CheckUser could EVER determine either way), it's all we have. Every time we block someone where it's not immediately obvious that the two accounts are the same, we're "sleuthing". Every time we apply the DUCK test, we're Sleuthing. It's not the technique that seems to be at fault, it's apparently the choice of targets. SirFozzie (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The checkuser report on-wiki confirms that the IPs used for editing by the two accounts are completely different - one via proxies only, one via normal IPs only. Ignoring the proxy editing issue for the moment, my understanding is that it's very hard for sockpuppet editors to avoid slipping and editing from the wrong IP address over the course of weeks, months, or years. If they are in fact the same person, then they're accomplishing a level of methodical avoidance of mistakes that has not been seen in the long-term abuse cases by determined, very talented abusive banned users in the past. As a general rule, lack of such mistakes would form reasonable doubt, given that sockpuppeteers have otherwise proved universally fallable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
But this doesn't mean the user has avoided slipping for "weeks, months, or years", it means there have been no such mistakes for 30 days. —Random832 16:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not generally bruited about, but CheckUser evidence goes back a good deal further than 30 days. It's only guaranteed for that long, but I've heard tell of very much longer periods. Guy (Help!) 13:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
And let me say this. Many people have targeted me because I have posted in the past (even starting a recall of me) because I posted at WR, and that somehow, I condone or approve of the tactics posted in a thread there by WordBomb that linked these accounts together. Let me state, in no equivocal terms what so ever. I do NOT approve of the tactics used there, and considered it crossing the line into dirty pool and off-line stalking, that I no longer participate in any threads on that site, and I stated so publically on that forum. That is specifically why I only mentioned ON-WP information when I started this thread, except to note that it existed. That is why I haven't made any use of that information in this discussion. I hope this makes it PERFECTLY clear to one and all, ESPECIALLY the people who have emailed me off-Wiki, accusing me of being a WR-mouthpiece and pawn. SirFozzie (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that taint is hard to get rid of. I assume you're operating in good faith, though you obviously were prompted to look at the situation by that external evidence.
All of that said - there is a great disparity of quality of evidence between what we've gotten on-wiki that indicated WordBomb socks and other WR-grouped Wikipedia-abuser accounts here, and the quality of evidence on-wiki which supports Wordbomb claims made on WR.
Applying the same, consistent standards of evidence here - There's a clear similarity of interests between Mantan and Sami, but that's all. More precise edit timing patterns (individual sets of edits, not statistical "probably same time zone" similiarity), mistaken edits one-as-other-account, etc. might help support a WP:DUCK case. And Checkuser might show positive results. But the results so far, on CU, on edit patterns, etc. are in the bin which we normally ascribe to unrelated people with similar interests.
I am aware of the evidence posted on WR. I believe that it's possible that it's accurate, but I also have seen firsthand evidence that the person who posted it there fabricated logs and screenshots. They have also gone to great lengths to misrepresent edit patterns and other on-wiki evidence before, trying to frame people they do not like for sockpuppet abuse. While I understand why they think Sami and Mantan are the same person, I think they're wrong, and I also think it's entirely possible that they convinced themselves of that despite it being wrong, and have fabricated evidence to support the conclusion that they're "sure of".
Limiting ourselves to what is on-wiki here - the case is not made. The edit patterns don't appear similar enough. What the checkusers are off doing now, I do not know. Perhaps they will find something to make the case - I have no inside knowledge one way or the other on the real life identities of the accounts, and I am not a CU and not privy to those discussions.
From the stance of someone who does a lot of duck test investigations - the case is not made here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I am curious, GWH, as why you are so keen to shrug off evidence of one account answering questions directed at the other? You note it, you even say "you can see why it might indicate things". But then you go on to say "I don't think they're the same. I don't think there's evidence". Why does such patternistic behavior quack like a duck in one case, but not in another? Achromatic (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I do that (answering questions directed at smeone else) all the time. Bad old Usenet habit, I guess. Hey, see, I just answered your question to George - hopefully that won't lead us to be denounced as sockpuppets. Guy (Help!) 13:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
JzG, you yourself operated the "wpinvestigations-l" mailing list which was dedicated to this sort of "sleuthing." It seems a bit hypocritical that you would suddenly discount any connection other than CU evidence just because one of your mailing list friends is involved. Other established editors have been exposed as abusive sockpuppeteers in the past - User:Runcorn, for example. Mantanmoreland is no exception. krimpet✽ 22:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
No I didn't. I was briefly made list owner, but I left the list after a very short time due to the fact that it was mainly dedicated to a long-running argument between two editors, in which I had absolutely no desire to participate. And as I said, I thought we'd learned the lesson about sleuthing and long-term editors. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it is really irresponsible for you to lump me in with socks like Runcorn (whoever he is) based upon the crap that Bagley has put on Wikipedia Review and here. If you had done proper due diligence you could have seen that I have not been editing the same articles as Sami.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
We are saying just the opposite, Mantanmoreland.. you only have about 25% of your edits on the same pages as Samiharris, but Samiharris has 60% of his edits on common articles that you have also edited. SirFozzie (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
And 45 articles that you have jointly edited... ViridaeTalk 22:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
As I stated elsewhere - that degree of overlap normally indicates people who are independent but have a common interest. I've done similar checks for overlap with people who edit articles in areas I do... in some cases, 15-20% of the articles I edit overlap with some other editors, and 100% of their edits are on the overlapping aticles. In several of those cases they're people I know and have external communications with on the topic, but that doesn't make them sock or meatpuppets - they're just people with a similar interest.
Applying our standards consistently doesn't make the case on Mantan and Sami. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was about to say that since I have 5000-some edits over two years, there are probably a number of editors who have 100% of their edits in articles I have edited.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
"but that doesn't make them sock or meatpuppets - they're just people with a similar interest" - and yet we've seen, in this case, as recently as this weak, people blocked as meatpuppets of users for querying what is being asked by several users, from across the spectrum of WP - again, what makes these people meatpuppets, not people with a similar interest in trying to settle an issue, one way or another? Is our perception truly that tinted that we have become follow, to quote the current US President, "You're either with us, or you're against us"? Achromatic (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The methods that have been used to pursue this deserve our principled opposition: ban evasion, malicious cookies, privacy invasion, etc. That is no way to settle anything and the Wikipedians who construe any merit in the substance of that accusation ought to have posted the RFCU themselves. They should also have either persuaded the individual to refrain from unethical methods or, at least, they should have declared their disapproval; failure to do so tarnishes the reputations of these otherwise upstanding Wikipedians, who ought not to be lending their credibility to underhanded endeavors. If someone wants to really pursue this, the letigimate method would be to post an analysis in user space detailing specifics from the public edit histories with diffs, such as this assertion that these two accounts answer questions that were posed to the other: where? when? how often? and for how long? Roll up your sleeves, dig through the diffs, and do actual research to give us a fair basis for discussion. DurovaCharge! 22:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Spoken like someone who truly knows how to roll up her sleeves, dig through the diffs, and come up with completely off-base accusations against dedicated contributors to the encyclopedia. Fozzie, this truly is amazing how it's drawing out all the best Wikipedia has to offer, and apparently offering them about 12 feet of self-threading noose-quality rope. -- Man On The Scene (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:AGF isn't just a polite suggestion; it's policy. It happens that SirFozzie notified me of this thread himself, and didn't mind this response. We have two choices: research, or rumor mongering. Neither is perfect. The former has a better batting average. And fwiw, the above account was started yesterday, created this user page in the first of its 7 total edits, and has been blocked for trolling. DurovaCharge! 03:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitray break 2 by Foz

Hey.. What Durova says above is absolutely the case here. Durova and I have worked together on a couple investigations previously (regarding JB196 way back even before I was an admin), so even if Durova doesn't agree with me.. no... ESPECIALLY if Durova doesn't agree with me, now that I think about it... I value the advice she provides. While we all know the history behind what with happened with Durova (and why "sleuthing" has become such a dirty word on Wikipedia as a result), I know that no-one person is truly infallible in their decisions, and welcome Durova's advice. If I have a question, Durova is the first person I ask to check my work (yes, I can understand that this makes me equally a pariah by both sides :P) What she suggested when we talked is painstaking in the extreme. It gets down to what we could call miniscule things that could possibly link the two accounts. The information that Ioeth provided thanks to the analysis tool he has access to is a good start, but it will take time to inspect roughly 5-6,000 edits (Mantanmoreland) and 1500 or so edits (Samiharris) for common ground. If it was easy, I would have done the blocks myself and just notified AN of what I did. I'd like to thank GWH and a couple others who looked beyond the usual disagreements, and critiqued the EVIDENCE, not the PERSONALITIES. SirFozzie (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A 60% coincidence rate seems high, and 27% even would appear to be unusual... But without actual data describing how uncommon such coincident editing is its difficult to evaluate the meaning we should attach to such results. I'd like to see a more comprehensive evaluation as well, with both statistical analysis and diffs for evidence. In the absence of proof that either or both accounts have acted abusively independently and lacking conclusive checkuser results, the evidence presented so far doesn't seem to meet a threshold necessary for banning a long-time productive contributor. Avruchtalk 22:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone thought to ask why Sami was using open proxies in the first place? ViridaeTalk 22:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the litigousness of some individuals be a patently obvious explanation? PouponOnToast (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Point(s) of order. A) The suggestion to bring this to AN/ANI for duck test was made by a CheckUser suggesting that (I can provide a diff if need be), and B) It's not known WHICH account is using the open proxies, just that one account is using nothing but open proxies. Going to take a break from WP, and then try to do some more "sleuthing" later per suggestions of others to provide further evidence of Quacking if there is to be found. SirFozzie (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Fozzie I realise that the checkuser didnt confirm which one was using the proxies, but if it was matanmoreland he has either found more (run CU, block open proxies) or he has switched to a non-open proxy connection in which case a CU could be run to clear the air a little more. Since the proxies used are now blocked all indicatiosn would say it is sami. ViridaeTalk 22:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps some of that sleuthing could be done on-wiki as opposed to using seekrit "analysis tools" whose very names are so seekrit that they cannot be revealed where everyone can see. You know, to avoid that whole thing that happened to the initial "sleuth," PouponOnToast (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
PouponOnToast, the reason that the name of the tool is not released is because the tool has no name. see above for other comments, and the tool is not seekrit, its just not widely known about, and widely published about. βcommand 17:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
One of Bagley's accusations is that I have been editing from a particular financial institution that is on Bagley's enemies list. I asked an admin with checkuser some time ago if he could run a checkuser going back that far to put the lie to that con, in case it ever came up. He ran the check and found that a) I was not editing from said financial institution and b) I was not editing through socks. Bagley was basing that accusation on an IP edit to a church article I was editing. The checkuser couldn't go back to the time of the IP edit, but it went back some months. This was long before Bagley started hyperventilating about Samiharris. I think at the time he was pairing me with Amoroso and FairNBalanced.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Except one can easily manipulate a checkuser result if they know when it's going to be run. Not that you necessarily did, but a checkuser you requested means nothing. -Amarkov moo! 00:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know that. But the primary purpose of that checkuser was to go as far back and check my logged-in IP, preferably back to the time of some nonsense Bagley posted on his website. He was accusing me of "accidentally" not logging in. It was not done to find a sock.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, would you mind explaining more fully how you apply the DUCK test? I'm especially curious at how you came to your finding of a 100% overlap between Piperdown and WordBomb. I can't find anything approaching that.

For what it's worth, I find Samiharris and Mantanmoreland indistinguishable in tone, style, temperament, and overall agenda.--G-Dett (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a double standard going on in that people regularly get banned for having similar tone, style, and overall agenda to somebody who is on the "wrong side" of the Powers That Be, but an entirely different standard is applied to similar cases that happen to be on the "right side". *Dan T.* (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm somewhat sensitive to that. But there's much less evidence here than there was for Piperdown, the last "wrong side" duck-test disagreement of note. Seriously - If people are convinced Sami is Mantan, and believe WP:SOCK violations resulted, then you need to come up with much better edit timing, tag-teaming, etc. evidence. What's been posted and pointed at so far on-wiki is really poor evidence. If the tables were turned and this was a "wrong side" person being accused, and I blocked them, you'd be all over me for stretching the presented evidence beyond reason and unreasonably blocking them, and you know it... the same standard should apply. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I tried to understand your Piperdown evidence, but there seemed to be no evidence whatsoever other than generally supporting Overstock—which was not the majority of Piperdown's Wikipedia career, much less than 60%, anyway. Tag teaming, and so forth, was not even possible in that case. Cool Hand Luke 07:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

When someone comes up with some really detailed evidence such as was prepared here, then let me know.--MONGO 00:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall a rule saying that people may be banned for sockpuppetry only if the evidence is at least as strong as in all other cases. -Amarkov moo! 00:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
In the case I cited...that is the amount of exhaustive evidence it took to ban someone who was abusive, was wikistalking and was harassing. Since the evidence that Mantanmoreland and Samiharris are the same editor has been primarily presented off-wiki by someone with both a financial interest at stake, as well as a history of fabrication of evidence, then what I would need to see is on-wiki evidence on some par with what I had to put together.--MONGO 00:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, I am not aware of any on-wiki "evidence" at all for the claim that Piperdown was Wordbomb, beyond the fact that he edited material related to Overstock, naked shorting, etc. and in the process of doing so clashed with Samiharris and Mantanmoreland on sourcing and NPOV issues. There was never any "edit timing, tag-teaming, etc. evidence" presented at all by anyone, period. I thought the ban was unjustified at the time, and pressed several admins for evidence, none of whom could supply anything even remotely compelling. I'm happy to supply diffs from those extraordinary exchanges. Your posts last week when the matter was revisited simply argued that it was unlikely that an editor could take an interest in naked shorting and sundry related matters and find themselves sharing certain opinions with Word Bomb without in fact being Wordbomb. You were very confident on this point. It is possible that as an admin, you are privy to all manner of information in the light of which your conclusions would seem more sound and circumspect. Without access to this (hypothetical) information, I can only say that if your criteria and methodology were applied in the present case, Samiharris and Mantanmoreland would be permabanned without further ado.--G-Dett (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The DUCK evidence is good enough, considering that one account clearly anticipated check user by editing exclusively from an open proxy. These are not separate people, although I note that most of the abusive editing happened months ago. Cool Hand Luke 06:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Upon further reflection I realize that they might also have similar conflicts of interest. That would partially explain the similar editing pattern and the open proxy. Cool Hand Luke 07:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is apparently not the first time this has happened

Read this Specifically: "Fred discovered that Mantanmoreland was using a second account and editing a particular article with both accounts. He warned Mantanmoreland to stop, and as far as I know, he has." This certainly makes the accusation more credible, considering this user has a history of this behaviour. ViridaeTalk 02:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

My best recollection is that when I made that comment, I based it on something from Fred's talk page, since I had it watchlisted at the time. Best to find the original source, if you can. And I would appreciate it if you and Piperdown would either quote my entire statement, or simply quote Fred himself from further up in the same discussion. Thatcher 03:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
original sources: 1 "For example, one claim is that Matamoreland uses sockpuppets. Well, he did, when he first started editing two years ago. And he got caught, was warned, AND QUIT USING SOCKPUPPETS." and
2 "You are welcome to edit with more than one account, but not to act like you are two people. This sort of edit [6] is unacceptable. Fred Bauder 21:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)" ViridaeTalk 04:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh and not quoting the comment in full, because that is the bit of most interest, but it can be read in full in the link. ViridaeTalk 04:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
(R from Virdae's statement) Especially considering the use of open proxies as a way to get around being linked to another account like they had previously. Again, this is all still based firmly in the theoretical.. some deep digging (to avoid that lovely word that seems to make one and all break out in hives) is still necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why "deep digging" is necessary. You and the other Wiki Review contributor have a whopping "45 articles" that I edited that Sami edited (or is it vice versa). Surely you must have some powerful diffs in addition to what Bagley provided in asking for this checkuser? As you know, as a contributor there, if this was Wikipedia Review the "45 articles" stuff would be a subject of horse laughs and much "clique" and "cabal" speculation.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear, it seems that this conversation has spanned so fast that you missed the point that I publically announced that I disagreed with the tactics that were posted in that thread, and not only that, but I found it so disagreeable that I would no longer post there, and said so publically (and haven't posted since that post). But since the last time we went round and round we were specifically warned to be civil to each other on pain of being blocked, I'll just say that I'm going through the edits at the suggestion of others and we'll go from there, k? SirFozzie (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think that regular Wiki review contributors should recuse themselves from this Wiki Review-inspired drama show. Certainly reading comments from an administrator involved in this speaking approvingly about the "wheat" overcoming the "chaff" there is discouraging to anyone who has been hounded on that site.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the history of Gary Weiss, you'll notice that it used to be POV-protected by Mantanmoreland who worked hard, in tandem with help from some, at the time, influential admins, to keep any non-flattering info about the subject out of the article, no matter how well sourced. After Mantanmoreland stopped protecting the article, after taking a lot heat about it from me, among others, Samiharris showed up and guarded it just as forcefully as Mantanmoreland used to. In fact, in the recent content debate at that article Samiharris vehemently refused to allow a link to a New York Times article that said some unflattering things about Weiss (likening his behavior to that of a 14-year old), even though linking to reliable sources is the way we do things in BLPs. From my experience with this issue, I believe that Mantanmoreland will now try to attack my credibility. Anyway, I hear ducks quacking. Cla68 (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you predict correctly, because your prejudice on this subject is such that you recused yourself from editing the Weiss article. You were blocked for disruption in Gary Weiss, your RfA failed because of your advocacy for WordBomb/Bagley[7], and in an RfC a member of ArbCom said "aggressively" advocated for WordBomb[8]. The duck you hear quacking is yourself.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I have little doubt that Samiharris has a COI with regard to Gary Weiss and/or Bagley. I've never been in another content dispute where a party refuses to cite the New York Times for fear of spreading something like "Bagley memes."
At any rate, since the two accounts don't appear to have been used abusively in a very long time, if we conclude that they're sockpuppets, I propose we just block one of them. It seems that the Mantanmoreland has less apparent COI, so I think it would be prudent to block Samiharris instead. WP:DUCK applies, but there's no need to punish ancient socking sins. Blocks are not punitive. Note: I have a conflict with Samiharris where user demands that I remove WordBomb comments from my talk archive. Cool Hand Luke 07:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You neglected to mention that you recently engaged in a protracted content dispute with Samiharris in Patrick M. Byrne, in which you removed any mention to an entire New York Times article about Byrne, a major public figure and CEO of a public company. The article was by the notable financial writer Joseph Nocera, on the bogus grounds that it was an "advocacy" piece and was not "reliable" and was an "opinion" piece. [9]. You then switched to a "Weight" argument and removed any reference to that article. This dispute was resolved amicably, or at least without edit warring, with Samiharris not further contesting the removal. Yes, it is also correct that you did indeed refuse to remove attacking WordBomb's attacking and defamatory comments from your talk page, after it was brought to your attention that this was a confirmed sock of WB. However, I think your remarkable inconsistency on the New York Times columns as much of an indication of your clear bias and POV. You really have some gall criticizing Sami on this and claiming that a position far more reasonable than yours was indicative of a COI.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Nocera was speculating about the mental states of unnamed Utah legislators. This has no place in a BLP. I added new sources which actually confirmed negative details about Byrne's crusade, and I tagged another block of synthesis favoring Byrne for deletion. I just follow reliable sources, but feel free to label me a POV warrior. Cool Hand Luke 17:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The article did more than do just that. The article related to a dispute between Byrne and state legislators in Utah, where he is the leading political contributor. You didn't want any reference to that Times article included, and you did not want a reference to a Forbes article on the same subject. My point is, you were waging a vigorous and in my view rather one-sided POV campaign in that article, and in both that article and Gary Weiss you butted heads with Samiharris. You are now doing the same thing in Overstock.com, this time butting heads with John Nevard, who you briefly requested a checkuser on. You really should disclose your involvement as chief protagonist in recent content disputes in articles with Samiharris and other editors.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, consider it done, but I resent your claim about my POV. I'm no POV warrior, as can seen by finding and citing numerous sources against my purported POV. Byrne apologists don't normally reproduce articles about his fisticuffs. I'm glad to see that you're familiar with Samiharris' editing, however. Cool Hand Luke 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not even familiar with my own editing history, and just had to correct a serious misstatement on the timing of one of my edits in another page motivated by this Bagley-inspired drama. But it is s hard to ignore that an entire section [10]of of the Patrick M. Byrne talk page was devoted to your fisticuffs with Samiharris. You do indeed represent a very distinct point of view in this and other stock market conspiracy related articles. That is not terrible I guess but not disclosing your involvement in heated content disputes with Samiharris in at least two articles, while calling for his head here, is a bit off-putting. I see from that section that your dispute with Samiharris in Byrne ended amicably, and that was something else you neglected to mention. You might also have disclosed that you are right now engaged in an edit war with another user in Overstock.com, in which you referred to a notable financial columnist as an "unreliable source."[11]--Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I think getting the facts wrong is a good indica of unreliability, and it shows precisely how derisive columns can by misused as citations. We were citing a snark as if it were literally true, although it is not. I tend to prefer factual articles, don't you?
And fair enough. I'm not calling for his head. Normally we block both sockpuppets; I am actually calling for moderation because your account hasn't been socking abusively in a long time. Cool Hand Luke 18:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the votes in the MONGO RfA, although I agreed with them, might have been abusive socking. Cool Hand Luke 06:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
And I've only edited those three "stock market conspiracy related articles" as far as I'm aware. If I didn't come away from the Weiss article with such a strong taste of Samiharris' POV-pushing, I would have never edited another one again. Cool Hand Luke 18:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I think it's worth taking a look at Samiharris' "far more reasonable" position at Talk:Gary_Weiss#Proposed section - can we collaborate on something? where 6 editors support including the NYT news story story (User:Jimbo Wales, User:Cool Hand Luke, User:Joshdboz, User:Dtobias, User:Cla68, User:Lawrence Cohen) and only Samiharris opposed—on grounds that it quotes Bagley and might spread Bagley memes. Cool Hand Luke 18:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
That was a position shared by other editors previously, in the several times before that article had been raised and then removed under WP:NPF. I would suggest that your rather extreme position in removing an entire article on Byrne, a public figure, contradicts your pushing in Weiss for reinstating a far more casual reference in a NYT "what's online" column referring to that obscure journalist and Byrne. If you felt the article was relevant to the NPF Weiss, why did you not add it to the CEO Byrne? As for Nocera, if you wish to argue he or any New York Times business columnist is not a reliable source because they express opinions you don't like, good luck with that. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The fact that both Weiss and Bagley seem like children fighting over a rather stupid IRL conflict aside, if a reliable source like the New York Times reports on something, even if it might be seen as "supporting" what some are calling Wikipedia's Public Enemy #1, what right under WP:NPOV do we have to scrub something that may be in support of Bagley? NPOV transcends you, me, Weiss, and Bagley. If something is a good source, it's a good source, period. Anyone who tries to politicize article content for any agenda needs a kick in the ass out the wikidoor. Lawrence § t/e 19:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Uh, I suggest that you go back in the article talk page history and see who supported removing that reference, before you suggest that all such miscreants be booted out the Wicki-door.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Lots of sources need to be added. Contra your characterizations, I've not spent a lot of time in this area, and I have no agenda whatsoever. I haven't even been able to fact check all of the existing content. If a citation is only being used to support an incorrect inference, as in this version of Overstock.com's lead, it should be removed. We should attribute notable opinion like Nocera's, but we should not allow erroneous inferences to be "sourced" by columnist snarks. Nor should we suppress a notable printed publication just because we're afraid it isn't sufficiently anti-Bagley. Cool Hand Luke 19:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Should it be decided that this is a case of socking it should be kept in mind that this user has done this before... That really needs to be taken into account, it is hard to AGF about behaviour like that twice. ViridaeTalk 07:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPF? If we cannot include criticism of someone, we cannot have an article about them. There is absolutely no room on Wikipedia for an article about someone that we feel restrained (whether because they're a non-public-figure or for any other reason) from including notable criticism of. This is not up for negotiation. —Random832 15:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is, I trust, a reference to the Joseph Nocera article that was excluded from Patrick M. Byrne by Cool Hand Luke? The entire column in the New York Times devoted that non-NPF?--Mantanmoreland (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not, and I am forced to conclude by your suggestion that it is that you are a smart-ass, since it was absolutely clear what I was referring to. Perhaps what you're talking about should also have been included in that article, but if you're suggesting that the exclusion of one was somehow a response to the exclusion of the other - well, that's textbook WP:POINT. Regardless, there is plenty of negative material in Patrick M. Byrne and none at all in Gary Weiss - if the latter is because we somehow "shouldn't" include such material (even when it exists in reliable sources) in an article about a non-public figure, I would say that due to Foundation Issue #1 (NPOV), we therefore also "shouldn't" have an article at all about such a non-public figure. —Random832 18:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it was a serious question, as there was a lengthy back-and-forth about Cool Hand Luke's removal of any reference to a lengthy article in The New York Times about Patrick Byrne, which was the polar opposite of the position he took in Gary Weiss concerning a far briefer and less weighty reference. As to why the two articles are different in terms of negative material, gee I don't know. Could it be that the massive reliable sourcing on one is largely negative while the far slimmer reliable sources on the other are not? If you can find some reference, for example, to an SEC investigation of Weiss that was accidentally ommitted from his article, please add that back in.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You may well have a serious question about your dispute in the Byrne article, but I find it very difficult to believe that you seriously thought that I was referring to that, since "WP:NPF", which I opened my statement with, was never brought up in reference to that.
And the WP:POINT I was referring to, and in which you are persisting, is in changing the topic to another different time a Times reference was removed from an article which, even without it, has no great lack of critical material about the subject, as though to justify keeping another Times reference out of a different article. Two wrongs don't make a right.—Random832 21:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The crux of the issue

I believe that not going to the heart of this issue and opening it up for full discussion will only cause unnecessary delay, because the issue will keep coming up. The crux is, speaking of duck is a duck, that why don't we discuss who Mantanmoreland/Samiharris really is? We are allowed to do so because of the obvious COI issues involved.

I read somewhere that before Essjay was "outed", the fact that he was a phony was one of the biggest open secrets in Wikipedia. That it was obvious that this young guy who showed up at meetups wasn't who he said he was was known to a great many project participants. But, Wikipedians chose to ignore it or look the other way because it was obvious that Jimbo and other influential Wikipedians liked Essjay.

We have a similar situation here. The identity of the person behind Mantanmoreland/Samiharris is an open secret in Wikipedia. We don't even need Bagley's evidence to conclude that. We can look at those account's edit histories. They have the same interests in the same subjects. They've been caught socking before. They're fanatic about protecting the Gary Weiss article. Then we can look at Weiss' blog. It's obvious that Weiss is greatly interested in the same topics that those accounts are interested in. He stated in The Register article that he has never edited Wikipedia. But, his blog posts show that he has detailed knowledge of how Wikipedia works [12]. He has also discussed Bagley's/WordBomb's involvement with Wikipedia [13], but has never mentioned Mantanmoreland's editing of the same subjects and his protection of the Weiss bio [14].

In past discussions, Jimbo has made it clear that he is aware of the situation. For example, he oversighted admin deleted the AfD I initiated on the Weiss article almost a year ago. He told admins to "shoot on sight" on the Weiss discussion page after I tried to start an RfC on the article's content. The fact that Jimbo has called for people on one side of the issue, like me, to be blocked but not on the other side in spite of the serious black eye that this episode has given the project, sends a clear message. Just like with Essjay, people are nervous about taking decisive action because they're unsure whether they'll be supported by the project's leadership or not.

Well, if no direct action is taken, this issue will continue to fester and continue to demand we spend hours spinning our wheels trying to deal with it. One side of the issue, Bagley, has been banned. The other side, and we know who that is, continues to operate here in bad faith. Until the remaining antagonist is dealt with appropriately, the problem continues. Is anyone willing to step up, risk taking some heat, and resolve the matter for once and for all? Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on some stuff that's available if you look hard enough, but it's not polished enough yet for a formal report yet. Please give me a bit of time on this. SirFozzie (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Wait, are you saying that evidence of COI and sockpuppetry were oversighted? Lawrence § t/e 00:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to wait for SirFozzie's full response before I comment further. Cla68 (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Not oversighted, I think, just deleted. I'm not sure what evidence is there. Accusations, at least, and a full-throated defense. Some users claiming that the article looks promotional. Dunno. Admins see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Weiss. Cool Hand Luke 02:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to take back that I said that it was oversighted, it wasn't, just admin deleted. It has been pointed out to me that in that AfD, Fred Bauder, a sitting arbitrator at the time and the one who caught Mantanmoreland socking previously, said this in that AfD:
  • "Notable, although there is strong evidence that either Gary Weiss, or a devoted disciple, has been editing the page." and
  • "Gary Weiss may have created the article and edited it, but he is notable, as is his work."
Mantanmoreland started the article [15]. Cla68 (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for holding off on commenting. I've been able to put together a preliminary report (there is a couple small pieces I want to run by Foundation folks before I put in the completed report). Please note, that while myself and others have put a lot of work into this over the last couple of days, there may be more forthcoming, and I welcome many eyes and many hands to improve this report. User:SirFozzie/Investigation is a preliminary report and my conclusion is there is a lot of evidence that indeed that these two accounts should be considered a match per WP:DUCK. SirFozzie (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is accepted that the rule against "outing" means that one may not speculate that someone who is editing an article about a person is or is related to the subject of that article, WP:COI is absolutely null and void. I will therefore be nominating WP:COI for deletion tomorrow unless this notion is rejected. —Random832 15:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify - I do not believe that User:Mantanmoreland is Gary Weiss. I do not have an opinion about that. What is clear to me is this: If he is, people should be allowed to say so, and whether he is or not, it does no legitimate harm for anyone to say they think he is. —Random832 15:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit History Analysis

I did an edit history overview comparing these two accounts all the way back to September. I was actually looking for overlapping edits to try to disprove these allegations. I found something very interesting. These two accounts are practically night and day. Whenever there was a gap in the history of one user, the other user went into action. Also, there were scarcely any edits from either user that were within 30 minutes of each other. Based on this edit history, I find it very difficult to believe that they are not the same user.

I will say that this technique does not work for all situations. The large volume of edits from both of these users makes this technique helpful in this specific case.

This doesn't mean that these accounts are sockpuppets, or against policy. But, This edit concerned me, as this may be creating false consensus.

Hope This Helps. BETA 14:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. If the accounts are like "night and day," and therefore there is no reinforcing of positions etc., how can you say they are related? What would be the point of that? If Sami (or one of the several other socks WordBomb has accused me of) really was/were sock/socks, I'd have dusted them off for Cla68's RfC [16], which took place after Sami had already been around for some time.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe it's based on the fact (as seen on User:SirFozzie/Investigation this investigation, and supported by Durova's comment above that you declined oddly to reply in public to) that you and Samiharris appear to be "textbook" sockpuppeteering as Wikipedia defines it. As the evidence is mounting now as seen above that you are a known abuser of multiple accounts as confirmed by Arbiters and Checkusers, and with the detailed evidence that you may have a conflict of interest as the BLP subject in question of this entire mess, you may wish to present detailed evidence indicating why you are not what everyone appears to be now accepting as fact (barring a handful of "Anti-Bagley" types). Please do so. You're a good contributor, Weiss or not, and I'd hate to see you get booted. Lawrence § t/e 14:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Nothing odd about it, as I think the whole thing is bogus and ridiculous. I did respond to some of Durova's points this morning by email(s). I'm sure there must be many thousands of editors who don't edit at the same time I do, and who start editing at about the same time of the day, or don't edit at the same time of day. This is, I think, a one-sided presentation that ignores obvious stuff such as that, and the fact that the two accounts were not in fact behaving like socks (because they weren't). If this was a "textbook" sock, Sami would have weighed in on Cla68, for instance, as he was not in the Bagley gunsights at the time. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
There are many legitimate reasons why an editor would choose to have two accounts, see WP:Sock.
My reference to night and day does not refer to the quality the edits coming from these two accounts, merely that these accounts complement each other in their timing, like two connected jigsaw pieces, with no overlap, ever. Which suggests to me that they are of the same user.
My belief is that you have come very close to the line between legitimate and sockpuppet, even in situations where it wasn't necessary. One comment on rule 203 would have been adequate to negate consensus. If you both happened to comment on a closed vote, such as an AfD, you could be in trouble.
BETA 15:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I understand you meant day and night in the timings, and that is my point. Why would one have an (illegitimate) sock and not use it for that purpose when a major battle is underway? There was a huge battle royale in Gary Weiss some weeks ago in which SHarris was alone against the world, and I stayed out of it. Sami was in a position to comment on Cla68's RfC, but did not do so or even endorse any comments.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
As a completely uninvolved outside party, it sort of seems like you're searching really hard for situation where both users were not involved. Sort of like "See? We didn't stick up for each other here, so we're two different people." I'm not necessarily saying that both users are the same person, but this is just an observation & how it seems to onlookers... нмŵוτнτ 17:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consequences

Alright, there seems to be enough evidence to support that these accounts are from the same person. I don't think that he/she deserves to be exiled though. And I believe that SirFozzie should take a chill pill. This has gotten very out of hand.

  • I say you (administrators) Slap him on the wrist (72 hours) for the AfD, make him choose an account, and send him on his way. BETA 15:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I say, indefinitely block the account that was using open proxies, and offer a second chance if the proxy editing is explained and/or promised not to happen again. I agree that slap on the wrist blocks aren't really in line with out blocking policy, and even if there are socks in use, there isn't really a strong case of abusive socks. -Andrew c [talk] 15:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I was cognizant of that policy when I commenced using an open proxy. I did so after I began reading of Mr. Bagley's use of spyware, some on Wikipedia, which has received widespread attention. He indeed boasted of using spyware recently off wiki. I have not violated policy, and neither have I been socking with Mantanmoreland or anyone. I indicated some months ago in an email to several people that if I were to be harassed I would immediately retire, and that is what I am doing. I am not saying that this proceeding is harassment, but it derives from off-wiki harassment. Sorry, but editing Wikipedia is simply not that important a part of my life.--Samiharris (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: It will prevent someone who has made many good faith edits from being removed entirely. It will also give him/her an opportunity to think about his/her actions. Sometimes people don't know that their actions are wrong until there are consequences, and I think we should give him/her an opportunity to continue to be constructive. BETA 15:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Objection

For the record, I find it regrettable that User:Samiharris is being harassed off WP and I'd like to see him stick around. I am nowhere near convinced that the evidence presented above supports a case for sock-puppetry. And I fail to understand why this case is being 'tried' in this venue rather than at WP:SSP. Ronnotel (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronnotel renders the essential point. This isn't about WP:DUCK at all; it's about WP:SPADE. If any editor or group of editors wants to start proceedings against any suspected sockpuppeteers, there's an appropriate forum where that issue should be properly documented and discussed. Accusing editors outside of that process is a violation of WP:AGF, WP:IMHO. Using this forum as a way of generating discussion about the validity of using open proxies is all beside the point, and it tends to color consensus before the evidence is fully presented. I see no reason to abandon good faith here. BusterD (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Aside from agreeing with BusterD, I have read through this discussion and have two comments. First, someone early on concludes that we have a case of sockpuppetry here in part because of "Near-identical editing patterns ... documented evidence such as answering questions intended for the other account" ... if this is enough evidence, one would conclude I have maybe half a dozen sock puppets here. Do I have to add that I do not? In my experience, Wikipedia attracts two kinds of editors: some who make a tremendous number of small (but valuable e.g. providing sources, copy-editing, filling in basic information like dates for biographies, etc.) edits to a wide variety of articles, and people who focus on a small number of articles on topics on which they have considerable expertise or are willing to do serious research. Sometimes editors of the second group get into major revert wars with people they consider POV warriors (people who, no doubt, consider themselves to have considerable expertise, and who think it is the other person who is the POV warrior). This is likely to happen whenever you have people working on a topic they care about. But, perhaps strangely but I think understandably, the opposite also happens: editors of the second group discover editors with whom they consistently agree; they make similar edits, support what one another adds or deletes, vote the same on polls ... This is predictable because people who know a lot about the same topic are likely to agree with one another a lot. I think I fall into the second category and both situations have happened to me. I have been involved in some nasty edit wars, but for several of the articles I care passionately about, there are at least several other editors who consistently think just like I do. Are they sock-puppets of me, or some kind of doppelganger? No, we have just read the same books and articles, and have the same understandings of Wikipedia's core policies. And I would be shocked if the same were not true for Mantanmoreland or for Sammi Harris. Think of how many people edit Wikipedia. The chances of two people sharing the same views with virtually identical knowledge of a particular subject happens all the time here. I think you'd need a lot more evidence to support sock-puppetry. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Second point. I do not think that "clean hands" applies as such here, in that I do not think that Bagley's malicious campaign against Wikipedia and some of its finest editors justifies or excuses sock-puppetry. But I think this is missing the point. the real wuestion is, why would anyone have to create a sock-puppet to deal with Bagley? Wouldn't there be enough people who care about Wikipedia and its policies, and the community of editors of good faith, that enough people would have the same response to Bagley or people defending or promoting him? I hope so! There is a good faith/bad faith issue but it isn't what people who suggest clean hands think. It is not that Bagley's bad faith converts sock-puppetry into a good-faith act. It is rather this: to suggest that someone would have any reason to use a sock-puppet to defend Wikipedia against Bagley is to accuse all other Wikipedians of bad faith - the bad faith of encouraging Bagley either actively or passively. I do not think that most Wikipedians have this kind of bad faith. I think most Wikipedians have good faith. That is why I think that it is obvious that several dedicated editors will take the same stance against Bagley and concerning policies or articles relating to Bagley. Given this fct, it is absurd to think anyone would have to create a sock-puppet ... te only one in this scenario who has any interest in creating sock-puppets is bagley himself. Uh, but we knew that already, right? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Except that it's been proven that Mantanmoreland has used sockpuppet accounts in what would be considered a rules-breaking way in the past. SirFozzie (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
All the more reason to use the correct process. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, please make a detailed report in the proper forum and let the process decide what is to be done. If you don't feel you have sufficient evidence, the start a subpage somewhere and accumulate the data you need. If you need assistance gathering required diffs, I'm sure others aroused by this brisk discussion would offer to help. This forum is not a halfway measure; it is the wrong place to tag someone as a sockpuppet. Please take your assessment to the proper forum. BusterD (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Apparently you missed the note right down below here about the suggestion that it be taken to the proper place, the proper place being AN/ANI. Trust me, I can policy wonk with the best (or is that the worst?) of them, but to suggest that I am deliberately ignoring the proper process is a wee bit disingenuous. As for proof of the previous sockpuppet accounts, you can read the following section from earlier in the discussion. [17] .. and the following line. Fred(Then Arbitration Committee member User:Fred Bauder discovered that Mantanmoreland was using a second account and editing a particular article with both accounts. He warned Mantanmoreland to stop, and as far as I know, he has."
As for the other account, see this [18] edit where he "expands on a previous comment" that he made.. although the account who made the comment was NOT Mantanmoreland. I stand by my evidence, my investigation and my conclusions, and the location involved. SirFozzie (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Second point. This case is here, because the CheckUser who did the test suggested that the case be forwarded to AN/ANI for a Duck Test [19] SirFozzie (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

SirFozzie, when you opened this discussion just two days ago, you wrote, "First off, this has the potential to get very heated very quickly, so I ask that folks PLEASE do their best to be WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF of each other .... What I am looking for is folks to weigh in on the following question: Knowing that no CheckUser check can be done due to one account uses open proxies only, do you find the accusation that the two accounts are similar under WP:DUCK to be credible]]? I would request a DISCUSSION (not bombast, threats, or the usual suspects agreeing/disagreeing with each other about this.) I also know that WR has posted off-Wiki information supposedly linking the two accounts, to a real-world IP address and person. I am not endorsing this or linking to it, because quite frankly, I found the tactics.. well.. not to my liking. I am going STRICTLY by the On-Wikipedia evidence here."

Wise words, and nicely said. But it seems to me that in most of your comments isnce then you have ceased to assume good faith and ceased to encourage an open discussion, as you consistently dismiss anyone who disagrees with you. There is no GF discussion unless people first, as you say, assume good faith - which to me means starting off assuming Mantanmorelad and Sammi Harris are not sock puppets, and second, being willing to have one's mind changed. I tell you, my mind can be changed but only I think if there were more solid evidence than has been presented here. Okay, despite your lofty words at the opening, it sounds like you started this off convinced MM and SH are sock-puppets. I have to ask you: what would convince you, at this stage, that you are wrong? If nothing will convince you I have to ask why you invited discussion. What is the point? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I opened this discussion because while it looked suspicious, I wanted more opinions then just my own opinion (again, I'm admittedly biased, considering past history between Mantanmoreland and myself). So I took the suggestion of Thatcher (the original CheckUser in the case involved). So I post some quick looks, and while many folks on both sides focused on the personalities, others looked at it and found it susp

People requested more evidence, I went through on-WP Evidence to buttress my points. I've asked Mantanmoreland for more info to disprove what I've generated, as did others, publicly. Mantanmoreland has refused to respond, except to say that my evidence shows nothing, despite many others finding it credible.

WP:AGF says that you have to assume good faith, but that does not mean you have to assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. As I've done my investigation (see the Investigation page I created, with the help of many others who believe as I do), I've seen a lot of information that confirms what I saw at first glance.

Let's say this is about any other user. Let's dump out the personalities involved. We have an account who previously, has been caught using at least two alternate accounts previously (confirmed by an Arbitrator, presumably by CheckUser) in ways that violate Wikipedia's core policies (Editing the same articles, always agreeing with each other, building consensus, etcetera).

Now, we have this new account, that is widely believed to be related by many. As the first account starts to lower their edit-rate, the second account picks up the slack, in some articles picking up right where the first account left off.

There's an easy way to prove/disprove this. But in this case, we finally go there, and we find out that it is impossible to ever conclusively confirm or deny that link because one account (now proven to be Samiharris, if I read the prior part of the discussion correctly) edits specifically and ONLY by open proxies. Wouldn't that strike you as suspicious, especially as 60% of that 1500 or so edits are on pages that Mantanmoreland has edited?

Trust me, I would LOVE to find something to conclusively prove or disprove my theories. I really do. Contrary to what folks may think, I'm not arguing here for the sake of argument. If it's disproved? Fine. We move on, I take the hit, and we go from there. If it's proven? Fine. We have to decide what kind of restrictions there should be for an editor who would have been caught socking abusively for the third time. SirFozzie (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have anything to say to the statistics you've generated as I think your statistics don't show much of anything. I have other evidence that I've sent off by private email, only not to you.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, with regards to the assumption of good faith, I think we need to bear in mind not only Mantan's prior socking, but also his reactions to polite queries about it. Last May I became aware of this edit by Mantan – in which, with an edit summary that reads "revising previous response," Mantan extensively rewrites a substantial two-paragraph talk-page post by User:Tomstoner. I asked Mantan about it very politely. He accused me of trolling and deleted my question, then quickly changed his mind and restored it, adding an "I don't recall" response along with what seemed to me a very odd comparison. Mantan then deleted my polite follow-up question as "trolling." At a complete loss, I then left what I hoped was a conciliatory and reassuring note, explaining that I didn't intend to report him but wanted to understand what was going on. He then accused me of harassment and asserted flat-out that "Tomstoner is not me." This part of the exchange, along with diffs showing Mantan and Tomstoner edit-warring together, can be read in full here. I am fairly certain Tomstoner was the abusive sock referred to by Fred Bauder, now widely acknowledged to have indeed been operated by Mantan. If this is right, then Mantan's response at the time – flat denial, along with accusations of harassment and trolling – is certainly relevant to our present discussion.--G-Dett (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

May I just ask that we assemble the relevant public diffs in the page SirFozzie set aside in his user space? Whichever way the evidence leads, maybe a dry and rational analysis will yield consensus. DurovaCharge! 21:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Samiharris

A couple of points. First: I have a lot of emails from both Samiharris and Mantanmoreland (in the hundreds in both cases), I would say that in my opinion they are different individuals. There are sufficient, and sufficiently consistent, differences in phrasing and tone that I don't believe they are one and the same, but of course I am not an expert in textual analysis. Second: I believe that Samiharris has "left the building" so blocking that account would not cause a problem, but also not yield any measurable benefit. I only know one other editor who sent such long and detailed emails and who always uses proxies, but I am sure Samiharris is not ArmedBlowfsh because the styles are different. Whether Samiharris is Gary Weiss is anyone's guess and not actually that relevant. Although I would be very angry and disappointed if Mantanmoreland were to be credibly identified as Weiss, I d not believe that Mantan and Sami are the same individual. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You say that you would be surprised if they are the same editor, but it's "anyone's guess" if Samiharris is Weiss? You say it's irrelevant—haven't we warned users for speculating that these accounts are connected to Weiss? Should we just declare that WP:COI is a dead letter unless you're stupid enough to have revealed your identity? I think that sends the wrong message, Guy. Cool Hand Luke 03:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
When someone who has an off-wiki agenda brings that agenda here, and it thus becomes apparent than a certain pseudonymous editor is that individual, then it's a problem. But the only person who's making a fuss about Sami or Mantan's edits is Judd Bagley, and he has a massive problem with any content that does not say that naked shorting is evil, those who do it are the Antichrist, and most especially with any content that suggests Overstock's problems are due to consistent trading losses and piss-poor management, rather than some huge conspiracy. Frankly, I think Bagley's "evidence" and any other assertions he makes should be taken with a truckload of salt, or better still simply ignored. COI is enforceable without identifying a person, by looking tat their edits and seeing that they are promoting an agenda. It's also a useful guideline for the many individuals who reveal their identity in good faith - people who want to correct or reference an article on themselves, for example. As I say, I would be acutely disappointed and very angry if Mantan turned out to be Weiss, but I do not believe Mantan is Sami and I don't care if Sami is Weiss (I never thought to ask him). Remember, as far as Bagley is concerned, running up against Overstock is the single most important thing in Gary Weiss's life. I see no evidence that Weiss agrees, and he is an acknowledged expert on a number of subjects, including naked shorting. Being an expert does not necessarily give you a conflict of interest. THF's problem was advocating his own opinion pieces as a source. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the THF case of talk page advocacy (for pieces no one would have known were his unless he had revealed his identity). Samiharris' mainspace edits (and edit warring) over individuals he seems to defend and loath looks like a much bigger conflict to me. User has a unique concern for Weiss and advocates using Weiss as a source. At any rate, about half of users edits are in the naked short/Overstock realm, where user maintains a continual anti-Overstock, pro-Weiss, pro-Naked Short position. Even if Samiharris was not Weiss, they're a prolific POV pusher. Cool Hand Luke 17:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
THF's proposed mix of content and source would have been unaceptable whoever proposed it. That it was THF was simply the final nail in the coffin. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
THF's problem was advocating his own opinion pieces as a source.
Diffs where Mantanmoreland or his old apparent socks used Weiss (often Weiss' Overstock.com-focused blog) as a source in the mainspace: Pump and dump Pump and dump II Arthur Levitt Hedge fund Julian Robertson (also a potential personal life COI) Naked short selling I Naked short selling II CUNY Richard Grasso Incidentally, one of Samiharris first edits argued for retaining the naked short sources added by Mantanmoreland. Cool Hand Luke 22:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have read WP:BLP before advancing that theory, wholeheartedly apologize. BETA 22:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Discussion SubPage set up

I've set up a subpage off the investigation at User:SirFozzie/Investigation/Sandbox If folks want to provide further evidence (pro or con), or want to further discuss this (Pro/Con/Neutral).. other then some very basic rules, I won't edit any posts (or indeed reply to them without being asked to) there. SirFozzie (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What if (as I am inclined to believe) that all this is incorrect?...in which case, we have now driven off an editor due to what is likely little more than suspicions. They didn't edit at the exact same time...so? They have similar interests...so? Mantanmoreland (maybe) used a sock account in the past (1.5 years ago)...and so that means he MUST still? Hasn't this ongoing crusade been a WR staple for what, six months at least? I dunno...I am willing to believe it's possible, but you'll have to do a better job convincing me. If you're so certain, then file an Rfc.--MONGO 04:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Once SirFozzie's investigation is complete, I'm considering opening an RfC on policy and conventions [20] to open this entire saga for discussion by the community. The entire issue needs to be discussed in one place, including the articles involved (Naked short selling, Patrick Byrne, Gary Weiss, Overstock.com, etc), the participants, both editors and admins, banned, socked, or otherwise, and how the project's community handled the entire thing from beginning to present, including use of blocks, threatened blocks, banning, socks, oversight, checkuser, discussion in RfAs, AfD, other dispute resolution, etc. If we want to put this episode in the past, we need to make sure that there aren't any unnecessary secrets, that as many questions as possible are answered, and that the full story, as much as we're able to discover, is open for all interested parties to read and discuss. Cla68 (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on Mantanmoreland sockpuppetry

The investigators reported it here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mantanmoreland. Lawrence § t/e 07:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improper RfC

An RfC was initiated last night concerning myself[21]. I am not in a dispute with any other user and no one contacted me beforehand on my talk page to resolve any "dispute", as is required [22]. RfC is for resolving bona fide disputes, not sockpuppet witch hunts. This RfC should be deleted as per RfC guidelines.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I consider it very proper, even Jimbo himself is fine with the investigation. [23]. The RfC already has had approximately 20 editors weigh in on it already. Rather then attempt to Wiki-lawyer your way out of things, I suggest you answer the numerous people who have concerns. SirFozzie (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
He does have a valid point, IMO, and have made an outside party statement to that effect. RFCs are supposed to be fixing a current dispute, and lack of an actual dispute is and has always been reason to decertify and delete an RFC. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
A lack of dispute? What would you call apparent (if proven) double voting on RfA's, AfD's, and false consensus building? There were folks who attempted to ask him about the evidence. He refused to respond. Therefore, the evidence was gathered, and the next step was taken. SirFozzie (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
That'd only work if you were going with the theory that "refusing to respond, asked and answered a thousand times, kangaroo court" dismissal of concerns is equivalent to "no dispute to be seen". Achromatic (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a currentdisspute. A number of people think some form of sanction should be taken against Mantanmoreland. Mantanmoreland dissagrees. Due to all the gameplaying by certian elements in the past a slightly roundabout RFC is probably the closest you can get to a legit option at this point.Geni 00:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry. A "number of people thinking" something is not a dispute.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
So you agree that some form of sanction should be taken against you? Well that saves a bit of time. I guess we can now move onto what form of sanction.Geni 02:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the above "due to all the gameplaying by certian elements in the past a slightly roundabout RFC is probably the closest you can get to a legit option at this point" sums up the issue. This is an involved situation, for whatever reason, and needs to be looked into thoroughly. Whitstable 00:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Struck - my tiredness and lack of vocabulary due to it may do more harm than good Whitstable 00:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(out-dent) I can't respond to the above because I don't have my Innuendo Dictionary handy. What I can say is that there is no dispute, so there is no need for dispute resolution. This isn't "wikilawyering," SirFozzie, this is "stating the obvious."--Mantanmoreland (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, this is trying to avoid answering the twenty people who have agreed with the view of Cool Hand Luke, posting evidence that linked the accounts. If you're going to try to wind me up, give it a better shot. SirFozzie (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
"A user-conduct RfC is for discussing specific users who have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines," says WP:RFC. That's exactly what's being done. krimpet✽ 00:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) To step away from Geni's conjecture (AGF, please), there is enough evidence to raise concerns and legitimate questions. Jimbo has specifically endorsed this RFC.[24] I join with him in encouraging Mantanmoreland to respond and set the community's doubts to rest. A substantial number of participants have specifically expressed that they're keeping an open mind and are open to persuasion. SirFozzie and I are dedicated to maintaining a fair proceeding, and it's been remarkably orderly considering how divisive the underlying issues have been - compare this RFC to the noticeboard thread that preceded it last week. DurovaCharge! 00:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are de facto in dispute. The existence of an RFC at which evidence is presented and which is being taken seriously by others, is good evidence of that. Not feeling you are in dispute does not mean that others do not have an issue involving you, for example, and others may indeed opine that there is a dispute or other point needing consideration. In this case, the community is considering its view on a matter, which is the community's prerogative. If you present evidence, it will be considered too. We try to avoid being policy wonks -- meaning, there will be times a debate happens at the venue it happens, if it needs to happen, when it happens, and often that's just how it goes. WP:MFD and sometimes WP:DRV see that now and then.
Processes are directed according to their aims. If the issue was a routine bad conduct matter - incivility or reversion for example - and the aim was to let a user know it wasn't okay and to eduicate them to change, then warnings, guidance, policy links, etc would be the usual way to go. In the present case it's not that at all. The matter under consideration is comuinal assessment of evidence of puppetry. That's a communal eyeball decision, not a matter between just you and a complainant. And therefore a venue for wider consideration -- by others and yourself of course -- is the norm. A courtesy note that you are being discussed would be normal (for any centralized discussion such as ANI, RFAR, RFC), and I see that indeed one was left at 06:38, 12 February 2008. The evidence presented is certified by users and contains evidence of prior attempts to resolve the concerns felt by others which evidently the present complainants do not feel have resolved the matter. The community, by its conduct there, has fairly clearly (to date) indicated it considers the RFC reasonable.
FT2 (Talk | email) 01:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo endorsed the investigation, not the RfC, lets be clear. Are RfC's about investigations? It doesn't seem like a very efficient way to gather information for the purposes of taking concrete action. If the accusation is one of sockpuppetry, we've got checkuser and WP:SSP. If there is no evidence to support such an accusation on those forums, then what is he supposed to respond to? Comments alleging the fact in dispute without sufficient evidence? If there is sufficient evidence, then we have a forum for this sort of thing already - and it isn't RfC. There is no need for a pile-on of endorsements or opposing views when the question is relatively simple and the questioner is implicity seeking administrator action based on the outcome. Avruch T 01:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser was not an option due to one account using open proxies. The CheckUser involved sent the case initially to AN/ANI for a duck test. since the initial evidence was found sketchy (wanted more detail), an effort was created to generate this case. If you look at My initial investigation and The additional sandbox paged for other editors to find additional links, this was done. SirFozzie (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As Geni says. This is the most logical and least chaotic way to gauge community consensus on such a public DUCK test inquiry. There are actually several users with issues here, but we're taking this one step at a time to avoid encouraging reckless speculation. Denying the RfC forum on strictly procedural technicalities is the definition of Wikilawyering. Cool Hand Luke 01:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Commenting on the process -- the end result either way will be an assessment of behavioral and other evidence. Whether that should or shouldn't take place on this or that page, is often secondary. At most the above boils down to "page move it from a subpage of RFC to a subpage of SSP and retitle". The evidence is as the evidence is, whatever the page is named, and users in the community (not just checkusers) will discuss it and form a consensus wherever it's at. Ultimately all debates on the wiki are exercizes in consensus-seeking. If there is a reason to think this form of consensus seeking has genuine drawbacks compared to probably the identical discussion of the identical evidence on a page with a different title, that would be relevant. It's established, and formatted. There's no need to rip it up, take it out of the RFC format, for the sake of rewriting it in the SSP format. The actual underlying aim in each event is decision-making via presentation of evidence and communal collaboration, and not this or that format of wordage. That it's not in the venue you might expect, does not (to me) seem to mean it is thereby any less that kind of discussion. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that if serious allegations are going to be made, they should be made in the right forum, which is obviously SSP. I'm a longtime editor and I don't think this is a terribly unreasonable point to raise. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
SSP said to follow the DUCK test. I'm hard pressed to figure out how the forum could make a difference, however. Please make a statement. Cool Hand Luke 01:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
If the forum does not make a difference, why don't you use the correct one? --Mantanmoreland (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
SSP was certainly something SirFozzie and I considered seriously. Problem is, that noticeboard is much better suited to simple cases. Noticeboard format isn't ideal for this type of discussion - the AN thread last week wasn't productive and neither was the recent COIN thread about Jossi. Among community-based options (since Mantanmoreland told me he didn't want to arbitrate), RFC looked most suitable for orderly evidence, questions, replies, and discussion. DurovaCharge! 01:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
So you would be happy and answer if we moved the page from RFCU/Mantanmoreland to SSP/Mantanmoreland? If so, I'll cheerfully do it myself. Cool Hand Luke 01:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Durova, I told you I didn't want to arbitrate because there is nothing to arbitrate. That is, no dispute with any user. I have the same problem with this RfC. This RfC should be deleted and whoever so desires should start over in SSP, not just cut and paste the whole thing.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) See above. The venue's close to an irrelevance, users are discussing evidence, and that is what is relevant. Not this or that exact page or page title. Do you think there would be less or different evidence if it had been placed on a different page? Would anything you plan to say be significantly different on a different page? RFC is a generic "user conduct request for comments by the community" page. Undeniably what is being sought here is that -- communal input on a matter of user conduct. It's not visibly germane to a decision what the page title would be. By the same token, if there were consensus to page move it, then that equally wouldn't be a problem. As for wiping the debate - my own feeling says "no". Disruptive. We have a working process consensus-seeking established, so we let it consensus seek. The venue is not perjorative. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was a fundamental thing that you need a current dispute. This RfC is being used to hash out old grudges by editors I haven't bumped into in ages, or (Cool Hand Luke) were involved in a major content dispute with Samiharris. Somebody just posted about edits I made fifteen months ago. I think SPS would reduce the drama and focus the discussion on live issues and not stale ones, and not ancient grudges.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I've seen procedural arguments used before as a delaying or dissembling tactic to divert attention from the real issue at hand. I hope that's not what Mantanmoreland is doing here instead of taking some time to actually respond to the accusation. Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Disagree with that as a characterization. It is a user conduct RFC. Sock puppetry, if present, would be a type of user conduct. It presents evidence and asks for comments and viewws, the norm for a conduct RFC. If there is indeed puppetry, then the puppetry is current as of 4 days ago, as both users are presently active editors and if there were considered to be puppetry, then they are currently active puppets.
The RFC does not ask "what shall be done about it". It does not ask for a ban, or a block, or a sanction. It presents evidence and asks for a communal view whether the account holders statement that these are not sockpuppets or meatpuppets is believed or not believed. If it is believed, the matter will presumably be closed. If it is not believed, then the community has consensus on how to view the accounts. But the RFC does not ask what should be done, or suggest "punishment" or sanction. It is beneficial for the community to form its own opinion as to the relationship of the accounts even if no untoward activity were happening, since if related there is a case at a minimum for scrutiny and deliberation.
But that's likewise not the subject of this RFC. Its subject is one question - does the community have a view whether the account owners statement is given credence, or not. That is a legitimate question at the present time for reasons that should be obvious, and the sole one being asked at this time. If someone moots sanctions, that is when your point is germane, and would be considered. For now the sole question being considered is "what does this evidence say", nothing more. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You say, "If there is indeed puppetry, then the puppetry is current as of 4 days ago, as both users are presently active editors and if there were considered to be puppetry, then they are currently active puppets." I hope you realize that Samiharris has left the building. He has retired and is no longer active.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
But there still remains the question if the two accounts are linked, what do we do with a sockpuppet master who has double-!voted in AfD and RfAdmin cases, double-particpation in ArbCom cases and built false consensus.. Oh yes, and this is the SECOND time they had been caught doing so? SirFozzie (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Reword: If these two users are the same individual, then that implies that some matters may need review, and handling of future issues related to the article and users in question (including Sami if he returns) may need considering. In this sense whether or not Samiharris left just as the inquiry focussed (the account was active editorially all the way up to Feb 4), does not change that the community seems to still wish to consider the question. These matters have gone on long enough. An answer by consensus seeking seems to be the present view. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have previously argued for deprecating the User RFC process entirely. However, two MFDs have failed to achieve this so far. As long as the process exists, all users should be subject to it equally. There must be no favoritism where RFCs against certain users are held to an impossible standard. There's clearly a dispute here, namely whether or not Mantanmoreland regularly engages in sockpuppetry. Convincing evidence of this has been provided by long-standing, good-faith users. What other alternative is there? I suppose it could be taken straight to arbitration, but then ArbCom would probably reject it for lack of previous dispute resolution, and we'd be back where we started. It could be discussed on WP:SSP, but what real difference would this make? Who cares whether the page prefix says RFC or SSP? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and we don't (or, at least, shouldn't) dismiss significant and substantial concerns because of technicalities like "wrong venue." *** Crotalus *** 02:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The clique has a long record of squelching attempts to bring certain users to accountability, including a long trail of people who were banned for running into one of the third rails here. But the clique seems to be losing its power lately, since the attempts to suppress this particular inquiry are going nowhere. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the above comment sums things up very nicely, and I have nothing further to add.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Down to the Lowest Common Denominator, eh, MM? For the record, I believe he's comparing These folks to Dan T..ad hominem, anyone? SirFozzie (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Dan T, that really isn't helpful. As I requested at RFC, please address the issues at hand without using this as a platform for personal theories about Wikipedia dynamics. DurovaCharge! 03:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, nice assumption of bad faith form the standard-bearer for the Wikipedia Review clique. We all know what this fatuous supposed "dispute" is about, it's about Judd Bagley trying to pretend that his ban was anything other than 100% proper, and abtout Judd Bagley getting up a lynch mob to try and do down an editor he's decided is someone he dislikes. Why are we going to such lengths to support the agenda of one of the most thoroughly banned of all our currently banned users? As I've said before, I have literally hundreds of emails from Sami and Mantan both, and it is my considered opinion that they are not the same person. The evidence that seems to indicate otherwise is purley circumstantial, and amounts to them editing fomr the same time zone. Sure, I'd be disappointed and angry if they turned out to be the same, but I don't see that a month of RfCs or a year of further wrangling will change the current position in any way: there is no proper proof, only suspicion, and unless people want to block a long-standing editor based on suspicions raised by a vicious troll with a real-life agenda against someone he has decided is this user, with no actual evidence of course, then we should simply walk away and leave it until something else comes along. Guy (Help!) 07:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, are Mantanmoreland and Samiharris members of any of the "private" mailing lists that you belong to or administer? Cla68 (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant and none of your business anyway. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland: It seems to me that for the amount of ducking the question, trying to change the venue and start things over, and general Wiki-Lawyering you're doing.. you could've just, you know, posted a statement on the RfC and tried to convince the folks who have stated time and time again they'd love to hear a reasonable explanation, something that's happened for days now? SirFozzie (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland, I think RfC's just fine and you should address the community's concerns there. If for some reason you think that is the wrong forum, then perhaps you can get the discussion moved, but please understand you will end up facing the same questions.
The community is very concerned; this is all about trust, not forums. I suggest you just proceed with speaking to the issues. --A. B. (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
So what's the upshot? I would hate for there to be a sanctionalbel type finding based only on the presentation by SirFozzie and CoolHandLuke (compelling though it may be). I would love a clear explaination from the users in question. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
"The community believes that Mantanmoreland is a witch and demands that he prove otherwise, on pain of death". Guy (Help!) 10:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Since there doesn't seem to be a consensus for this to go to SSP, I'll post a response at the RfC which I may expand later.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop stalling already!

If anyone remains confused about the deeper issues at stake here, read this thread. Cool Hand Luke 09:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's just beyond outrageous. Why is Mantanmoreland not blocked for disruption is JIMBO WALES believes he is Gary Weiss? Lawrence § t/e 15:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, Jimbo did seem to say on that list that he had looked into it an couldn't find any evidence despite being led down many blind alleys, or similar Whitstable 15:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This is all so stupid. Is there any possibility of adult behavior from the parties at the root of this? Clear statements and actions from two people of things that are not that Fucking hard to do for an adult could resolve this and get many other folks away from the paranoia that grips them around these users and issues. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Community ban

I am convinced by the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mantanmoreland that there has been abusive sock puppetry after warnings. I propose a community ban of Mantanmoreland. Is there any administrator who opposes? If so, I recommend taking this matter to arbitration. The case is not going to be resolved otherwise. The RFC has been useful for gathering evidence and community input, but we must eventually decide what to do about it. Jehochman Talk 16:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Premature. Give it a few more days at the least for the involved parties to grow up, admit the wrongdoing and promise to do better. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
For clarification here (non-admin, however) - if Mantanmoreland were to be banned, would that account, SamiHarris, Lastexit and Tomstoner all be indef blocked? Whitstable 16:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
That would be the case if/when proven, but we're not quite right there yet. SirFozzie (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
If this had gone to WP:SSP, they would be indefinitely blocked. The evidence is quite strong. I think the RFC is generating unnecessary drama at this point. If there are administrators who disagree, I think ArbCom is the place to go now. We should minimize the spectacle. Jehochman Talk 16:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, just to clarify I meant if Jehochman's proposal were to go ahead now, but I'd agree that this has plenty more legs left as things stand Whitstable 16:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid we're way past simply banning one offender. Apparently, some knew about it or strongly suspected it. Yet anyone who did so much as hint toward the suspicion as such was subject to aggressive bullying, accusations of stalking and harassment, and blocking. This definitely needs to go to arbitration anyway, to examine the exact level of involvement of many different (no pun intended) parties. User:Dorftrottel 16:54, February 13, 2008
Agreed, that's what I was thinking without elaborating. Just banning or blocking few members could be seen as little more than sweeping the whole issue under the carpet. It's far too big for that now Whitstable 16:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) I was just about to add the conditional qualifier "Iff this is indeed true, then" in front of my comment. User:Dorftrottel 17:01, February 13, 2008
  • I strongly disagree with all hypotheses of conspiracy and coverup. I think there has been wishful thinking that a friend, or seeming friend, must be innocent. Now that we have clear evidence, the disruptive user must be banned. No other sanctions are required. If any administrator opposes the ban, then a quick trip to arbitration will resolve the matter. Jehochman Talk 17:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "No other sanctions are required." — With all due respect, I beg to differ. If indeed people have known about this, or had good reasons to strongly suspect it, as apparently Jimbo Wales had, then this needs to be thoroughly examined by ArbCom. User:Dorftrottel 17:22, February 13, 2008
  • I'm inclined to agree, however I'd like to see some sort of mitigating statement from Mantanmoreland here as to what has happened from his perspective. In the absence of that, then yes, ArbCom is the way to go - Alison ❤ 17:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the evidence is good, but there does seem to me to be at least enough question in the eyes of some people that ArbCom is probably the way to go. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Without having noticed this thread, after reviewing the RFC and the evidence I have indefinitely blocked Lastexit and Tomstoner. I will probably eventually support a community ban on Mantanmoreland under all accounts, but want to give him a bit more time to at least attempt a defense. I also have concerns that there may be other, as yet unidentified, sock accounts that he has created and used then left alone for a while. GRBerry 17:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • What is wrong with restricting the person to one account and one account only? Since the problem seems to be over the use of multiple accounts in a disruptive manner, could we not effect a community ban to say that the person only gets to use one account? If he THEN violates that ban, wouldn't there be a stronger case to take to ArbCom? We should at least attempt some sanction at this level before ArbCom gets involved... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, this person was caught sock puppeting 18 months ago and was warned at that time. Since warnings have proven ineffective, and the disruption has been egregious, I oppose any further warnings. At this point, real consequences need to occur. Jehochman Talk 17:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No. Even if a ban is in order, not now and not this way. Mantanmoreland is not going to get railroaded; he's going to have every fair chance to defend himself. He has been calling this a kangaroo court. Jehochman, is it your intention to prove him right by turning this into one? DurovaCharge! 18:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • No, and I do not appreciate your assumption of bad faith. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Evidence of sock puppetry has been presented, and discussions have occurred. Much more consideration has been given than most accusations of sock puppetry receive. This user is not more equal than others. Why do you suggest they deserve special treatment? Are friends of powerful administrators entitled to extra consideration? I think not. Presumably this case will go to ArbCom and the user will receive a fair hearing. Hopefully a decision will not be posted 12 hours after the case starts, but also the user should not be kept in the stocks for a prolonged period of time. Jehochman Talk 18:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
      • And two hours after he announces his intention to post a defense, you initiate a ban discussion and pursue it aggressively. That has a very bad appearance. If no defense is possible then you have nothing to fear by waiting a reasonable interval; if defense is possible then by golly I don't want to get this wrong. This issue has divided the community for a long time - a hasty ban won't heal that rift. DurovaCharge! 18:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Where has he been calling this a kangaroo court? I thought the problem is that he hasn't even attempted a defence recently...? Relata refero (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Please clarify: who are the "powerful administrators" of whom Mantanmoreland is supposedly a friend? Guy (Help!) 12:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • ArbCom also provides kangaroo courts (see my case), so you can't push stuff of to ArbCom to avoid 'roos and railroads. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I am opposed to a community ban at this point based on the evidence in the RfC. If further review is necessary at this point, despite what to me is not convincing evidence, then it should be done by Arbitration and interested parties should submit evidence to the Committee if they feel it is necessary. Avruch T 18:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo expressed a suspicion that Mantanmoreland is in fact Gary Weiss.

For the record, I did not say that Mantanmoreland is in fact Gary Weiss. I have investigated that claim repeatedly and I have been unable to find any proof of it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
For the record, immediately after you claim this here you say My saying at one point that I believed Mantanmoreland to be Gary Weiss is not a smoking gun or anything like one. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo said "I just want to go on record as saying that I believe the reason for this is that Mantanmoreland is in fact Gary Weiss." 9/15/2007 on Slim's Sooper Seekrit Syberstalking list WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked Jimbo on his talk page if this is true or not. I'm going to suspend judgement and further action until he replies, or chooses not to reply. Needless to say, I'm currently as concerned and upset as anything I've ever experienced before in my two years of participation here. Cla68 (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he said it--that was during the two weeks or so that I was subscribed before I bailed out. Obviously Jimbo's opinion carries no more weight than any other editor who is aware of the matter; if he knew it to be true, from personal conversation or some such, then I would have expected him to say so or be silent. And of course, simply having a conflict of interest is not a blockable offense, it is how you behave that counts. Thatcher 11:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, well, he also said he tried like anything to find out if there was any proof, and couldn't satisfy himself that there was. He says he didn't want to act on a mere 'belief', and I don't think I see anything wrong with that. Relata refero (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Dude, we have several aggressive admins here, and I'll mention names if you want me to, who block and ban people on belief all of the time. Jimbo had an impression, at the least, that one side in this naked short selling, Overstock vs Weiss dispute was operating in Wikipedia in bad faith. That means that WordBomb/Bagley's arguments about what was going on here was, at least to some degree, credible. But Jimbo kept silent about it here. He allowed the admins who belonged to that "private" mailing list to continue to defame Bagly at every opportunity. He allowed the Weiss article to continue with its POV protection. And he took no action against admins that had retaliated against other editors (like me) because they didn't like their actions related to the Weiss and other articles. This is some dirty pool, and I don't think it's unreasonable to request some accountability. Cla68 (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(OD)It's only fair on ANI that the person making the initial post states what admin action they would like to see. Are we calling for sanctions on Jimbo?!? If not, surely his talk is the best place for this before it spirals out of control Whitstable 12:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Whit, I think we can start by having admins stop blocking and banning people who agree with what Jimbo said. I think admins should stop with their dismissive insults and "acting as proxy of banned user" threats to ban/block based on the thought crime of agreeing with a banned user about something. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have informed Jimbo of this discussion on his talk page, as we would with any editor Whitstable 13:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've written to Jimbo and asked him for comment. He's traveling this week and may not be available to post onsite before Friday. I've reread the entire thread where that brief excerpt came from, and the context is about the difference between proof and hunch. It's possible to have a stong hunch without actually being right (cough). So let's not get too furious at Jimbo for being wiser in September than I was in November. DurovaCharge! 12:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Durova, there is a lot more to it than that. For starters, there is an entire WAR that has been going on for two years that could have been avoided if COI in a nice friend had been taken as seriously as COI in Greg K. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
While I can't disagree with what you are saying, my concern is that the Mantanmoreland = real life Weiss debate will undermine the work that has gone into the Mantanmoreland = Samiharris = Lastexit = Tomstoner, etc, etc, RFC (or whatever it ends up as) "investigation" at the moment. If we can show that Mantanmoreland has abusively socked, then perhaps we can then consider whether we need to be concerned about who the sockmaster may be in real life. But blurring the lines at this stage could give ammunition to the "You are acting for Wordbomb, a banned user" argument. Whitstable 13:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This is necessary to understand why he socked (goes to motivation) and what is so wrong with it (COI) and that saying it is something the !cabal does but punish others for doing it. This is a big mess that the !cabal has gotten us into and some of them want to still protect their friend and bury their selective enforcement of COI rules. This two year war has got to stop, and banning both sides is important in getting to that end. Know that both sides will continue to try to get wikipedia articles to reflect their POV. That won't stop. The war can only stop when admins stop making thought crime punishable on wikipedia and stop judging contributors on whether or not they agree with their friends or agree with their enemies. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
So many threads have gotten moved around that it took a while to find this. Was 4.250, I do take this seriously; that's why I've been working with SirFozzie. One of the things I don't like about this situation is the possibility that someone may have abused my goodwill, and the goodwill of others, in a way that gives your conjectures the appearance of being reasonable. DurovaCharge! 21:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe they are reasonable in some instances. User:Dorftrottel 21:43, February 13, 2008
Then I guarantee you this much: anybody who disagrees with me about something is welcome to come straight to me and discuss it politely without fear of retaliation. And nobody who violates core policies is a sacred cow. I'm a Wikipedian, not a partisan; we all should be. DurovaCharge! 23:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We all failed, and we owe WordBomb an apology.

Yes, you heard right. What happened was he had a legitimate and sincere (even if he was wrong, there seems little doubt that he sincerely believed it) concern that someone with a conflict of interest was working to introduce bias into the encyclopedia, and, solely because he raised it in the wrong venue (the article text rather than WP:COI/N), he was banned before he could blink. All his further actions stemmed from this. Maybe in thinking there was a conspiracy he failed to assume we were all incompetent like he should have, but given what actually happened, a conspiracy almost seems the simpler explanation. When someone forwarded a private e-mail from him indiscriminately and it ended up in Weiss's hands, what in the hell was he supposed to think? If that happened to _you_, don't you think you might think the person you sent it to was working against you?

And - one last thing to think about - at some point, somewhere along the line we all forgot that Judd Bagley is a living person, too. It's become too easy to dismiss someone's complaints of "defamation" as legal threats, but we all need to consider when someone is actually being harmed by our words.

—Random832 14:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

'I cannot speak for others, but as for me, I do not owe Wordbomb an apology for anything.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I want to say this in the strongest possible terms: we owe WordBomb nothing. Nothing whatsoever. He came here to abuse Wikipedia to promote his employer's agenda. When he was rebuffed in that abuse, he chose to try to blackmail an administrator and then he chose to repeat evidence-free harassment publicised by someone already banned from the project. Judd Bagley is a perfect example of the kind of user we should, do, and always will ban. We banned him because he abused Wikipedia for his own ends, and because he is a kook who even his boss tried to deny a link with until it became too obvious to deny any more. Bagley attacks everyone who stands in his way, his attitude and his actions are absolutely, utterly, completely and unquestionably incompatible with the aims and societal mores of Wikipedia. Whether or not any other editor has resorted to any kind of policy violation or subterfuge, whether to evade Bagley or not, is completely irrelevant to this core fact: Bagley is banned because Bagley abused Wikipedia for his own ends and violated just about every policy we have in the process. Of course, Bagley's inappropriate and unacceptable actions have made it much harder for him to get his point across. Tough shit. Guy (Help!) 00:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You could have said shit and other similar words more often but that was worded pretty strongly. I'm not going to mess with your comment but I strongly recommend you remove the obvious personal attack (it starts with a "k" and has been removed by others elsewhere in this thread) and desist from making these kinds of remarks about living people. BLP policies apply to everyone, even people you do not like who have disrupted Wikipedia. I'm not sure why you would have to be told that, but then again I'm not sure what good you think the above comment could possibly do or how it could ever be considered constructive. This whole admittedly difficult discussion has been proceeding with a fairly high degree of civility with very few folks going off half-cocked. I understand that you've been going through a lot in the last few weeks and that this situation makes you angry, but if you cannot keep your comments in a more civil vein then maybe you should step away from this whole situation for a little while.
Please note that this is not even remotely a defense of WordBomb, rather it's an indictment of your rhetorical tactics which violate our policies and are unhelpful - both to the general discussion and even to your own argument.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Face it. You failed because you are all trained through years of bad admin behavior and wikipedia culture to scream "sockpuppet" as your first line of defense against reality. And you were trained this way because whenever you did it, some other admin came along and said "good catch" and dropped a block and patted you on the back, while anyone who would stand up for those who were falsely accused was - TA-DAHH - accused of being a sockpuppet unless they happened to know someone who had their own admin buttons.

Look at the thousands on thousands of indefinite blocks placed (some against mere IP addresses). Look how many claim "sockpuppet" on flimsy evidence or because someone (someone with power?) didn't agree with what was being said.

You've driven off experts in their field. You've driven off good contributors. You've slowly guarded your favorite articles, preventing a change in consensus by picking off anyone who disagrees with the "primary" writers of an article one at a time.

And you've done it for the likes of people who claim false credentials (Catholic-hating Essjay using false Ph.D in Religion while writing on Catholicism anyone? Sure pissed me off to find out...), who are trying to push propaganda to support abusive governments or attack good ones, or who have a vested interest in certain companies while editing said articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.146.249 (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr 129 is overly dramatic and makes a few leaps of logic, but is in essence right. Many admins go from suspicion to blocking without checking far too often. This has led to many potentially excellent contributors having their Wikipedia-careers cut short - once you start getting accused of being a "disruptive single purpose account" or a "editor acting by proxy on behalf of a banned user", the ill-feeling engendered pretty much guarantees you're not going to want to continue to contribute, even if you're subsequently exonerated. It's far easier for many admins to type "assume good faith" then it is to actually do it. Neıl ☎ 15:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Neil's comment, above. --Marvin Diode (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything I ever needed to learn in order to understand wikipedia administrator behavior I learned right from an old wikipedia admin: http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com/. It appears to happen all the time and not just in this case, I see several places above where things don't pass the initial smell test. Zenwhat is blocked and people remove his comments and lock his talk page, someone is banned claiming they are a "returning user" who is indef-banned for... "personal attacks"??? We have people justifying keeping someone blocked because pointing out that the block was not within the rules is "wikilawyering"??? Someone who brought up the valid question of whether or not the appearance of Krimpet's blocking action (which was an indef against the blocking policy in any case, and hasn't yet been rescinded) was problematic - and when I check Krimpet's log I find him blocking the person who brought up the question???

Wikipedia has a problem. Too many jaundiced, hair-trigger admins who shout "NPA! AGF! WTFBBQPWNDBecauseISaidSo" to justify whatever they do, and refuse to pay attention to their own behavior - in other words, they can't AGF, they can't actually TALK on talk pages or require that others do so, and they certainly can't be bothered to not WP:BITE the newbs when they can instead just accuse everyone they feel like BITEing of being a "returned sock" of someone they don't like... especially easy when they're protecting and watching the same articles or helping the same people over and over.

I look at the long list of stuff on this page and I have to wonder: would half of these be here if the admins in question weren't ignoring WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:BITE themselves? Would we have so many "returning trolls" if, instead of instantly reaching for the banhammer to protect their friends or get rid of people in prevention of a feared consensus change, they actually sat down and engaged on the talk pages, got the others to do the same, and worked on the encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.146.249 (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As per above "editor acting by proxy on behalf of a banned user" is thrown around an awful lot. Just because I believe the US were right to declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor does not make me a sock of FDR! Whitstable 15:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
That's the method commonly used to ban entire categories of ideas, by making them "harassment memes" perpetrated by banned users, so that anybody who expresses anything similar can be tarred with guilt by association. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Wordbomb's activity is still blockable. He also needs to admit that he acted inappropriately and appolgize. This whole matter is a two way street and until both sides grow up and appologize and promise to do better it won't go away. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • And User:WordBomb is indef blocked last time I checked. So where do you want him to apologise? In my opinion, we can start talking about mutual apologies once the playing field has been leveled a bit — either way. User:Dorftrottel 16:46, February 13, 2008

Not only is the account blocked, Slimvirgin has also blocked even the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WordBomb. What do you expect? This is too typical of wikipedia - "we demand you apologize! We don't care if we did anything wrong, YOU must apologize and bow down! How dare you accuse us of misbehaving, that's a Personal Attack and we get to lock your talk page. No, Seriously! Apologize! I don't see any apology on your (locked) talk page! ... repeat ad nauseum.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.146.249 (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

    • Hold on, I never suggested allowing him to edit. There's plenty of stuff he's done _since_ being blocked, that crosses the line; I don't think either side of this "war" should be allowed to edit these articles; and he does not appear to be interested in building an encyclopedia. But merely claiming he believes that an article subject is editing wikipedia, is not blockable. People do that every day on WP:COI/N. Doing so in article space was certainly incorrect, but he should have been corrected on what venue would have been appropriate, rather than simply being blocked. —Random832 17:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think even Wordbomb would expect his account to be unblocked any time soon based on his various actions since initially being indefinitely blocked. But some recognizance of the faults our system played in the whole mess would not go amiss. There will always be admins who are quick to denigrate people as "vicious trolls" or somesuch without realising the fact that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy - if you continually label someone as a troll, and dismiss everything they do and say as trolling, and don't even consider engaging with them or understanding why they're so pissed off, do you really think they'll improve their behaviour? Neıl ☎ 17:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
        • WordBomb can be contacted on the Wikback.com discussion forums, if anyone feels the need to do so. WilyD 21:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, last September Jimbo did indeed say that. And recanted it after Mantanmoreland persuaded him otherwise, citing technical evidence. So: nothing to see here, move along, please. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, recanted where? Achromatic (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I can't find where this was recanted - Guy, do you have a diff or a link? Neıl ☎ 01:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • See below. He said this by email to a list which, at that time, included Mantanmoreland, me, Jimbo, arbitrators and I think also Samiharris. But Jimbo's statement below puts this in context perfectly. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to block

I don't see why it matters so much who Mantanmoreland is in real life. At this point, copious evidence has been assembled to indicate that Mantanmoreland used multiple accounts inappropriately. A CheckUser request for Mantanmoreland and Samiharris proved inconclusive, because apparently one of the accounts was using open proxies exclusively. Nevertheless, I think the evidence is persuasive on the issue of these accounts being run by the same person. So, at this juncture I propose the following:

  1. That all of these accounts be blocked, indefinitely for the time being.
  2. We should ask for an identification of which account was the one using open proxies.
  3. If Mantanmoreland/Samiharris wishes to resume editing, we would only unblock the account that was not using proxies, so that CheckUser is still useful for the main account.
  4. The community, I think it's fair to expect in the event of unblocking, will be vigilant in monitoring this account for editing that suggests a conflict of interest, and for any sign of sockpuppet involvement in areas where this person works.

I don't know if the editor is still that interested in working on Wikipedia, one account is "retired" but the other has made sporadic recent contributions that have nothing to do with the dispute. The person has done useful work in areas with no hint of conflict, though the suspiciously-minded likely think that's a front. But if this person really does want to contribute in other areas, I don't see how a suspected conflict of interest in other areas warrants a complete ban. --Michael Snow (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, this will be the 2nd time caught sockpuppetting, and the two accounts have double voted in RfAdmins, and AfD's.. Double participated in ArbCom cases, and apparently built a false consensus to merge a bunch of articles into one (which they wrote). If proven, then there's no reason why they SHOULD be editing. SirFozzie (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the vigilance going forward will be sufficient to address the problem. Most likely any account that clearly sides with this person in the future will be automatically suspected as a sockpuppet, rightly or not. I realize not everybody may agree that this is a sufficient remedy, but if there's agreement to do anything at all rather than sit around and debate endlessly, I think something like this may be it. --Michael Snow (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Do we need two separate sections with a proposal to block? Avruch T 19:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This proposal is different in nature, so the sections should be separate, I think. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Since it's been indicated elsewhere that Samiharris was the account using proxies, and that account has indicated its departure, I went ahead and blocked that one, at any rate. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Samiharris is unblocked, only to participate in the arbitration case if Samiharris chooses to. — Save_Us † 22:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom?

  1. If the charges of sockpuppetry are found to be true, then it was abusive in nature and followed warnings. In such a case the puppeteer and all his personnas should be blocked indefinitely. That's all there is to it.
  2. Given all the drama, I suggest having this go to Arbcom if there's any chance admins might wheel-war over questions of guilt and any resulting blocks. I hate to add another layer, but I'd also hate to see collateral damage caused by imperfect consensus after the RfC process.

Better to do this right than do it fast. I'd rather see an Arbcom case about Mantamoreland than one about all the editors and admins that got in a fight after his RfC. --A. B. (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Such an arbcom case deserves to also include the aforementioned Wordbomb person, and the reasoning by which certain administrators have hounded and attacked many people claiming them to be "wordbomb socks" or "acting by proxy for banned user Wordbomb", as well as the locking of Wordbomb's talk page. Such behavior is directly relevant to the situation at hand, which goes far beyond abuse just by MantanMoreland (aka Weiss if proven so to Arbcom's/Community's satisfaction) and speaks of serious abuse by a number of highly placed admins.
To only hold an Arbcom case on Mantanmoreland is trying to sweep the real issues under the rug rather than fixing the problems in the system. -- 129.7.146.249 21:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that is a separate issue, but might get swept in. It depends on the evidence folks submit to the proceeding. And that's the key, evidence. All to often there is much hue and cry about stuff, but folks don't submit on-wiki types of evidence that a problem exists. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
My point was not about Wordbomb, etc. -- just that no decisions be made coming out of the RfC if there is any chance that consensus won't be very strong.
Since you raise the topic of Wordbomb, I suggest deferring any new Wordbomb case to a separate proceeding. --A. B. (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, but just commenting that it might get swept in per the ip's thoughts. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, take it to ArbCom. When you do so, cite diffs for actual problem edits by Mantanmoreland - that is, edits which clearly fail core policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BLP). These seem to be conspicuous by their absence thus far. The case to date appears to rest on "Judd Bagley says...", but Judd Bagley behaves in a very odd and aggressive manner (various financial blogs and forums have used terms such as "kook", "creepy" and "blackmail") and his opinion and actions have been proven to be completely untrustworthy where his employer is concerned. There is no proof that Mantan = Sami, and no proof that Mantan = Weiss, and no community consensus for a ban (only a baying mob). Guy (Help!) 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Disregarding the former user who seems to have started all this, would the moderatly abusive sockpupetry described here merit any sort of action? (were it shown to be the case) I'm just asking your opinion in general. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
JzG, didn't you fully protect the Gary Weiss article after removing non-vandalistic, cited text? And weren't you and Mantanmoreland participants in at least one of the "private", cabalistic mailing lists? Do you think it appropriate for the ArbCom to scrutinize your actions in this affair? Cla68 (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
No. And you can stop beating the blolody smear where that dead horse once lay, as well, because as you've been told numerous times your version of events is simply wrong, and there were arbitrators on the mailing list to which you still apparently take such exception. Guy (Help!) 00:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but that doesn't answer the question on why this chap gets a free pass for years of abusive sockpuppetry. Relata refero (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Which sockpuppet accounts has Mantanmoreland been proven to have used recently? Any time in the last three months would be fine. Checkuser evidence would be best, of course. According to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Samiharris, the only absolutely identified sock was Palabrazo, being WordBomb yet again (he must be loving all this attention and the way he's been able to exploit people like Cla68 and Dan Tobias). I've said before and I'll say again: I have hundreds of emails each from Mantanmoreland and Samiharris, and it's my (non-expert) opinion that they are probably two different individuals. I find it quite easy to believe that Samiharris is Weiss, I find it much harder to believe that Mantanmoreland is Weiss. So: show me actual problem edits by Mantanmoreland, excluding assumptions that Mantan = Sami, which is unproven and will probably never be provable either way. If you can show me evidence of actual biased edits by Mantanmoreland that are a problem per policy without invoking some hypothesis as to real identity or unprovable sockpuppetry, then we can talk about it. Otherwise, it has to be left to ArbCom because it's abundantly clear that there is no actual consensus for punitive action against Mantanmoreland based on edits which can be conclusively attributed to Mantanmoreland and nobody else - at least that's how I see it. Cla68 seems to think Mantan is getting a free pass because he has powerful friends. That is an amusingly false suggestion; Jimbo was pretty aggressive towards Mantan, and I think most of his supposed "powerful friends" are at best wary about him. But even if he did have powerful friends, it would be his own actions that should define what we do. Just as Bagley's having powerful enemies is actually irrelevant to the reasons for his banning, being blackmail, harassment, sockpuppetry and flagrantly abusive editing. It seems to me that some here are bending over so far backwards to be fair to Bagley that they have entirely forgotten to extend the same courtesy to an editor who has, over two years, made a non-trivial contribution to the project. Sure, we can ban people who are more trouble than they are worth, but here I don't see it being Mantanmoreland who's making the trouble. How comfortable would you be with banning every editor who attracts a vociferous enough hate campaign off-wiki that they are able to make substantial on-wiki disruption wherever that person goes? That is very much how this looks to me. am entirely prepared to be proved wrong with diffs of actual problem edits provably made by Mantanmoreland, so let's focus on that, shall we? Guy (Help!) 13:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
"(he must be loving all this attention and the way he's been able to exploit people like Cla68 and Dan Tobias)" - though I certainly do not claim to speak for either of these people, I'm fairly sure that insulting the intentions and actions of other editors and deriding what you see as poor judgment is not exactly in keeping with WP:NPA. Achromatic (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, especially your last points about the hate campaign, which means we have to be extra careful here. just two things in reply:
  • Have you looked at the SF-Durova Dossier? Do you genuinely believe the 'lipstick on a pig' and interleaving sections are not useful?
  • I've looked at the Naked short selling article over the past couple of hours. This is the first time I've ever looked at it, or any of these battleground articles, and I have no strong opinion on the practice. My detailed comments on it are at the end of Talk:Naked short selling. Its pretty clear to me that somebody's been pushing something there. I don't know enough about the personalities at this point to know who has been pushing what, and I am at this time embroiled in too many things to check three years of diffs for why what appear to be extremely legit suggestions - mostly originating from people who dont appear to be socks, btw - have been ignored. I will therefore admit that I have looked at the "evidence" of socking presented, and one or two aspects of it appear to be pretty convincing; I have looked at one example of a supposedly OWNed article, and there are definite signs of strange slant and incomprehensible exclusions and deletions; I admit it is a jump from there to any assumption of a manufactured consensus over several articles. But its pretty damn indicative. In the absence of a coherent defence...
I would actually prefer this not go to ArbCom, who have not covered themselves in glory recently. Relata refero (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
lets save all that sort of thing for the time being, please. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
"Judd Bagley is a [quote of BLP violation redacted]" - Guy, BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia, not just articles. No matter what Bagley has done, he's a real person. Please try and avoid the childish insults. Neıl ☎ 01:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
not to mention irrelevant. The question is mantanmoreland's actions on en.wikipedia. Other folks actions that might be related to this are secondary right now. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The deteriorating discussion since I left my suggestion above is an example of why I think we need an Arbcom proceeding for Mantanmoreland -- so as to minimize the other, additional Arbcom proceedings we might need from all the side brawls, BLP violations and personal attacks involving editors other than Mantanmoreland. --A. B. (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just been looking back through a lot of diffs. One that I am having trouble with is this one here. Is Fred Bauder referring to the article about the reporter who cannot be named in reply to the IP (assume to be Wordbomb, but Fred Bauder does actually thank the IP for pointing out the socking)? If it is not the article about the reporter who cannot be named then what article? It can't be Mantan Moreland as he has been dead since 1973. I am having trouble understanding how Fred Bauder's post should be interpreted. He certainly doesn't say User:Mantanmoreland doesn't have an autobiographical article about himself. Whitstable 03:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • There's no choice at this point, really, other than to turn it over to the Wheel of Justice ArbCom. Ain't else that'll shut people up. WilyD 13:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed, and is this discussion here serving any purpose now the issue is at Arbcom? My worry is this page may start to turn into editors "taking sides" and nobody will gain from that. For all the faults it may or may not have, I can't see any alternative to Arbcom Whitstable 13:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further clarification of my views (Jimbo)

My saying at one point that I believed Mantanmoreland to be Gary Weiss is not a smoking gun or anything like one. They are apparently trying to spin this was me "knowing" and "lying" about it. The truth is that I do not know, I have my suspicions like anyone might, but there is no proof and I have tried (hard) to get proof.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Nevertheless, you must have had good reasons for a rather strong statement like that one. I for one would appreciate further, detailed explanation as to what exactly those reasons were, and also (equally important) who else can reasonably be assumed to have had those reasons available to them at or around the time you made that statement. User:Dorftrottel 12:02, February 14, 2008
  • If there were absolutely no grounds for suspicion whatsoever, then Bagley would not have been able to so successfuly exploit such suspicions. The fact remains that there is no proof, and there never has been. I would say that everybody here is by now so invested in one interpretation or another that ArbCom is probably the only venue for resolution of this matter. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
While the COI potential is important, I think first we have to decide on the abusive socking allegations. The other issues come after that. I hope that we (and the arbcom) don't put the cart before the horse and trot out to much on either the coi/real person issues, or the banned blocke user opponent issues until after some of this other is evaluated. just my take. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that many people have found that there has been more evidence towards this than has been shown for literally hundreds of blocks in our past. There is more to this than Bagley - we can't just wave our hands and say "But Bagley caused this, so there's no issue" - both parts of that are contentious, at best. Achromatic (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
That's as maybe, but several people have said in all good faith that they believe Mantanmoreland and Samiharris are not the same person, Mantanmoreland also asserts this, and the evidence is circumstantial. So, we give him his day in court. Me, I will be angry and upset if it turns out that Weiss = Mantan or Mantan = Sami, because I chose to believe the arguments Mantan put forward to the contrary some time ago (in the face of very considerable scepticism, I might add, including from Jimbo). But I have been wrong before and no doubt will be again, so it's not really a big deal for me. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting thought - yes, there is suspicion, I don't think anyone is denying that. For example, a post from Gary Weiss's blog saying how he has been in India for "the past few weeks" dated October 17 2006. It would be interesting if those who have been going through edits and compiling graphs could compare Mantanmoreland's edit times for the few weeks prior to that blog post and see if the times are significantly different to what is normally seen Whitstable 14:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if ArbCom decide there is a useful finding to be made if it can be reasonably dis/proven that Mantanmoreland is GW, then this might be an appropriate avenue of investigation. Otherwise, it is a diversion from the case in hand - whether M operated socks abusively. Motive goes a long way to providing the why's, but we are still (just) at the stage of if's, when and how presently. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I do agree that ideally this needs to be handled in a staggered manner, but this is not a standard case of socking. It is centred around articles that have become a battleground for opposing sides, who are using Wiki to further their off-site, real-life rivalries. I have no opinion on those rivalries, sometimes when I short sell I wear a bow-tie and top hat, other times I am naked! Does it really matter if MM is GW? That's a tough question. Has MM been a good, valuable contributor? Yes, very much so. Edits to articles not related to the battlefield have been good, such as to the small, little-known Indian town of Varkala, with two edits here and here. That GW wrote an article in Forbes later in the year with a byline from that obscure Indian town means absolutely nothing! Less Duckier evidence has been used to block "socks of" banned users in the past. But there is a lot to look at here - my worry is that looking at this just as another case of sockpuppeting will not solve the problem, and it is a problem we need to get rid of. Wiki can not be used as a battleground. This case is as much a simple sock case as WWII was a minor border skirmish between Germany and Poland. Whatever does come out of this (and sorry, I'm just thinking as I type here), perhaps we should take all of the related articles, scrap them all, and start them again. Whitstable 14:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
There might be a reasonable explanation for that edit, perhaps Weiss has mentioned the town elsewhere - he has a personal website? - if, as is apparent from that article, he has in-laws there. And if he's mentioned it elsewhere, an editor who reads his blog might well look at the WP article... Still, another indication. Relata refero (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
There might be a reasonable explanation, of course. But a quick Google search of GW and Varkala suggests no link has been made prior to that article. But I only performed a quick check, I must stress. Also, a search of his blog shows no use of the word Varkala. I think there might be enough circumstantial stuff going around now for somebody to compare the edit times of the suspected accounts when GW was in India with other times to see if there is a noticeable change. Whitstable 17:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Whitstable that the problem is bigger than some simple socking, but I'd rather not scrape the locus of the dispute and start over at this time (that might be an appropriate finding down the road). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
As long as we are agreed, and I think most of us are, that this is more than simple socking and things more than socking may be needed to be looked at further down the road, yes. Agreed. Whitstable 15:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The thing that I find so disturbing about all this is not the particulars of the case -- both sides have made cogent arguments about that. The disturbing part is that clearly there is a group of powerful admins at Wikipedia who apply one set of standards to their friends, and another to their opponents, and this casts a shadow over the entire process. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is admittedly a complicated case

Try to resist simplifying things. This is not black versus white, or good versus evil. This is shades of gray. Quantifiable, undeniable facts are few, opinions are many (and varied) on all the different issues of this case, and even if you had a scorecard, keeping track of the players in this "game" is difficult. I just ask that everyone assume good faith of others in this discussion, and view the evidence and information provided with an open mind. SirFozzie (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, exactly that. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
What's the basis for this reversion? I had my own contribution to this thread reverted by User:Durova as inflammatory because I questioned the God-King status of User:Jimbo.. I accepted that because my rhetoric may have been a bit much.. but now I wonder if all "IP contributions" are being dismissed on sight. 72.193.12.47 (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I have two responses to you. 1) your comment was needlessly inflamatory and irrelevant to the discusion. 2) the other ip's comment was also irrelevant, and trying to get the discussion off the topic. The topic is mantanmoreland, and the appearant abusive sockpuppetry. Anything not directly related (real life id, wordbomb, poor admin behavior) should either be moved to it's own section or taken out (imo). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Whew! I was afraid people were actually trying to have a "dialogue." I'm pleased to see that this conversation is being carefully directed to the "correct" result. 72.193.12.47 (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment. there is no 'correct' result here. a number of people have acted childishly and for reasons (that seem to me) of 'face' cannot back down off that. evaluation of mantanmoreland's alleged abuse is part getting beyond the childish behavior. If you want to have a whole discussion about wordbomb's alleged sins, please start a new section for it. I'm of simple mind, it's better to keep it separate. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom has accepted

Head up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)