Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland ban discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For discussion on this topic after-340 UTC on March 15, 2008, go to /Part 2.

Contents 1 Proposed community ban of Mantanmoreland and Samiharris 1.1 Break 1 1.2 Break 2 1.3 An alternate proposal--a "Last Chance" 1.4 It is the fault of the disrupters 1.5 More votes on community ban 1.6 Split from above: User:Samiharris sockpuppet tag 1.7 Blocking because arbcom case has ended 1.8 SH and MM blocked 1.9 Comment on improving the process 1.10 Cleaning up the paperwork 1.11 Timescale and process 1.12 Mantanmoreland unblocked by Doc glasgow 1.13 Mantanmoreland unblocked 1.14 Chill 1.15 Restarting the community ban discussion 2 Next proposal 3 Utter and total topic ban 4 A Simple Proposal 5 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland 6 Suggestion going forward 7 Comment 8 Some observations from a newbie admin's perspective 9 Support for the emerging consensus 10 Mr. IP proposal 11 New thread

[edit] Proposed community ban of Mantanmoreland and Samiharris

I propose a community ban of

• Mantanmoreland (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)
• Samiharris (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)

The Mantanmoreland ArbCom case is apparently about to close, with 4 net votes to close in place. Therefore, I propose that the community act to tie up the loose ends here, by enacting a community ban of Samiharris as a disruptive sock and POV pusher, and Mantanmoreland as a disruptive sockmaster and POV pusher. I am willing to enact the ban myself after discussion. (but not until the case actually formally closes) As a reminder, despite ArbCom findings not specifically acknowledging it, the community has already found the evidence of sockpuppetry compelling, as documented in the RfC. I was debating where to propose this but this seems the best place. ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The arbs have already enacted punishment. Let's see how that goes first. IronDuke 17:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  "Punishment"? Mike R (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Did I misspell it? I hate it when I do that. IronDuke 17:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  I think he's trying to imply that Arbcom enacted "remedies," not punishment. The goal isn't simply to penalize editors, but to fix the situation. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  If he did, he's free to say so. I suspect you are not correct, however. But as I say... IronDuke 17:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Based on exhaustive and overwhelming evidence presented by multiple users on the RFAR of connections between these two for advancement of common goals: sockpuppetry. The light RFAR penalty has no bearing on any further actions the community may decide to take, and any community sanction can certainly supercede or expand upon any AC findings and decisions, since the AC is simply an extension of the community. Lawrence § t/e 17:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. Even those who were opposed to ArbCom linking the two accounts formally (and to the real life identity that they supposedly share), indicated that they expected the community to enact a community ban shortly after the ArbCom case closed. It's time to draw a solid line under two plus years of controversy, to take action against someone caught using sockpuppets MULTIPLE times over two years, and to tell all sides in an off-Wikipedia battle to keep their battles off of Wikipedia. ArbCom had their chance, and rather then mete out punishment, they decided to take steps for the future. Now it's the community's turn to do what the ArbCom won't. (oh, btw, please refrain from turning this into a straight line !vote with things like oppose and support, this is a discussion, not a vote) :) SirFozzie (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Yes please... this is NOT an up/down vote. I'll be enacting it unless I see a compelling reason to believe that the community consensus is against doing it. If others revert, so be it, but I would suggest that is not a good approach. ++Lar: t/c 17:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Hang on, that's backwards. You'll be doing it unless consensus says otherwise? Why not only do it if consensus says "yes"? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Consensus already says yes SirFozzie (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  To banning? I don't think so. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  We don't ban people for socking it up repeatedly? Lawrence § t/e 17:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Lar is suggesting that there is consensus for a ban. There is not. Banning did not come into that discussion (bar a couple of people -- do a search if you're interested in who) and to suggest otherwise is highly misleading. I do not see that sockpuppetry should automatically lead to an infinite ban. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  There is consensus, The RfC. We'd ban any other troublemaker who OWN'd a series of articles with sockpuppets, double voted in Adminship cases.. MULTIPLE times. This is no different. SirFozzie (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  That was my reasoning to support. Mantanmoreland is just another pseudonym caught socking multiple times. We block those. Lawrence § t/e 17:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  You are being disingenuous to the point of deliberate deception. There is not consensus for anything other than the general conclusion that they are sockpuppets. By all means ban SamiHarris, especially for the abuse of proxies. What do you intend the ban to achieve, other than some vague idea of deterrence or conformity with precedent? And please don't shout, it's very unbecoming and does not assist a convivial and edifying atmosphere. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Sam, consensus exists in multiple venues that Mantanmoreland more than once abused our sockpuppetry rules. We would ban (and do ban) other users for that behavior daily. Why is Mantanmoreland different? Lawrence § t/e 18:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  I fail to see what it will achieve. I disagree with any ban that does not have a purpose. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Prevention. Stops the account "Mantanmoreland" from sockpuppetting a third time to benefit that Mantanmoreland account, as is our common practice. The user also has never to my knowledge apologized for or stated he would not sockpuppet further. He's been caught now on two incidents with a total of at least three usernames. Why do we assume it will stop? Why is Mantanmoreland any different from any other run of the mill sockpuppeteer, that he deserves special consideration that others do not? Lawrence § t/e 18:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Prevention is already achieved by the extraordinary scrutiny anything he does will attract. Banning him will make no difference and is therefore at best pointless. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent for readability -19:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

• Scrutiny that from a technical perspective he is adept at evading--see Samiharris. Again, why is this disruptive sockpuppeteer any different from the other dozens we ban weekly? Why does Mantanmoreland, a thrice-proven sockpuppeteer, get the extra carrot? Lawrence § t/e 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Do you really think anyone is going to get away with tendentious editing in this area now? Everyone should get the extra carrot, as you put it. The fact that they don't is an absurd reason to deny it in this instance. "We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty equally." Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Should we unblock other long-term confirmed sockpuppeteers then? Archtransit, Runcorn? Are you calling for enforcement of abusive sockpuppetry to change? Again: why is Mantanmoreland a special character compared to all others? Lawrence § t/e 18:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Archtransit's abuse went far beyond just sockpuppetry and could not have been countered in any other fashion. I oppose banning users unless there is some positive way in which that would actually help. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Banning Mantanmoreland, who is skilled technically at evading detection, will prevent his being able to affect Wikipedia under multiple usernames to benefit the aims of the "Mantanmoreland" username. He is banned from the editing of the articles, but can still influence them via Wikipedia space discussion, RFARs, RFCs, and user and article talk pages. Are we going to be checkusering and blocking any and all proxy-based users on these accounts from now on that support Mantanmoreland's stances? It would be a violation of the privacy policy, common sense, and a huge workload. Easier to get rid of the center of the problem, so that there is no established account for sock accounts to support. This is not positive? Lawrence § t/e 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  If he continues to be disruptive, we can always ban him then. If the softer approach works, that's the one to go for. It has not been demonstrated that the soft approach will not work. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Actually, it has been tried and failed. Fred Bauder explicitly warned him against using more than one account after he was caught as user:Lastexit and User:Tomstoner before. He turned right around and made User:Samiharris. Fool us once, fool us twice, fooled us thrice... why are we going to wait for the fourth? Lawrence § t/e 18:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Because his prominence and that of his edits is now going to be extraordinary. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  You mean to say, "We're rewarding a three-time confirmed violator of our sockpuppetry policies", who is in trouble now because of his self-created circumstances, so that certain parties don't get black eyes and so that we don't "reward our enemies". Outrageous. I think the community should simply do what ultimate consensus bears out. The Arbitration Committee is ultimately only a tool of the community in any event, and can be superceded by the community as needed: we allow their appointment and authority, and they serve us at our pleasure. If they don't do what the community decides it needs, the community can always take extra steps to protect itself. Lawrence § t/e 18:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Strawman alert! That isn't even slightly what I am saying. What I mean to say is that it is outstandingly stupid to use this "he's going to do this and that" stuff. He might. Then we ban him. Why not at least try what is already in place? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Because it appears that the community wants to apply the same exact standards to Mantanmoreland that we apply to everyone else caught sockpuppetting three times. We show them the door. The community I think does not understand why some members are advocating a much softer approach for this specific user. Why is MM special? Help us understand why this puppetmaster should be treated differently. We always ban these guys. Why not this one? Lawrence § t/e 19:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Would you be happier if I told you that I would hold the same opinion of anyone in this situation? I do not agree with Mantanmoreland, I do not defend Mantanmoreland, I do not want to further Mantanmoreland's agenda, I am not paid by Mantanmoreland and I do not like Mantanmoreland. I do not think banning Mantanmoreland will achieve anything and therefore I do not think he should be blocked. Is that clear enough? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• (deindenting) Sam, you're nto getting the point here, I think. You claim that a soft approach should be tried. It has been tried. It failed. Samiharris just showed up and took over the torch for Mantanmoreland. So why do we have to go down a path that's already been tried and failed, and have to wait for the NEXT sockpuppet? SirFozzie (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Because the next sockpuppet might well not come. Given everything that has gone on in this case, that wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. The assumption that Mantanmoreland will continue to sockpuppet is a very large one. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • All we can go by is past history. Wikipedia turned the other cheek, and that one got smacked too. We shouldn't be presenting a third cheek for him. Let's not forget the fact that to this day, MM has denied angrily EVER using sockpuppets, even though Fred Bauder, then an ArbCom member was the one to find the first one. SirFozzie (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The assumption that he has sockpuppeted in the past and therefore will continue to do so is by no means obvious. What would, on the other hand, be obvious would be any sockpuppets he might create in the future. The scrutiny all this fuss will have brought will make sockpuppeting futile. We have measures; let's see if they work. (NB We are not obliged to wait and see, I just think we should.) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I sincerely invite you to retract your personal attack, Sam, but if you want to call me a liar (and that's what you're doing, no matter what pretty words you use to gussy it up), That's fine. "When you can't attack the evidence, attack the accuser." But to answer your question, what I want the ban to achieve is: To keep an account who's been caught using sockpuppet accounts multiple times over two years to import an off-Wikipedia battle on to our site from abusing Wikipedia any more. No less. He's made a mockery of Wikipedia's rules, and roped in admins I have praise for in other issues to fight his battles for him. SirFozzie (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Do you know what a personal attack is? Accusing you of being deliberately deceptive is not one. Can you explain how banning him will actually achieve anything? You seem to consider "letting Mantanmoreland edit Wikipedia" and "letting Mantanmoreland disrupt Wikipedia" to be synonymous. They are not. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, I know what a personal attack is.. apparently you are unclear. Calling someone a liar (you just used two words where one would have done just fine, everyone else got the point just as well) is a personal attack. Mantanmoreland's editing of Wikipedia IS disruptive. Let's consider what would happen that if it was any other user being caught using sockpuppets multiple time, and their only defense being that everyone who investigated this is a paid shill of an off-site attack clique, (which is patently untrue). SirFozzie (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Saying someone is being deliberately deceptive is not a personal attack, if they can reasonably be perceived to be acting in a deliberately deceptive manner. I did not call you a liar and do not consider you a liar. I don't understand this whole thing about "any other user". What makes you think I would suggest anything different for another user? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  MM editing here under this account or any of the others is inherently disruptive, this is clear (RfC, ArbCom, the MB of text this has generated over the last 2 years). R. Baley (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• You know... I'm not actually sure it makes sense to ban Mantanmoreland entirely. What about a topic ban? —Random832 17:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  What would happen to any other two-time sock master whose socks double participated in things like ArbCom elections, Adminship requests and ArbCom cases? SirFozzie (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Obviously, I think he's disruptive enough and insidious enough that we just don't need him or his socks around. ++Lar: t/c 17:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  He's made only 500 article space edits in the last year and a half. He's never created featured content or a good article or even a DYK. What exactly does he bring to the table that would merit special leniency? Durova^Charge! 19:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal to ban from Wikipedia, on the basis that the remedy is sufficient. Mantanmoreland has been given a perpetual topic ban of the open-ended "articles related to" nature and firmly instructed not to use socks, and there is also an exceptionally firm set of enforcement clauses. I have no objection to a block on the Samiharris account because it deliberately used proxies and the possibility that he is a sock of Mantanmoreland exists. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The
• Oppose. ArbCom just did this, why would we need to reopen the can of worms? Guy (Help!) 17:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Just did what? They specifically declined to do this remedy, but their wording also clearly leaves the door open to this remedy. So then, lets do what they did not. I submit that enacting it closes more worm cans than not enacting it does. ++Lar: t/c 17:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Clarification wanted Can you please point me directly to the wording that "clearly leaves the door open to this remedy"? Kingturtle (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The clearest statements are in the decision talk page. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed_decision/Archive1#Community_ban.3F_.2F_specific_factual_findings where jpgordon and Newyorkbrad leave the door open to this community discussion. Durova^Charge! 18:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • What I get from that is that Archtransit "wasn't in the context of a formal case" while this is. Kingturtle (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• I don't quite see what this is going to achieve. Whatever either editor does in terms of content editing henceforth will be so heavily scrutinised that tendentious editing will be impossible. I suggest it is reasonable to ban SamiHarris for abuse of proxies. I don't see what will be achieved by banning Mantanmoreland. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Before any one else uses the "ArbCom has already decided" line of thought, ArbCom has specifically said that while they passed remedies, that does not mean the community can go further then they have. Consider the Archtransit situation, where the ArbCom de-sysoped Archtransit for multiple violations with Sockpuppets, etcetera, but the community found the breach of trust to the level of requiring a community ban several days later. SirFozzie (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Any other editor faced with such compelling evidence would be banned, so why not this one? Several committee members have made comments suggesting the possibility of impersonation. I find that scenario to be highly, highly improbable. To impersonate MantanMoreland, Sammiharris would have to know, in advance, when MM was going to start and stop editing. Therefore, the impersonation also requires extra sensory perception or use of the Force. Sorry, I do not believe in either. I believe there has been sock puppetry and egregious deception. If anybody has exculpatory evidence, please post it for consideration. Jehochman ^Talk 17:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Editors who entertain that alternate scenario can review this evidence. Durova^Charge! 17:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I do think there is more than sufficient basis to block Samiharris indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Mantanmoreland (though, he's likely not going to come back anyway, so why bother?) - I just think we should give the topic ban a chance to work. —Random832 17:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Any other multiple incident sockpuppeteer would be indef banned. Why is Mantanmoreland different or special? Lawrence § t/e 17:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support, Mantan is clearly not here to write an encylopedia - he's here to fight external battles and push his POV. He's taken everyone for a ride and seriously violated the community's trust, and I find it inexplicable that some people would continue to allow him to edit this encyclopedia when he has shown he cares not one iota for our oldest and most basic principles of WP:NPOV, WP:OWN and WP:CONSENSUS (by skewing the appearance of consensus using multiple socks). Blatantly lying to the community for so long and manipulating the kind people extending assumptions of good faith towards him is unforgivable and not the kind of behaviour I would tolerate from anyone on this website. Ban him, block his socks, and block any reincarnations of his socks and keeping blocking him until he gets the message that Wikipedia is not so full of fools that we would tolerate this behaviour twice. -- Naerii · plz create stuff —Preceding comment was added at 17:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Remedies aren't punitive; they're preventative. And a ban is a necessary deterrent: the Mantanmoreland and Samiharris accounts double voted in the ArbCom elections and a recent RFA. A soft don't do it again would send the message vote early, vote often to anyone who knows how to defeat checkuser. Durova^Charge! 17:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• I support this, as I find no plausible interpretation of the evidence that would find in Mantanmoreland's favor; on this basis, Mantanmoreland has deceived people with his sockpuppetry and has showed no sign of remorse or new willingness to respect the rules of the encyclopedia. This is an egregious breach of community trust and we do not need editors who will not accept the terms of appropriate use of the encyclopedia. alanyst ^/talk/ 17:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely not Arbcom after careful deliberation of the evidence tied, and declined to pass a sanction. And now we get the lynch mob out because we don't like the result? And people who have not necessarily considered the evidence come with the pitchfolks? No. Arbcom is there to prevent the arbitrarinesses of "votes for banning". This is the law of the jungle, nothing more.--Doc^g 17:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Doc, I can't speak for anyone else but I have reviewed the evidence very carefully. I did not announce my intention to ban this user, across the two userids, lightly, it was after careful consideration and with considerable regret. So far I am not seeing a lack of consensus to do so, despite the efforts of a few to try to position things differently. This ban will cut our losses (of time and effort). ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So you'll be unblocking ArchTransit and undoing his community ban, right? Even the arbitrators have said that the community consensus is above their judgement. A majority of the committee agrees that there is disruptive sockpuppeting (a finding from the ArbCom case). This is the usual people defending for the usual reasons, because they can't afford to take the hit to their pride and face that they were wrong, and defended a multiple time-caught sockpuppetter against charges that turned out to be true, nothing more. SirFozzie (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Lynch mob"? I would say that this is only hilariously inaccurate, except that it is also an offensive description of the participation on the part of multiple editors; this has been deliberative, careful and slow process. Nobody has been in a rush. I urge retraction of DocG's above statement. No more attacks on the wiki-community on behalf of MM, please. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Community consensus is fine where arbcom haven't been involved. Often arbcom is unnecessary, but where arbcom is involved, we should not substitute it's careful judgement for jungle law. And as to your assumption of bad faith, I've never opined on this case, and have no pride at stake - so stay off the personal attacks.--Doc^g 18:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, Doc, I invite you to take the logical conclusion to your theory and unblock ArchTransit. ArbCom de-sysoped him. According to your theory, since ArbCom did not ban Archtransit, the community consensus to ban him was invalid, and therefore he should be unblocked, since his block was invalid. And as for the personal attacks, I'd clear the mote from your own eye before attending to others (Law of the jungle, lynch mob, votes for banning, etcetera." SirFozzie (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Doc, during the voting phase some of the arbitrators specifically stated they'd have no objection if a community ban discussion followed on the heels of the case. I shared your concerns about process until I saw those statements. Would it sway your opinion if I pulled up the diffs? Durova^Charge! 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Nothing against Mantanmoreland, I don't care that he's gamed the system to pov war to the extent that he has, but the ArbCom has completely folded in its obligation to protect its own integrity, not to mention the integrity of the encyclopedia. Concur with Durova. Amerique^dialectics 17:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• A banning is clearly needed here. ArbCom, with all due respect, failed us on this case. Those crying "stop the witchhunt" need to really consider, do we want an abusive sockpuppeteer editing various controversial articles (including BLPs)? I think not - Mantmoreland/Samiharris/Gary Weiss/whoever he is has messed us about long enough, I think. Enough is enough. --82.19.1.139 (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Hi. please log in and sign that under your registered account. A single post from an unknown IP is unlikely to sway the discussion and may be perceived as disruptive. Durova^Charge! 18:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • How so? Doesn't look disruptive to me. What's it disrupting?--Doc^g 18:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • In a discussion where I've articulated vote stacking as my primary reason for supporting the motion, it would be inconsistent to turn a blind eye to a possible occurrence of vote stacking (even though the editor agrees with my conclusion). Durova^Charge! 18:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the community ban of the editor using the Mantanmoreland account (and all socks) as convincingly established by the RfC and the Arbcom case. I don't think the editor behind these accounts should be given yet another chance to hone their skills at: 1) evading accountability with more socks, 2) agenda pushing, or 3) bringing in off-wiki disputes to divide the wiki-community. I find the thought that MM would have a voice in internal wiki-processes (e.g. RfA, RfB, Arbcom elections) offensive. There has been nothing in the way of credible explanations on the part of MM and I'm not satisfied that Arbcom went far enough to protect the 'pedia. They didn't, and I don't know why they didn't. . . but the community can. Let's end this so that any future pushing can be handled can be swiftly handled without pouring salt into old wounds. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Based on my independent looking of all the comments, all the evidence, and all the turmoil that's taken place of late, this is really our only option. Arbcom does the preventative remedies, it's up to us to pull the trigger on the real problem though. If I were on the fence about this, then Cool Hand Luke's evidence pushed me over. Wizardman 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Break 1

Consensus exists in multiple venues (RFC, here, RFAR pages) that Mantanmoreland more than once abused our sockpuppetry rules. We would ban (and do ban) other users for that behavior daily. Why is Mantanmoreland different from other sockpuppeteers? Lawrence § t/e 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support banning both sides in this destructive two year war. One side is banned already. Time to ban the other side. Both sides are conclusively known to have sockpuppeted in a point of view pushing way on numerous articles. It is wrong to assume good faith about those who have a history of bad faith behavior. Let's treat this like an encyclopedia, not like a game. We ban people every day for less. Is our time worthless? Mine isn't. Ban 'em. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Unconvinced. I'm not entirely sure about this. We're not talking about a situation like Archtransit where ArbCom decided it wasn't appropriate for them to enact a ban without there having been a case, here there has been a full case. It seems to me that people who I trust to make this sort of decision have spent quite some time looking into the evidence and have decided not to enact a ban, only a topic ban. I'm not sure what role ArbCom serves if we are, after referring cases to them, simply agree on a different outcome where people are unsatisfied with the result. My instinct is to trust ArbCom to do the job the community appoints it to do. WjBscribe 18:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that ArbCom may have been privy to information the community does not have. I would like to see a much more persuasive argument about why the community is being asked to enact an outcome the Arbitration Committee has rejected. WjBscribe 18:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Because as one arbitrator has said "I don't want to see "This is an official decision of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee as Exhibit A in a real-world lawsuit"? when trying to explain why even though a majority of the committee agreed that the two accounts ARE linked, why no action was being taken? SirFozzie (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the ArbCom had access to some emails from the editor behind these accounts, and some did not have access. . .in any case no mention has been made of secret exculpatory evidence (oops, except as SF has pointed out below: that "NO non-public info used. . ." etc.). I myself am unlikely to give weight to secret evidence when weighed against the damning on-wiki evidence. WJB, I urge you to reconsider your position and help the community do what ArbCom was too (timid? divided? I have guesses, but nothing concrete) to do. We don't need division, we need resolution. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My problem is that ArbCom has spent weeks reviewing the evidence and I am not in a position to devote the same time for scrutiny as they have. You ascribe timidity to them but this is the body we appoint to make these sort of decisions. It seems to me that if we have confidence in ArbCom members' judgment, we should accept their decisions even when we personally disagree. ArbCom would have been aware that there was considerable community support for a ban of these users. If they decided not to do so, I feel I must assume they had good reasons not to. WjBscribe 19:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, that consensus that MM and SH are controlled by the same user already exists. The RFC establishes that and I don't really see that as a debatable point. Lots of evidence has been presented that the accounts have acted disruptively. What is the question here is whether the sockery (which community consensus already exists for) and the disruption, and the collosal waste of everyone's time, and the precedents set, outweigh whatever miniscule contributions these accounts have, or are likely to make, outside of their COI/POV/SPA area. I contend no. Cut our losses and get back to what we want to do instead of wasting further time and energy. These accounts aren't worth our time and effort at this point, let us be shut of them. ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, also, ArbCom member FT2 has stated in the ArbCom case that there was NO non-public information used in the ArbCom decision. SirFozzie (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor clarification so there can be no misunderstanding - as habitual with me, I posted then refined that post. The actual statement was "Suppose you had the same valid concerns, but did something novel like post them as an open question or emailed us with the worry you have. We could then have openly confirmed for the record that in fact, there was no 'secret evidence' in this case of any note. The only non-public evidence was the great amount of prior discussion and past incidents reviewed that indicated how matters in this dispute have tended to go. No new or recent "secret" matters of any kind were presented of any note here." [1] (post+tweaks 03:04 - 03:17 March 1, underline added). And again, if any user had questions of interpretation, I hope they would ask on my user page or email to clarify. The focus in that thread was explaining to a user not to assume, but to ask, covering by way of example that one might ask if there was "secret evidence" also being presented by users, related to puppetry, rather than assume, and presenting an answer. The answer was, there wasn't any of note presented in private during this RFAR. However there have been many investigations and discussions pertaining to the Overstock matters and related users in the past; IP information and analysis from previous considerations... these were background knowledge how matters in the overstock dispute have tended to go. They included harassment emails, impersonation analyses, checkuser information and analyses from the past two years. I clarified the comment to make clear my statement referred to "new or recent" matters (see above). There was none. The backlog of past cases - not all of which is public - was of course re-reviewed. This was made immediately clear in the comment quoted above, to avoid doubt. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

comment - as I susupected there is enough opposition to likely derail community sanctions. For what it's worth, I endorse at least a one year community ban on folks who abuse community trust through the use of abusive sockpuppet accounts to import a real world dispute to en.wikipedia. The evidence compiled by sirfozzie, coolhandluke, analyst, gdett, and others is well above the threshold normally used to indef ban abusive sockpuppet wielding users. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. It's clearly been proven by the usual evidence standards of our community that Mantanmoreland is a disruptive sockpuppeteer - if ArbCom insists on conveniently tightening those standards for their buddies, then the community needs to step in. This project is no place for disruptive, narcissistic sockpuppeteers to hold wars by proxy, and the encyclopedia has suffered enough - ban Mantanmoreland, just as we banned WordBomb two years ago, and we can get back to building our encyclopedia. krimpet✽ 18:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  I don't object to that line of reasoning, but I would add that the evidence that Mantanmoreland caused or intended any harm with those sock puppets is weak. He betrayed our trust, but I'm unconvinced, having carefully examined his histor of editing on two of the articles, that he slanted them egregiously, inserted unsourced or irrelevant facts or opinions or engaged in systematic removal of sourced opinions, or indeed any such removal at all without discussing his reasons on the talk page and accepting consensus. Perhaps his behavior had some subtle disinformational intent, and the socking is worrying, but this is one of the weakest cases for a community ban I've ever seen. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Tony, I know you haven't been able to get up to complete speed due to how complicated it all was, but did you read Durova's section on the RfC, the one where she specifically says Per findings described here, Mantanmoreland edited several articles in summer 2007 in a manner which, at minimum, looks like the two bypassed normal onsite input to redirect several articles into a newly created article of their making.? SirFozzie (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  There's something even simpler: he double voted in important recent discussions (the ArbCom elections and an RFA). Durova^Charge! 19:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Having reviewed the same material, I'll say I found it extremely unsubtle, converting entire bios into the most damaging information available. Certainly it was a step above people replacing pages with personal essays, but I think the expectation has to be higher than that. The pattern also clearly shows that the sockpuppets were used specifically for this kind of POV editing, which is exactly the sort of thing standard community attention can't address. Mackan79 (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Tony: your standards for what constitutes intent to harm are so low it's not even funny. Your so-called careful examination includes labelling this diff of Samiharris (on the Byrne article) with a gentle "a touch of WP:OWN here". Mantanmoreland reinserts a reference to a negative piece here and you simply note "rv of WordBomb". Mantanmoreland removes two paragraphs of sourced, harmless content here and you comment "Removes "Dutch Auction IPO" section", by which I suppose you mean "no problem here". You don't need to insert unsourced facts or to systematically remove sourced opinions to be a nuisance. Only dimwits do that. But Mantanmoreland and Samiharris have done this on the long term, by repeatedly placing emphasis on negative coverage. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support indefinite ban as long as it is in place for the other side. Evidence was presented in an RfC that was supported by the vast majority of commenters, and the user gave little response other than to repeatedly attack the proceding. The user still hasn't admitted previous sockpuppetry. If he has reasons why he can't admit this, that's up to him, but it isn't someone who should be editing Wikipedia. Mackan79 (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  That isn't a correct characterization of Mantanmoreland's response to the RFC. See here. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, considering the extent of the evidence, I didn't consider this an adequate attempt to show that the claim itself was false. Mackan79 (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, and one reason why nobody endorsed Mantanmoreland's response is that he claimed he had never even been warned for sockpuppetry. Well here's Fred Bauder's warning when checkuser confirmed a previous Mantanmoreland sock. As Mackan79 correctly states, Mantanmoreland has never answered questions about whether that checkuser result was correct. Durova^Charge! 19:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support At the time of the prior community ban discussion, I said we needed to give Mantanmoreland more time to attempt to explain his actions before we acted. Since then, he has had ample time to make such an attempt, and has made no attempt. All he has done is to engage in battleground behavior. We don't need someone who makes very few mainspace edits (less than 500 a year outside the battleground) and actively uses Wikipedia as a battleground. Since that time, a great deal more evidence has come to light indicating that these two accounts are one editor. No evidence has come to light contradicting that conclusion. The ArbComm decided that it would be best for Wikipedia if they did not reach the relevant conclusion here, but the drafters of the decision explicitly said on the proposed decision's talk page that they thought the community could, and probably would, do this. Their decision also says that by the standards of evidence and judgment used routinely, it is reasonable to conclude that these accounts are sockpuppets. I guess the only real question here is whether any administrators are prepared to wheel war to undo an indefinite block. Because I am also prepared to place this block. If anyone is saying that they will wheel war over it, let's put that in evidence on the ArbComm case now so that they can complete the whole case at once. GRBerry 18:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• support per Durova, Krimpet and GRBerry. These individuals have massively abused the community's good faith towards them by repeated sockpuppeting. As a result, they made Wikipedia a battleground for an outside issue and in the process resulted in much wasted effort and created enemies of the project that did not need to be made. The old standard in such situtations was whether the community patience was exhausted. I don't speak for the community as a whole, but mine certainly is. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - as above, we do ban other editors for this every day. Will ^(talk) 19:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support I definitely support a community ban. MM is a disruptive editor who has only shown that he will continue to disrupt Wikipedia. нмŵוτнτ 19:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ban 'em both The evidence was strong, coming from multiple angles; numerous editors without an ax to grind spent hours delving into the details and came up with too many damning similarities that simply cannot be dismissed as coincidental or the results of bias; the defense was surprisingly weak (I waited to make up my mind until I saw that defense), and the ArbCom decision stated the committee found good reasons to find for sockpuppetry, but didn't want to act for vague reasons that the committee didn't go into. Some ArbCom members said there was no confidential evidence of any import and no ArbCom members suggested that the community would be making a mistake to ban. In fact, there were some hints to the contrary from some of the members. The ArbCom decision left the community defenseless if Samiharris and Mantanmoreland should vote together in any forum, a circumstance that would demoralize many, many valuable Wikipedia editors. For the good of the project, get rid of them and reduce future drama and disruption. There is also an important element of deterrence here: Wikipedia currently has inadequate defenses from sockpuppets using IP proxy services. This would provide a good example for future reference, and if we don't ban them, it will set a dangerous example. Noroton (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The community is far from defenseless to abuse. For example an AFD closer is always able to consider the weight of issues and as an AFD closer I have routinely handled AFDs with suspected stacking without worry. Ditto 'crat's at RFA, and consensus on talk pages. This statement shows a deep misunderstanding of the community's ability to handle concerns once they are brought to wide awareness. We feel content that the ruling gives all the tools that experience shows are needed, even if some editors would feel they want more. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, FT2, we should not be creating potential additional work for admins who are closing elections and AfDs. We should not be leaving the door open to what would become yet another roiling drama. You should not be shifting that kind of depressing work to the shoulders of other admins. Having read their comments at the close of controversial AfDs, I know many admins can't stand dealing with that kind of situation, and nobody at all could like it. You deeply misunderstand the demoralizing effect voting by both SH and MM would have on other editors, or even if MM alone were to vote on anything at all (editors would then start examining all the other voters to see who MM's new sock might be). We don't need any more of this distraction from a person who has demonstrated more concern with his own nonencyclopedic, POV hobbyhorses and feuds than with encyclopedia building. You had a strong case for sockpuppetry, stronger than what is normal when editors are banned for this, and for vague, cloudy reasons you didn't do enough to protect the encyclopedia. MM, who has been a sockpuppeteer even after he was caught at it once, needs a strong message that he is not wanted here at all for any participation whatever. If he ever takes up another name under cover of an IP proxy, let him constantly look over his shoulder so that the rest of us don't have to be looking out for his abuse. Discomfort the reprobate, not the honest editors. Noroton (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Break 2

Less drama please. We don't vote on bans like this. The community had no agreement on a ban, or whether sockpuppetry had taken place, and brought the matter to ArbCom. ArbCom seemed unconvinced, but they didn't just leave it at that. They took measures to resolve the problem, including an article probation and a topic ban from the problem areas. What further, then, does a ban accomplish besides taking punitive action? I think instead of obsessing over this one case of sockpuppetry, the vocal group that has been pursuing the matter needs to let the matter drop in light of the arbitration case, and at least give it the time it deserves to see if that decision will be effective. The amount of drama that the people pursuing the case have generated in the name of justice has been at least as disruptive to the actual writing of an encyclopedia as the disruption they are trying to solve, and it just keeps going on. This proposal, before the case has even closed, is an insult to the time and energy put in by the arbitrators. I find it telling that Lar's proposal includes not even a hint of a reason why an indefinite ban is called for, just that he thinks there was disruption. The two are not the same; again blocks are preventative, not punitive. At least in theory. Dmcdevit·t 19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The community didn't agree whether sockpuppetry had taken place O Rly? Want to read that? SirFozzie (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Um, this very MUCH isn't a vote. I'm checking for consensus about the block I'm proposing to enact, and so far I'm seeing it, although it's not unanimous. I think exhaustively listing all the reasons for why an indef ban is appropriate would be a waste of time and effort, the arbcom case has plenty of that for those that want to read it. The community already had consensus that socking was going on, see the RFC. If, when this case closes, I still adjudge consensus for a ban exists (despite minority voices) I'll enact it, on my own recognizance. What happens then is up to the community. ++Lar: t/c 19:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I feel that not addressing the abuse of the community's trust shown by the abusive sockpuppetry is only a recipe for additional disruption, not just from MM, but others. And, in fact we do discuss bans this way, when there is likely to need discussion of them. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom seemed unconvinced -- seemed is the operative word, and we can't even be sure from their statement that they were unconvinced. The ArbCom finding was weaker than a blade of grass: "The Arbitration Committee has carefully reviewed all of the extremely detailed evidence of various kinds as presented in a request for comment and in this case. A majority of the committee concludes that the weight of the credible evidence taken as a whole is suggestive of or consistent with a relationship between the two accounts, but various factors prevent a definitive conclusion from being reached." (Findings of Fact, 2.1, with 10 nine votes in support.Italics in original.) Because of "various factors" unnamed by ArbCom, ArbCom didn't take the next logical step. FT2 left an unusual note under this statement: "Note: the key statement is emphasised by italics. This finding of fact should not be mis-cited or used (deliberately or otherwise) by any user to signify other than is clearly stated. (Clerks please copy the previous statement to the main page, if the finding passes" I take it that FT2 wanted to preserve the subtlety of the ArbCom finding. You're entitled to draw your own conclusion and use your own judgment as to how much weight this statement should have in the current discussion, but ArbCom did not ask that the community defer to it in this case and more than one ArbCom member wrote on the Proposal discussion page that they well knew the community has the authority to take this action and they expected some kind of community action. Therefore the ArbCom decision is no impediment at all to a ban, and it was not meant to be one. Noroton (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC) (corrected: nine votes in support Noroton (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

I opposed the first community ban proposal so that MM could have fair opportunity to defend himself. Since then he got that opportunity and made so little use of it that he was one of the most disruptive participants at arbitration. Mantanmoreland specifically rejected the only alternative scenario that might have cleared him and no one has articulated a reason to abandon the longstanding tradition of sitebanning vote stacking sockpuppeteers. Deterrence is preventative. Durova^Charge! 20:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I support a ban of Mantanmoreland and Samiharris. WAS 4.250's and GRBerry's comments reflect mine. The entire reason Wordbomb ever came to this website is because of Mantanmoreland's sockpuppets and POV pushing. Mantanmoreland was protected, while Wordbomb was banned. Realize that neither person is an angel. As a result of not addressing the issues of Mantanmoreland's socking and POV pushing, Wordbomb has engaged in socking and other tactics, which has disrupted Wikipedia. Banning Mantanmoreland, and his sock Samiharris, sends a very clear message to whoever is watching (Gary Weiss, Patrick Byrne, Wordbomb, the press, etc.) that we are not going to take sides in this dispute. Wikipedia should divorce itself from this "real life" battle; Banning Mantanmoreland and his sockpuppet is the only way to send this message and prevent future disruption. Banning MM is the only logical option, really. daveh4h 19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Although I'm surprised to be saying this, it's obvious that this ban proposal is a lot more controversial within the community than I anticipated during the recent arbitration case. I don't recall a community ban ever passing with this level of opposition from well established members of the community, and suggest that its proponents consider postponing it for a week or so to see how things go. If problems emerge I'm sure the situation will be resolved by a ban in any case. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Sami can be blocked now in my opinion. He uses a paid proxy without any obvious need to do so, and a plausible case exists that he could be socking. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm surprized that you are surprized. Did you not realize that many established users and admins oppose anything that hints that wb might have a valid point? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If you think that is why I am opposing, consider yourself wrong. Indeed, I have no particular prejudice as I have been away from Wikipedia for most of the last 15 months. My opposition to the ban is purely practical: I do not believe it will have any effect. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• While not speaking to above, Tony, I think it's obvious while it's not UNANIMOUS, there is a consensus that does support a proposed ban. SirFozzie (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now. As Mark Twain once said, "Never shoot a man who is hanging himself." Blueboy96 19:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Expanding on my reasoning ... the reasoning used behind a ban makes me somewhat uncomfortable ... almost like the reasoning used to justify the Iraq War. I'd really like to know--is Mantanmoreland that much of a danger to Wikipedia to merit a preemptive ban? Lar and SirFozzie, as much as I respect them, have presented no evidence to support this. Preemptive banning would set a bad precedent for Wikipedia. I believe it's very likely, however, that he's going to sock again--and if he does, I'd indef him myself. Blueboy96 20:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It goes to the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, Blueboy. If you look at the evidence, not only have the two accounts acted together to generate a false consensus to have articles present their side of a financial issue, as well as fighting a certain financial writer's wars here on Wikipedia against those who he disagrees with, the two accounts have double !voted in ArbCom elections, double participated in Request for Adminiship accounts. Basically, they've spit in the face of Wikipedia's policies of WP:NPOVand WP:Consensus SirFozzie (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

He's socked before, you believe he'll sock again. . .how is blocking not preventative in the case you describe? Do you welcome his input? Would anything he had to comment on be taken in good faith? The ban here would not be preemptive, it would be preventative. His(?) participation here is neither welcome, needed, or productive. We are perfectly capable of building an encyclopedia without disruptive battlegrounds being imported. For your consideration, R. Baley (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just not comfortable with the precedent that would be set with banning under these circumstances. Let it be known, however, that I would wholeheartedly support a statement of some sort that the community is offering him a "Last Chance." Notwithstanding As I said before, I would indef him first and ask questions later if he does sock again--and I don't think there are too many of us who wouldn't do the same. The proposed decision says that any administrator can block him for "an appropriate period of time" if he violates any of the remedies--and per this guy's history, indef would be the only appropriate length if he does slip up again. Blueboy96 20:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• For now I oppose this - until I am convinced otherwise. I am currently reading the case and this conversation closely. Kingturtle (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've read extensively through the case. Upon further review, I remain opposed to this community ban. "The community taking action" sounds like a mob. And what is this "community" anyway? It amounts to any editor who stumbles onto the scene, which amounts to a few dozen. The ArbCom is a fixed, known entity, that is sanctioned by the community, designed with a process. ArbCom exists to avoid kangaroo courts. So stay with the formal process and avoid the free-for-all (no offense). By the way, the Archtransit precedent doesn't apply here because it was not in the context of a formal case. Kingturtle (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - from my experience, banning or blocking a user does not end that user's sockpuppetry. Kingturtle (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that we shouldn't block or ban sockpuppet masters because they'll just come back anyway? That makes no sense, sorry. SirFozzie (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No I am not saying that. Kingturtle (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - this reads like a lynch mob denied their desired kill. The ArbCom didn't give you what you want? Perhaps that's a sign that you're wrong. I will happily be the one admin to unblock, demonstrating this "community ban" ("not one admin will unblock") isn't. We have the ArbCom bcause we don't do "votes for banning" - if you don't like their decision, bring an actual case - David Gerard (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If you wish to wheel war against consensus, and add that to your various problems, go right ahead. ArbCom has stated that community consensus can override ArbCom's action or lack of action on a case. SirFozzie (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It is, however, outstandingly stupid to choose a body to make the difficult decisions and then to ignore them when they have made them. You might as well have every case decided by the entire community. Why not let the chosen body's decision stand for a while and see if it works? (Incidentally, and without any irony at all, enough with the ad hominems) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Sam, it's happened as recently as two weeks ago when the community decided that desysoping Archtransit was not enough for the disruption he caused, and formally community banned him. Again, if he wants to wheel war (and unblocking without community consensus of a community consensus block/ban, whatever you want to call it, is just that), fine, but he should be aware of the consequences. SirFozzie (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
        • That was somewhat different. Firstly, it was a summary action. Secondly, IIRC, much more evidence came to light after the original desysopping. Thirdly, it was a significantly simpler decision. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed, if David Gerard wishes to wheel war in the face of community consensus, on behalf of Samiharris, there should be a new RfC. R. Baley (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The banning policy requires a very high level of consensus for a ban--not one admin prepared to unblock. Moreover there is quite strong opposition to a ban, even discounting David's statement. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Until David Gerard apologizes for blocking an entire town in Utah, for improperly blocking Piperdown, and for other personal attacks he threw during this entire sordid episode that he helped propagate, his opinion on the matter has zero credibility. Cla68 (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• My instinct would be to let the topic ban (which appears likely to pass ArbCom) take effect and see what we get from Mantanmoreland. Since all of his potentially disruptive activity was focused on one topic, a broad ban from that topic seems like a reasonable remedy. While an outright ban is appealing from the perspective of Justice, a broad topic ban seems the more focused preventive remedy. If he has something to contribute to the encyclopedia beyond fighting that particular battle, we'll see it emerge. I would favor a formal indefinite block on the Samiharris account (though it may be superfluous if the user has indeed retired) because of the strong evidence of sockpuppetry and the use of proxies in a fairly clear attempt to participate in an on-wiki battle while avoiding scrutiny. But even if we accept the evidence of sockpuppetry (which I find extremely compelling), I don't see a major harm to the encyclopedia in seeing what Mantanmoreland will do when he's forced to stop fighting this particular battle and move on. MastCell ^Talk 20:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Actually, not all of his disruptive activity was in the area that the Arbcomm choose to address. For whatever reason, they choose to ignore his behavior using sockpuppets on articles related to Julian Robertson where he has a COI, nor did they choose to address his disruptive behavior in community discussions. The topic restrictions they imposed are too narrow. GRBerry 20:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Mantanmoreland has no evidence of substantial contributions of value to articles, however, to overcome all his disruption and socking. It took him a year and a half to accumulate 500 article edits. He may be a valuable contributor: but under what username? That's the heart of the problem. The topic ban also doesn't prevent him from working on his pet issues from talk pages or Wikipedia space. I could only support a topic ban if it completely cut him off from the subjects utterly, like the recent community ban on User:Whig from even discussing homeopathy and science issues in any space, or matters related to them. Lawrence § t/e 20:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  • This statement is the effect of a timid Arbcom that was frozen with inaction due to "confounding issues". The arbcom dropped the ball; I don't know why. Maybe David Gerard would know, as he has access to the arbcom mailing list. Maybe you can clue us in, David? Why did arbcom ignore evidence of disruption and the importation of an off wiki dispute? Maybe it would all be clear, if only these discussions were transparent. daveh4h 20:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• (rp to MastCell, ec) I came into contact with this editor at the Glenn Greenwald article. though his position supported mine, I'd rather not have the taint. There's no AGF left here, anytime s/he has offered to apply our BLP standards, I have to worry about an alternative agenda. Just end it here and now. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - I admit to not following the ins and outs of this case in great detail, and I've never encountered Mantanmoreland or Samiharris personally, so those are both important points which I had not taken into consideration. MastCell ^Talk 21:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks MC, I have high regard far you both as an editor and an admin, and your opinion is valuable to me. Best, R. Baley (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Alternative I believe there is a consensus to block both users for an appropriate length of time (Samiharris indefinitely, and Mantanmoreland for at least a month). This is how we normally handle any run of the mill sock puppetry case. They may not be banned due to minority opposition, but that group cannot undo a block that has been supported by consensus. Unblocking against consensus is not allowed. Jehochman ^Talk 20:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Don't support overturning the arbcom decision - the arbcom remedies should be applied, and then if they aren't sufficient, then further sanctions could then be agreed. However, overturning the unanimous decision of arbcom, based on a small number of votes here isn't a good idea. Addhoc (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• This doesn't "overturn" them, and ArbCom has said (afaik) that the community is perfectly within its rights to consider additional measures. R. Baley (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There's actually some fairly strong indication that ArbCom's decision was not intended to be definitive, but reflected largely a desire to get itself out of the dispute. Some editors disagreed with that, but it may be notable that for instance WordBomb is community banned rather than banned by ArbCom. It's also unclear the ArbCom really set out to decide anything other than the sockpuppetry issue, though some findings were tagged on toward the end. In light of this, I'm not sure it's accurate to think ArbCom saw itself as making a wholistic resolution of the issue. One purpose of taking the case to ArbCom, for instance, would be to allow MM to present a defense based on private information; it appears he did not. ArbCom could also have issued a definitive finding, but chose not to. In fact, at least one arbitrator said that if there had been a community ban, the considerations would have been significantly different. I believe this is why many of those who have followed the case closely are advocating a community ban, not to redecide issues, but for the community to have its say on the matter. Mackan79 (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - MM did very little to address any issues raised, was caught on several occasions outright lying in evidence ("I have never even been accused of sockpuppeting"), and the standards of evidence of sockpuppetry shown would have anyone out the door - we ban the sockmasters, not just the puppets. To those saying "Let's see if he breaks the rules again"? Why "again"? Why the free pass that he's got on more than one occasion? I say, enough. Achromatic (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Recall that Fred Bauder gave Mantanmoreland a second chance when he told him to stop using the LastExit and Tomstoner accounts -- both of which immediately went dead. Mantanmoreland has been given a second chance and he took that chance to sockpuppet again. No third chances. Noroton (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban In the absence of any explanation or argued counter to the evidence that was provided, it is proven as it is possible to be (the evidence far exceeded the quantity and quality that has been the standard for the WP:DUCK test) that Mantanmoreland has operated several alternate accounts in violation of WP:SOCK. In spite of the material presented he has steadfastly refused to acknowledge that he has abused the trust of the community, or that the compelling evidence was compiled and presented in good faith; the major thrust of his comments to the ArbCom, in lieu of counter evidence or explanation, was that a Mr Patick Byrne and a Mr Judd Bagley orchestrated the entire situation - via off-Wiki websites and other media - to influence the editing of articles in which they, plus a Mr Gary Weiss with whom they are in conflict, are major factors/parties to a real world dispute. In this manner not only has Mantanmoreland been strongly linked with disrupting past editing of the Wikipedia via alternate account abuse, but has presently disrupted Wikipedia by using ad hominem accusations against the good faith efforts of various parties, many in good standing and experience, in presenting and arguing evidence. As he fails to acknowledge that he has socked and otherwise sought to manipulate the point of view within articles that were subject to that abuse, he therefore would deny that he has a conflict of interest in contibuting (by use of the talkpage and other venues, with reference to the subject ban that is likely to pass at ArbCom restricting the editor contributing directly to such articles) to any subject that ArbCom has referred to in respect of such conflicts. The restrictions likely to pass regarding editing articles, further, will not stop Mantanmoreland from continuing his campaign of both denying his sockpuppetry and related violations of community trust and tainting those who have acted in bringing this abuse into the open as being manipulated by or in league with off-Wiki individuals to corrupt Wikipedia. Therefore a ban would prevent the real likelihood of Mantanmoreland further disrupting Wikipedia.

Also, as regards bans being preventative in diminishing disruption to Wikipedia, it should be noted the effect that such a ban would have outside of the account name "Mantanmoreland". Sockmasters, current and potential, would derive no expectation of leniency or of precedent by the ban of this abuser of alternate accounts (and given the evidence compiled and exampled, very much the opposite would be true if this abuse were not countered by strong sanction), and also those off-Wiki observers and commentators will have less ground for any accusation of favouritism or bias within the community generally or its governance that they may have should sanction not reflect the severity by which this account has utilised an arrogant disregard of WP values, principles, rules and policy to abuse the trust of this community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support of ban after following the arbcom case closely. Mind-boggling abuse has gone on for two years now, with troubling high-up enabling along the way coupled with threats to all who challenged the situation. Neither MM nor SH has offered any indication they will refrain from continuing their misbehavior in the future (MM has already been caught and warned before for sockpuppeting and he turned right around and did it again). If we don’t take a stand against abusive sockpuppeting and long-term stubborn tendentious editing in this high profile case, it will open the floodgates for future abusers and bring disrepute to the project and damage credibility due to protecting and allowing favored biased editors a free pass to hijack articles and keep them laden with propaganda and misinformation. --MPerel 21:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban on the grounds that this user's continued presence is a net detriment to Wikipedia. Mantanmoreland combines a remarkably small number of actual article edits (roughly 500 in the last two years, many of them contentious), with a remarkably high quantity of drama. Whether he is actually GW, or even a sockpuppeteer, is not relevant to my reasoning. He should be banned because he's not helping the encyclopedia and there is no reason to believe he ever will. We're better off without him. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; no further finding is necessary to justify a community ban other than a determination that the editor is not a productive addition to our community. *** Crotalus *** 23:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Wait and see what happens - why not just wait and see what happens? No need to rush into this. My overall view is that the two accounts are effectively unusable now for any nefarious purposes (they will both be watched carefully for the foreseeable future), so whether they end up banned, blocked, or left to quietly moulder, is not that relevant. I note that User:Mantanmoreland has contributed in recent days, but that User:Samiharris (blocked and unblocked on 13 February 2008) has not contributed since 8 February 2008. So remind me again what the point of all this is? To send a clear and unambiguous signal? We are doing a good job of that at the moment... Carcharoth (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• This is clearly a controversial proposal (read: literally no consensus) and I suggest that we set the decision aside to await developments. There is no urgency, and the extremely strong arbitration remedies and enforcement clauses will prevent harm being done. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would suggest the Samiharris account be re-blocked, as it was only unblocked to enable participation in the ArbCom case. As the case is now (for want of a better word) closed, and no participation was forthcoming any way (all the open proxies it used had been blocked?) it ought to be indefinitely blocked once more. I think stating there is no consensus above to block Mantanmoreland is wrong, with only a small minority of editors opposing such a block. I would like to see the user behind the Mantanmoreland and Samiharris accounts blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for gross and systemic abuse of Wikipedia, and for deceiving some of our more senior admins into shilling for him. Neıl ☎ 23:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Banhammer! - the evidence of Mantanmoreland's sockpuppetry is circumstantial, yes; but overwhelming. He has made a mockery of any core Wikipedia policy you care to name; for reasons that are unclear, the ArbCom and other power structures have not called him on it. The community needs to step up, and forbid the pursuit of off-Wiki disputes through the use of Wikipeida puppetry and system-gaming. Gary Weiss Mantanmorland and Samiharris have to go. <eleland/talkedits> 23:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly support per my comments on the proposed decision's talk page. People arguing that the committee has somehow decided that Mantanmoreland should not be banned have not been following the discussions. ArbCom left this decision to the community. It is established that Mantanmoreland did use sockpuppets at one point, there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that Samiharris is another of his sockpuppets (and the far-fetched impersonation theory would only be more reason to block that account permanently) and there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence linking Mantanmoreland to Gary Weiss. There is still a bit of doubt on whether he is Gary Weiss or someone closely associated to him, but there is in my mind little doubt that Mantanmoreland repeatedly edited a number of these articles with a very strong and undisclosed conflict of interest. And despite the impressionistic account of these article's history (from the user formerly known as Tony Sidaway), the edits of Mantanmoreland were fully part of the tailspin and were often blatantly biased. He was an active participant in this absurd imported battle and I believe that the community has very little faith in the purity of his intentions and I simply don't see how one can seriously defend the idea that keeping him as an editor is likely to have any sort of positive impact on the project. This is not about being fair: editing Wikipedia is not a right and we're better off without these two accounts, period. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ban or at least lengthy block. Christ, what a mess this is shaping up to be. We have what may or may not be (depending on how you look at it!) consensus to ban these accounts, with some senior admins willing to enact the ban and at least one other senior admin willing to wheel war and unblock. Unfortunately all of this was completely predictable coming out of the ArbCom case. Hopefully things will calm down a bit and we'll come to some solution, but the discussion so far is the best evidence yet as to why the committee utterly blew it on "L'affaire Mantanmoreland et les chaussettes mauvais" (I'm totally trademarking that!...even though I really don't know French that well and it's therefore probably grammatically incorrect). For what it's worth (and I imagine it is worth very little), I fully support Lar's proposal to ban these accounts. After examining the evidence for weeks, it is clear to me that Samiharris is a sock of Mantanmoreland and that the operator of those accounts has engaged in abusive sockpuppetry (compounded by past sock abuse for which Mantan was warned). We indef ban those kind of accounts, so let's ban these in the interest of not having different rules for different people since that would be bad. If more people are in favor of a 6 month or year long block and probation after that, I would be fine with that too in the interests of compromise.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An alternate proposal--a "Last Chance"

As I mentioned above, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of a preemptive ban. That being said, however, SirFozzie does bring up a good point--Mantanmoreland has given the finger to two fundamental policies. As I see it, there is nothing wrong with the community putting him on notice that he's skating on very thin ice, and that notwithstanding any statement by ArbCom on the matter, he'll be banned if he slips up again. Blueboy96 20:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to post this comment, although the length of this discussion probably means that I'm repeating above comments; nevertheless, I digress. I do not see any compelling evidence why the Community needs to top-up the Arbitration Committee's remedy: surely we need to leave an observation and trial period post-that case closting, to decide whether a ban really is necessary. I know I'm not the only one who would rather not see an editor banned... AGK § 20:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There is precedent for the community reinforcing remedies imposed by those higher-up on the food chain. MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs), for instance--he was banned by Jimbo for implying that people could pay him to write articles on their behalf. The community felt this activity was so far from the principles of Wikipedia that later on, it reinforced Jimbo's ban with a community ban. To my mind, ArbCom's decision is quite open-ended, and leaves it to the community to decide what an "appropriate length of time" is for blocking in this case. Blueboy96 20:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am even more uncomfortable with the idea of letting off unrepentant vote stacking sockpuppeteers with warnings. Think of the message that sends. There's good reason why we've always been firm about this. Durova^Charge! 20:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, AGK. ArbCom's decision to not handle this properly has given a clear sign to vandals, POV pushers and the like that you CAN double participate in things like ArbCom elections, Request for Adminship votes, without being penalized. ANYONE else that had done such things, would be out the door so fast that it would leave vapor trails. Again, we had an ArbCom who was paralyzed by not wanting "an official decision of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee" appearing at Exhibit A in a real-world case. They ducked the issue and hid behind "A majority of the committee", because no one wanted to have their butts out in the breeze. SirFozzie (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, what are you insinuating? What do you think people's ulterior motives are? You clearly think people are treating Mantanmoreland differently for some reason -- what is your accusation? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree ... looking at the proposed decision, it's quite open-ended, and leaves the community with considerable room to determine how long a sanction should be. If it didn't leave that room, I'd wholeheartedly support banning him now. As it stands now, I say once more and I say again--a preemptive ban, no matter how egregious the misconduct, sets a bad precedent for Wikipedia. Blueboy96 20:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

we pre-emptively banned wb and piperdown in this very dispute. So, the precedent you are worried about already exists. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WordBomb was banned for outing a user, while Piperdown is (from what I'm reading) unblocked, but welcome to return if he's willing to do so in a constructive manner. No comparison here. Blueboy96 21:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In Piperdown's case, he was only unblocked so he could cite his RightToVanish, BB. SirFozzie (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

wb was indef blocked and his talk page protected with no community discussion after about 24 total hours of editing. Has wb since acted in such a way as to deserve a ban? sure. Most editors we instruct how to bring the sorts of concerns he had while respecting the project norms, not in this case. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both durova and sirfozzie. He's been warned. He's had opportunity to defend himself. He has chosen not to. If he had come clean with his abuse of the community, I would support a last chance. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sam, if you have to ask, you're not paying attention ;). But let me make it clear. There is a large group of administrators who have defended Mantanmoreland against allegations of sockpuppetry and against allegations of being a certain well-known financial writer. To have this proven would be a huge loss of face. Hell, Jimbo Wales has even stated on a certain mailing list, after offering to meet with Mantanmoreland, so he could lay the rumors to rest that the MM=SH and that certain well-known financial writer. When Mantanmoreland responded to this with hostility, Jimbo stated "The reason for this, I believe is that Mantanmoreland is (the name of the financial writer)". SirFozzie (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Is that the reason you think I, by way of example, am opposing this ban? Or is it a more general reason? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

my personal opinion is that you are opposing it because you don't like community bans in general. And that's fine. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And mine is that as an ex-arbitrator, that is that you don't like causing drama, taking a case to ArbCom and then things aren't settled. And normally, I could understand that. But in this case, with this much evidence that this person has been sockpuppeting for such a long time, and been protected from the consequences of his actions (again, it's rather blatant he was asked to step back from the articles for just this reason, and he just created another sock to do his dirty work). My viewpoint in these things is.. "If we're going to claim the moral high ground in these disputes, we'd better damn well act in that way". Protecting someone who has basically run off editors (good or bad) from a whole sections of articles, and prosecuted an off-Wikipedia war ON Wikipedia, is not the moral high ground. It is some of the dirtiest, slimiest behavior I could see. SirFozzie (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think you realize to what extent this arbcom has abdicated it's responsibility, Sam. Members have said as much when they state they don't want arbcom decisions cited in a real life dispute (or court case?). I think those concerns are meritless; but, if they are not, then let a community decision be cited in an off wiki dispute—our concern should be the encyclopedia anyway. daveh4h 21:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

People in this dispute have been continuously using "abdicating responsibility" as codewords for "disagreeing with many people". They are not the same. If you feel the Committee has so egregiously failed, the proper response, IMHO, would be to ask them to resign. Forcing every decision to have community consensus completely undermines the purpose of having a selected body.

Furthermore, I'm not convinced those are the reasons the Committee has not made the decision you want. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Gee, Sam, you made a rather different conclusion here. If you thought that those who disagree should be asking the committee to resign, that discussion should have run - instead you closed it as disruptive. A little less hypocrisy please. GRBerry 22:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ooh. The second MfD nomination of the arbitration committee. I'll have to look up whether I was the first to predict that Arbcom being deleted at MfD is always a possibility. And no, I don't think any such debate would be productive, and yes, I do think the Arbcom are doing a reasonable job at the moment. I just like noting these "out of left field" MfD nominations. I'm disappointed (seriously!) that Wikipedia talk:Arbitration committee doesn't have a template linking to these two previous nominations for deletion. The first one was, presumably, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee (deleted in November 2006 and again in February 2007 - so this 'second' nomination is actually the third deletion nomination), and now this one at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee (2nd nomination). Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The community could of course actually MFD and get rid of the AC, if enough supported the decision. No one could stop it, if enough people supported it. Not likely to happen anytime soon if ever, but the way we operate certainly allows for it. Lawrence § t/e 23:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That was the point I was making, though I was getting sidetracked into looking up the reasons for the previous nominations. I wonder if the community could ever discuss itself into non-existence and MfD itself? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(de indenting) Sam, I have supplied you with the quote from one of the folks who wrote the decision. It doesn't just have effect on WP, it has effect off of WP, in the real world as well. Whether it's a valid concern about tying the two accounts together and/or to a given Real Life person, is for others to decide. Off-WP concerns forced ArbCom's hands in this. Concerns the community as a whole does not have. SirFozzie (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear they did not want to deal with certain issues because of external factors--factors which should not govern how this encyclopedia is ran. Is that abdicating responsibility? To me it is. As for asking them to resign; This is very funny--excuse my language, but who the fuck am I to ask such a thing? This is probably the third arbcom I've followed very closely--I'm certainly no expert--but I do realize that a new standard of disruption is being applied to this case for some reason ;therefore, the arbcom did not decide to ban. Before you ask, I don't know why these new standards were applied or pretend to know why. Only individual arbcom members know why (Ask them on the arbcom mailing list, let us know!). Or perhaps all these people supporting a ban of MM are delusional and decisions to protect the encyclopedia can only come from a group of people called "arbcom". I'm not saying the arbcom is irresponsible or ignorant in all cases, but it is clear to many that have followed this case that there was a glitch somewhere. We'll probably never know what that was, and we do not have to know! The community is going to fix the abdication that took place in this case. Or at least, it's trying to, of you'll let it. daveh4h 21:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe they have honest opinions otherwise. And I am part of the community, if you don't mind. (Unless you want to ban me too? :-) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(following SirFozzies indent) Sam Korn, you are arguing from an obviously very strong opinion on the merits of the matter of the community ban. I wonder if you could comment to what degree you have studied the contents of SirFozzie and Durova's initial investigation (with the participation of other editors in providing detailed data), the evidence and comments provided in the subsequent RfC, and the exhaustive presentation of evidence, statements, arguments, answers, suggestions and proposals at the ArbCom. I ask because I do not recall your participation at any of these events (although in all the gigglebytes of material, I may have missed it) and I am concerned that you have not fully comprehended the depth and persistence to which Mantanmoreland strove to edit outside the expectations and standards of Wikipedia contributors, and why someone so dedicated to an agenda that ignores the Wikipedia ethos will not violate it again when the first opportunity presents itself. If you are fully familiar with the efforts of the past few weeks, why now only do you speak? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I was waiting for an appropriate moment to make my entrance. This might go part of the way to an answer -- I have been on a long wikibreak. I fail to see the relevance here, in any case. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned, as I said, that you may appear not have read yourself too well into the history of this case, and are making very strong good faith comments - which doubtless are going to be given due consideration by many observers - based on opinions formulated through a lack of understanding of all the issues, evidence, and thought which has provided other good standing editors with a different perspective. Also, if you have taken the time to consider and digest the vast quantities of fact, opinions, and considerations, it may appear puzzling that you consider this time appropriate rather than a few days ago when the ArbCom were finalising their deliberations and closing arguments were being expressed in various subpages. Clarification on when you started reviewing the masses of text and why only now comment on the conclusions may help others understand the circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If it really makes a difference to you, I have been following the case since I returned, on and off. It obviously has been a subject of much discussion on the arbcom-l mailing list, which is the only list I follow. If you look closely, you might just find a few of my edits to the proposed decision page. I have certainly read over the majority of the evidence. I am certainly well-enough informed to make a reasonable judgement on the matter, and am slightly suspicious of the reasons you have for suggesting otherwise. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish that I were able to follow a case entirely by using the arbcom mailing list, but alas, that is impossible.  :-) You see, perhaps you have not been a peon for so long you forget that a lot of people discuss things on wiki, and not seeing you in that discussion, and then suddenly pop up to argue so vociferously is a little odd! Hence, I do not think questioning what brought you here is out of the ordinary. By the way, what did the email sent out to the arbcom list alerting all subscribers to this community ban proposal look like? Was it something like "And here goes the lynch mob" or was it something more NPOV? I've been curious about that one all day, ever since seeing you and Mr. Gerard pop in to say hello. I wonder if discussing this particular case on a closed list, is the best way to learn about this case? I'm guessing you would probably say it is, since apparently it is your belief that an arbcom decision is infallible. daveh4h 05:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatty-whatta-whatta? What brought me here was reading WP:AN, just like any other administrator! As I have stated, I have been reading the case all along. I do not feel that it is necessary to give my 5000KB of opinion on the Workshop page to allow me to have an opinion here. I do not believe the AC is infallible -- being on the Committee has taught me better than that. I just think it is potentially workable and using the big stick when unnecessary is, well, a bit stupid. I am astonished at your bizarre accusations against me. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So can we get to a compromise here? It's obvious that there are several admins willing to ban Mantanmoreland right away. I suspect that most of the other admins feel as I do--that they're willing to ban him first and ask questions later for even a minor violation of the fairly onerous restrictions ArbCom has placed on him. All I'm proposing is a strongly-worded statement that there is overwhelming community consensus to ban him if he doesn't comply with the ArbCom restrictions. Blueboy96 21:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Blueboy, it's no exaggeration to say that there are 1,000 KB worth of evidence, reasoning, discussion and even asking questions at the Mantanmoreland ArbCom case. No one is asking questions later. The questions have been "asked and answered" as a particular person likes to put it. I misread. Taking a break now. Noroton (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the onerous standard of evidence being applied. There are strong reasons to believe that Mantanmoreland got caught at socking twice before, and got better at it. Do we really want to offer him a fourth strike before calling this batter out? How much useful encyclopedia-building suffers while volunteers pore over his edit history yet again? Last night I put off the Portal:Textile Arts featured portal drive for this case. Really, Wikipedia would be better off with good biographies of William Morris and Eli Whitney, minus the Mantanmoreland drama. Durova^Charge! 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Either ban him, or lift the ban on WordBomb... be consistent at least. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If it interests you, Dan, WordBomb has announced that the only reason he would want to return to WP would be to clear his name. He does not want to help the encyclopaedia. He is, in short, the last person we want to unban, whatever "just" reasons there are. There is a difference between them. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • There are certainly differences, but the question is whether you can show extreme leniency to one and not the other. Doing so would perpetuate the dispute, whatever the differences are thought to be. Of course, if in some time we decide MM wants to edit according to the rules and WB doesn't, I think most people would be fine with considering that. Mackan79 (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Dan, this dissapointed me. There's no reason to trying to balance justice here between MM and Wordbomb. WB is permabanned for truly bad stalking behavior against multiple Wikipedians. Only a couple of people (one of whom is in and out of jail for it) in Wikipedia history have done anything of the same magnitude. There's no legitimate reason to unblock WB or propose unblocking WB. An attempt to even things out in this manner is ridiculous and disruptive. What happens to MM and SH is up to the community as a whole - what happens to WB is not. That decision is made, and only the Foundation or Arbcom should revisit it (and are not likely to do so). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • George, I don't believe it's my place to refactor your comments, but they are extremely inappropriate. I've personally asked you on Wikipedia and by email why you make these statements, and you haven't provided it, yet you continue to repeat the same thing from place to place. This has gone on long enough. If you want to engage this issue engage it, but going around making incendiary statements about a living person on Wikipedia is not acceptable. Mackan79 (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I told the committee of my intention to reblock him and asked if they did not want me to reblock him. I've nothing telling me not to. He was unblock for this arb case, it's over. He should be reblocked. That is my intent. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It is the fault of the disrupters

As an ArbCom member I can say that the Committee has worked extremely hard to get to the remedies. That being said, I’ve had doubts about my participation in the case due to my involvement in the editing process (both 'Short (finance)' and 'NNS') ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). I’ve had doubts because I edited those articles long before there was any dispute.

If I have to disagree with any thing it would be that WP:BATTLE was marginalized in this case. If there is any sockpuppeting case here it would be a case motivated by defending an off-wiki position related to a long dispute; hence using Wikipedia as a battleground. Most people, at least users who have participated at the ArbCom pages or here, know how this dispute has been ongoing for years online and offline. Both parties have come here for a reason unclear to most of us except to themselves. Now, "everybody knows." According, to some extra evidence I saw as an arbitrator, a few users, including administrators, were driven somehow to get involved directly or indirectly in this mess. I consider this very harmful to Wikipedia integrity.

Anyway, I prefer commenting here as a regular editor and administrator… I have no objection about this community ban discussion. However, I would have preferred the community discuss the following points prior to a ban discussion…

a) Should have the community tried this before going through the arbitration process? The community should rather discuss how cases like this are to be treated and handled in the future.

b) Can the community wait to give the remedies a chance? But asking this question would definitely lead us to another one… did WordBomb have a similar chance?

c) Should this random process override the procedural way of handling disputes? Always, never? When? How? And how would this affect the raison d’être of the ArbCom?

The essential thing is not who to ban or restrict but to answer the above points.

My personal view... A scene of a Wiki-battle is unlikely to happen soon. However, the offline dispute is not to be finished soon. Some say above that the ArbCom "was paralyzed by not wanting an official decision of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee appearing at Exhibit A in a real-world case." It may be true as it may be untrue and even if it were true it would have been a positive action. Wikipedia purpose is "not to make news" but to be an encyclopedia. We are not here to judge people but to ask them to behave according to the general standards and ethics. If the smooth running of things gets disrupted then appropriate administrative action should prevail. All the users tied to this real life dispute who have brought troubles should have been banned long ago before a case be brought to ArbCom regardless of who they are, how many they are, socks they got, proxies they use, etc... A news title like "Wikipedia administrator blocks pro-NSS and their opponents for violating one of the project’s policy [Wikipedia is no battleground]" would be more beneficial to the project than "Wikipedia court bans/restricts a pro-NSS for site violations." No need to bring these issues to the ArbCom if you already can decide what to do with.

Ban all disrupters and keep Wikipedia safe from off-wiki disputes. I've administered a few and feel free to review my actions and my way of dealings. I always never care whom opposing sides may represent but giving many chances to all offenders would be tiresome. We have spent a couple of years battling with this issue. That would have been enough to fix, create and expand thousands of interesting articles. Wikipedia raison d'être is "not to make news" but to be an encyclopedia.

Again, I hope the Community gets to discuss ways to prevent such messes to happen again the way this case has taken. Wikipedia is evolving rapidly and We really need to address the main issues instead of wasting tremendous amount of would-be productive time dealing with clear-cut issues.

In brief, the Community could have done this work before coming to the ArbCom. It is not the fault of the Committee as it is not the fault of the Community either. It is probabbly the fault of disrupters. I suggest it is wiser that ArbCom decision is respected. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The community did attempt to do this work before coming to ArbCom, as much as it was able. The offsite publication of one of Jimbo's e-mails precipitated SirFozzie's filing the RFAR when he did. And I agree he made exactly the right choice there: tempers were flaring and the RFC was in danger of getting out of hand. A certain administrator also started a premature siteban discussion before Mantanmoreland had adequate opportunity to present his side of things. So although we did our best to handle this at the community level and conduct an orderly and sober discussion, those of us who were undertaking the work weren't left with any other fair and viable choice. Durova^Charge! 01:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Fayssal, I'd like to answer your questions:

a) Should have the community tried this before going through the arbitration process? The community should rather discuss how cases like this are to be treated and handled in the future.

Answer: We did. It was thought by several people that there was a very good chance that any ban action taken as a result of the RfC would be wheel-warred over, so it was figured that it would be best to take the case to ArbCom, and get an up or down answer. We didn't get that up or down answer (instead, we got "A Majority of the committee believes.."), so, we bring it back here, and guess what? We have a vast consensus, and yet we have someone promising to wheel-war any consensus blocks.

b) Can the community wait to give the remedies a chance? But asking this question would definitely lead us to another one… did WordBomb have a similar chance?

Answer: I really can't answer the WB situation, because, I wasn't there, and all I've seen is 2nd hand evidence from the people involved. my thoughts is along with some others, more then just the violations of NPOV/Consensus etcetera, these accounts double participated on Request for Adminship cases and ArbCom elections. Did they sway any decisions? Probably not, but there were two users recently banned for amongst other things , using sock puppets to vote multiple times in ArbCom elections (Vintagekits and David Lauder.) In both cases, it was more of a final straw then anything, but still, precedent states that sockpuppetting to inflate their viewpoint is a bannable offense, especially on something like ArbCom elections. Especially since this person had been caught previously doing the exact same thing.

c) Should this random process override the procedural way of handling disputes? Always, never? When? How? And how would this affect the raison d’être of the ArbCom?

Answer:This is a special case. We did not get the up or down answer that both sides were looking for, that would not solve the baseline behind this conflict. Instead, we have an inbetween answer, and no action on what a majority of the public was looking for. Therefore, we brought this to get that answer.'

I know the ArbCom means well.. I went about 15 rounds with Brad when this decision was first released, and I truly appreciate him going to the considerable amounts of extra effort to try to explain the decision. The decision lacked a core element, but at least he spoke up. At least UC spoke up and gave his viewpoint. At least you're here giving your viewpoint.

But the vast majority of the 15 arbitrators who were assigned this case... did nothing. They showed up at the end to rubber-stamp the decision that was made. No arbitrator put together a motion to see where everyone stood, despite being asked several times during the discussion. No effort was made to explain what evidence they would find useful. Trust me, the question was asked, several times. "Let us know what you need to make your job easier". We asked. There was nothing. No guidance, nothing.

I do agree that we should ban folks who disrupt the encyclopedia. WordBomb is banned, and even his most ardent supporter will tell you, considering the disruption he's caused on this and other issues, that it is a good ban. It's just as well that WB has stated he does not wish to edit WP anyway. No one really disputes that, in a vacuum, WB's ban now is a good call.

But on the other side, there has been unmeasurable amounts of disruption. We've had good faith editors run off the site by this editor. We've had this editor basically WP:OWN a whole section of articles, using unfair tactics to harass his opponents off the articles in question. We've had this editor use other, well-meaning administrators to protect his viewpoint here on WP by pointing out how bad the other side is, while doing a lot of the same things himself without others noticing. We've had this person, over two plus years, give the big old middle finger to Wikipedia's core policies. Consensus. Neutral Point of View. No Personal Attacks. He's never admitted to any of it, never apologized for it. Even during the ArbCom hearing, he insisted that others good faith concerns were nothing more then shills for a "paid stalker".

That's why we've asked for the indefblock/ban, whatever you want to call it. The rules are the rules. They need to be fair, balanced and evenly applied. That hasn't happened in this case. That is why the vast majority of the editors who've contributed this discussion have agreed there IS consensus for Lar, GRBerry, or whomever to block both these accounts. SirFozzie (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Durova and SirFozzie.

a) Fair enough and your efforts are appreciated. What I meant by "trying it before" is to 'Community ban discuss' as it has been usual with all cases without filing an arbitration case.

b) At this specific case... If there's consensus to ban, a motion can be proposed and added to the arbitration case anytime since you believe that some arbitrators declared or alluded to not have any problem with such a Community ban. You can also request a clarification if you are not sure or simply appeal, etc... I can see this as reasonable alternatives to this thread.

c)We've had this editor basically WP:OWN a whole section of articles, using unfair tactics to harass his opponents off the articles in question. We've had this editor use other, well-meaning administrators to protect his viewpoint here on WP by pointing out how bad the other side is, while doing a lot of the same things himself without others noticing. That's why, as an arbitrator disagree about the fact that WP:BATTLE was not given much importance by most arbitrators. Probably because most people here have been arguing about sockpuppetry when the motive of sockpuppetry is, with no single doubt, to protect and defend individual points of views outside the encyclopedia in a totally inappropriate manner. It's all about process and how cases are presented. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Our community sanction process is poorly developed, and conflicts with the community banning policy. Maybe some of the arbitrators, in their capacity as ordinary editors, could help us sort this out. They have unique experience and since they will be called upon to review decisions, it would help if they provided insight into what would work, and what would likely cause more heat. Jehochman ^Talk 13:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There are those of us who readily agreed to the RfAR because they were apprehensive that taking action without the input of the most senior venue of dispute resolution would result in an unseemly dispute and possible wheelwar should the decision be taken by one admin, even with a majority/consensus backing....

Hey, guess what? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More votes on community ban

• Support community ban on Mantanmoreland and Samiharris. As a second choice, I would suggest unblocking User:WordBomb and just impose a topic ban on all three for the Weiss, Byrne, Naked shorts, and Overstock articles. Cla68 (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support the ban. Abusive, unapologetic sockpuppetry confirmed beyond doubt on two occasions and beyond reasonable doubt on a third. Viridae^Talk 05:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Update - both Mantanmoreland and Samiharris have been indef blocked - see below.... Privatemusings (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split from above: User:Samiharris sockpuppet tag

There seems to be no legitimate dispute that the Samiharris account is a sockpuppet of Mantanmoreland. User:Michael Snow, an admin, had previously tagged the account as such on 13 February 2008. Brad removed the tag pending the end of the AC case the same day. As there is community consensus that Samiharris = Mantanmoreland based on the exhaustive evidence provided, I re-applied the tag today. User:David Gerard, who threatened to unblock Mantanmoreland above if any user blocked him (which would be invalid if unblocked against consensus) removed the sock tag saying, "Pity the arbcom doesn't seem to agree". As User:David Gerard has no special authority in this matter, I re-applied the tag here, and then Krimpet modified it slightly here. Just a heads up in case any foolish individuals attempt to edit war this page against community consensus. Lawrence § t/e 21:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going for WP:Tea. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What consensus? I don't see a "consensus" or anything like one above - David Gerard (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Different issue. the issue above is what to do about it. I don't see anyone disputing that Samiharris is a sockpuppet of Mantanmoreland. There is abundant evidence that he is, far beyond that usually gathered or analyzed. It is clear that there is a consensus that he is a sockpuppet. That you choose to willfully blind yourself is your own problem. GRBerry 22:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mantanmoreland, we have dozens of editors agreeing Samiharris is a sock of Mantanmoreland. Here at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence, we have sockpuppetry evidence of such insane detail that any users we dropped this research onto WP:AN or WP:ANI would be tagged and blocked incredibly fast. However, there is an extremely small number of users previously involved in protecting Mantanmoreland and involved in the Bagley/Byrne conflict that still refuse to follow consensus on these matters. But, since consensus never needs to be unanimous, this is fine. My posting here was a "heads up" for people to keep an eye on that Samiharris page. Lawrence § t/e 22:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I likewise only see in your comments a difference in opinion and viewpoint, rather than arguments supported by evidence or reference to policy which reaches a reasonable standard in refuting reasoned points given. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To say it has been "confirmed" is a gross abuse of the English language. Consensus does not make something true. If the page read "community consensus has determined that SamiHarris is a sockpuppet of Mantanmoreland", that would be considerably more accurate. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, as requested. Lawrence § t/e 22:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• While I can understand the difficulty of reaching consensus re blocking Mantanmoreland, why on earth are we edging carefully round this one? As Lawrence says above, any other account that was brought to ANI with the level of evidence of this one would be blocked, tagged and forgotten about before you could say "hosiery". Why on earth does the sock tag on Samiharris need to include such WP:WEASEL? Black Kite 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• With all the innuendo bantered around by Arbiters, I'm concerned now that someone has threatened to sue someone--either Byrne vs Weiss, Weiss vs. Byrne, MM if he's someone else vs. Byrne, or one of the three vs. Wikipedia over this. I can't think of anything else or any other reason for all this reticence, unless people just really, really don't want to give Byrne and Bagley any vindication or satisfaction. No other sockmaster gets this level of deference. Lawrence § t/e 22:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I've seen suggestions that Arbcom were wary of the legal ramifications of incorrectly identifying a public figure as having engaged in sockpuppeting. Others have pointed out that these two pseudonymous accounts can be linked and tarred by the Wikipedia community with no need to link to any real person, but I'm not sure how much linking and self-identification exists in the history of these two accounts to be certain what the real ramifications are. My overall view is that the two accounts are effectively unusable now for any nefarious purposes (they will both be watched carefully for the foreseeable future), so whether they end up banned, blocked, or left to quietly moulder, is not that relevant. I note that User:Mantanmoreland has contributed in recent days, but that User:Samiharris (blocked and unblocked on 13 February 2008) has not contributed since 8 February 2008. So remind me again what the point of all this was? Carcharoth (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• (ecx7) If the AC or WMF is aware of any legal threat from any of these individuals that could affect any of us here that have worked on this case and they have not told us about known risks to us from it, and have possibly ignored their duty under WP:NLT to block the threatening parties, this is going to lead to a very nasty situation for the people that did not communicate the danger. As in, I can see an RFC starting to get people removed from the AC, at the least, if that is the case. Lawrence § t/e 23:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And thus begins the edit warring over whether the community can name a protected individual as a sock in opposition to his friends in high places: here. WHY is so much deference given to this ONE guy? We don't give ANYONE this level of special treatment. Lawrence § t/e 22:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring, I'm neutral on the sockpuppet issue, but there's no reason why a tag should not declare the whole case. The fact is that are careful investigation by arbcom reached a "not proven" verdict. Most of the community may believe otherwise, but we have arbcom to settle matters of doubt.--Doc^g 23:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, I agree the tag should be there, but I note the first reversion was carried out by yourself, reverting more than one other editor. I also agree with Doc that the tag should tell the full story. I have tried to rewrite the convoluted tag to read better without changing the substance - hopefully this is acceptable to people. Neıl ☎ 23:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the first revert war was by David Gerard, not myself, and I then updated the tag per Sam's very sensible suggestion. I'm gobsmacked by people just clearly choosing to disregard consensus demonstrated in the RFC at the very last that MM=SH, but when stacked with the overwhelming evidence in the RFAR I'm baffled by how people keep asking for and insisting on consensus. Do we need a 99% threshold, something like that? Any other user(s) with THIS much evidence against them would have been gone without a communal fart being heard. Why are we being so extra, overly cautious to the point of sillyness with Mantanmoreland on even this? The AC has no power to overrule such clear community consensus, and they didn't even do that. They completely sidestepped the puppetry and threw it back to us, and we decided. THREE times now. RFC. RFAR. Here. Lawrence § t/e 23:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

From the arbcom: "various factors prevent a definitive conclusion from being reached." That's a convoluted reason to begin with! The "various factors" are unknown to the community. It only follows that any sock tag trying to explain this situation would convoluted. The arbcom decision is convoluted. daveh4h 23:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If the evidence was as clear-cut as you suggest then arbcom would have not had a problem with finding sock puppetry. That, after careful consideration, they failed to be convinced by the evidence should give us all pause for thought. Clear neutral thought always (although it can be wrong) is always more likely to convince me than enthusiastic crowds shouting for crucifixion. Lynchings are seldom righteous.--Doc^g 23:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What lynching? We now have at least three or four dozen people that based on the evidence, between the RFC, RFAR, and here, agree that SH=MM. The AC cannot (and didn't anyway) supercede such blatant consensus. How is this even a debate? If I plopped down evidence of this depth linking another two random users on ANI five minutes from now, they'd be both blocked in another 5 minutes after that. Lawrence § t/e 23:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If it were that clear and compelling, it would have convinced arbcom. They can be wrong, but they are not such dullards.--Doc^g 23:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right Doc, they're not dullards. A majority of the Committee concludes that the weight of the credible evidence taken as a whole is suggestive of or consistent with a relationship between the two accounts, so, now, are you going to back off your wrongheaded campaign?? SirFozzie (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not how it works. If a consensus exists, it exists. Consensus exists that SH=MM, and there has been no legitimately proven dispute of that fact. The AC didn't even touch the question, citing some undisclosed secret facts. The community is empowered to take any action to protect itself that consensus supports. We certainly don't need the AC's "clearance". The AC serves us and answers to us, in any event, not the other way around. Lawrence § t/e 23:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that people can appeal a community ban to arbcom and be unblocked? Here is a timely example (not of a community ban being overturned, but of sockpuppet accusations being said to be unfounded - I realise that is not the case here, but why not let the arbitration committee remedies take effect, and await developments?). Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that. My point is, no one has appealed the community puppetry finding to them. Maybe someone should, to settle this, if the AC wants to take on the community over this. Lawrence § t/e 00:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking because arbcom case has ended

As an offshoot of this, given the Samiharris account was unblocked by Newyorkbrad solely for the purposes of participating in the ArbCom case, which is now closed, shouldn't the account be re-blocked? Neıl ☎ 23:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Lawrence § t/e 23:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No. That would be splitting hairs. The obvious intent was for the Arbcom case to decide if the sockpuppet accusations were justified, and failing that, for this discussion to try and decide. Pre-emptively blocking is not needed, as the account seems to have retired. I hope I would be right in saying that people would notice if it started editing again. Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The sockpuppet was used disruptively and should be blocked. (double voting, pov pushing, etc.) daveh4h 23:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Update - both Mantanmoreland and Samiharris have been indef blocked - see below.... Privatemusings (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SH and MM blocked

(section moved from below 05:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

In light of the (extensive, dramatic) melee above, I have indef blocked both Mantanmoreland (talk · contribs) (for repeated sockpuppetry) and Samiharris (talk · contribs) (as a disruptive sockpuppet).

I understand that there are a number of other administrators who will disagree. Before you retaliate with a wheel war, please take into account:

1. Most any other editor would have been blocked on much less disruption, and with much weaker evidence; and
2. the very magnitude of the drama above is the perfect illustration on how immensely and irremediably disruptive this editor has been, and how much strife he has caused.

I make no statement on what real life person lies behind the accounts; only that the preponderance of evidence leads inevitably to a finding of sockpuppetry, and that MM had been previously found to be a puppeteer and enjoined to refrain from doing so again. — Coren ^(talk) 03:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

ah, well as ever I'm late - but it might be worth quietly noting that Mantan hadn't edited in a over a week before today, and I dropped him a note to see if he'd mind sharing his intentions..... <insert heartfelt plea for calmness and extra servings of tea all round....> Privatemusings (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I for one feel absolutely topping about your actions, however methinks we are still going to have some problems here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

First! (Second due to ec) I mean, certainly a gutsy call, I'd be interestd to see the community's response. Wizardman 03:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that I make no call about this being a ban! MM is welcome to make a case for continued contribution on his talk page if he so wishes. — Coren ^(talk) 03:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it make more sense to move this up as subthread of the thread above? Maybe so but I'll let Coren or someone else decide.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It damn well would. AN discussions are confusing enough. Noroton (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You would think that a community ban proposal would be discussed for more than half a day, at least, when a dozen admins have expressed opposition already. I wonder whatever happened to "If no uninvolved administrator proposes unblocking a user, and the block has received due consideration by the community, the user is considered banned." I don't think escalating this discussion with a block already is likely to help, especially when the consensus does not exist. Dmcdevit·t 03:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should have probably been discussed for a longer period of time but I don't think it was Corens intention to consider this a ban - he simply blocked as there was a clear consensus at that point in time to remove the editing privilidges of both accounts. I don't think no consensus for a community ban should stop a consensus for an indef block. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dmcdevit you are well aware that this has been discussed in minute detail for weeks, with about 1 million bytes expended on the case in ArbCom, and before that a community discussion. Dmc and Ryan, read those million bytes and then come back and tell us there wasn't enough discussion. Go on, read 'em. One million bytes is plenty discussion. Just plenty.Noroton (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The distinction being drawn is a useless one. An indefinite block that stands is one way we determine if someone is banned by the community. Or are you implying that the account is only technically blocked and that ne may create another account? I doubt that is what you mean; I don't see what saying this is "not a ban" means to you, other than that if we don't call it a ban, we can block without the same level of consensus. Dmcdevit·t 04:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the post by Coren that this is a block, not a ban.. and as for consensus, that does not mean unanimity, Dmcdevit. Please don't tell me you're looking at the section above and NOT seeing a vast consensus that a block is warranted, please? SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, Coren. Cla68 (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block for the reasons stated by Coren. The evidence of abusive sockpuppeteering is just about overwhelming. Until there are some acknowledgement/contrition/commitments, this block is appropriate.--Kubigula (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block. R. Baley (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block in the strongest possible terms. Everyking (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse as part of the undeniable, overwhelming, sober consensus. Noroton (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse per the opinions above. I'm glad someone had the balls to do what some of arbcom didnt. Viridae^Talk 05:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Overall community consensus is absolute and it's time we all began to respect that, so that nonsense doesn't swirl and fester for ages on multiple problems. Lawrence § t/e 05:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Consensus is that they're disruptive socks, and disruptive socks are generally indef-blocked. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. For the sake of the project. This has gone on long enough. --MPerel 06:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• I have to say, I am very disturbed by this block. Firstly, the contention that there is any difference between a permanent block and a permanent ban (and I use the word permanent advisedly) is the height of sophistry. Secondly, the fact that a good number of experienced administrators have opposed (though apparently I don't count, because I didn't write 5000KB of evidence/arguing on the Workshop page) should be an indicator that more discussion is needed. We shouldn't do "votes for banning" and that is very much what this appears to be. 09:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Korn (talk • contribs)
  • Actually, it is not sophistry. An indefinite block is more likely than a community ban to be overturned by an uninvolved administrator if the editor in question puts an "unblock" request on their talk page. There are differences. Carcharoth (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse indef block. I'm not sure who posted the statement above, but let me tell you that I've had to endure personal attacks and bad faith POV pushing by Mantanmoreland and his socks, plus retaliation from several of his administrator friends over the past two years. This indef block is definitely appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That was Sam Korn. Must have left a tilde off the signature by accident. Durova^Charge! 10:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, that would be him adding an extra tilde. Compare: Carcharoth (talk) (three tildes) with Carcharoth (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC) (four tildes) with 10:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC) (five tildes). Do I need to sign this again now? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Whoops, got a little over excited there :-) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. We've all been played by this guy for a very long time, me included, and no admission or contrition seems to be forthcoming. I hate to say it, but in my experience it often takes a block to kickstart a ban discussion, and until someone steps forward like Coren did, problem editors continue to linger and the community doesn't do much about it. Grandmasterka 10:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Not to state the obvious, but we were actually having a discussion about two sections up on this page before the block was made. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• All this and the ArbCom case still hasn't even closed! The only aspects of the above discussion I find surprising are how many people still have such strong faith in ArbCom, and how the criticisms (whilst forcefully worded in some cases) have remained civil. I am really surprised that anyone who followed the case wouldn't have seen this discussion as inevitable, and its outcome (at least in the short term) as almost inevitable. That's not to say they agreed, but that this has been coming with bells and huge flashing lights since the proposed decision appeared. I not only believe that the evidence presented strongly supports an indefinite community ban, but I also endorse both the block by Coren and the resulting barnstar on his talk page. Jay*Jay (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's very nice, but it would be nice if those making comments would also take the time to consider how the process could be improved and carried out with less drama. See the section I started below. I see you have also commented previously at Wikipedia talk:Community sanction. If we could get more attention there, we might get consensus and avoidance of future drama in similar cases. Carcharoth (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Carcharoth, I'm on board and have Wikipedia talk:Community sanction watchlisted. I believe that a more structured process is a good idea, and have doubts about the case applied to Whig - not because of the outcome, but because of the process. However, the discussion above would not have been stopped by greater structure, or by Jimbo asking us to leave it, or even by fully protecting this page. The dam broke a day earlier than I expected - I thought it would be within an hour of the case closing - but once it did break, the water was going somewhere and there was going to be damage (of which the Mackan block is an example). I applaud and support your goal, and admire your effort - but I doubt you can redirect much attentioin to the discussion you suggest just yet, as the water is still moving way too fast. Jay*Jay (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block, as stated previously, on the grounds that this user's continued presence is clearly not going to be beneficial to our goal of building a high-quality, NPOV, free-content encyclopedia. All sides of the underlying off-Wiki dispute should be strongly encouraged to fight it out somewhere else and leave us in peace. *** Crotalus *** 11:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• The block is good. I feel that there is no ban, due to the amount of opposition. Mantanmoreland is free to request unblock, especially if they can provide an explanation and assurances that there will be no further disruption. At the moment, I do not think there is a consensus to unblock them, but in time, that may develop especially if they provide assurances and explanations that are credible. Jehochman ^Talk 11:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose block--for now, anyway. Based on what I've seen so far, I have to agree with Dmcdevit and Ryan--this was way, way too premature. At the very least, Mantanmoreland should have had a chance to explain his behavior. If he does have that chance and he appears to be unapologetic about his actions, I will endorse a ban. Given the level of disruption he has caused, he has to earn the community's trust again--the reasoning behind my "Last Chance" proposal. I would also endorse a ban if there is evidence that Mantanmoreland and his socks' double voting actually changed the outcome of an RfA or an AfD. If either of those occurred, I will not only support a ban, I'll put the {{banneduser}} template on Mantanmoreland's page myself. I'm going through all their contributions now. Blueboy96 12:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification--I endorse the block on Samiharris, based on overwhelming evidence that he's a sock. I oppose--at least for now--the block on Mantanmoreland. Blueboy96 12:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Chnce? He has hadn an entire arbcom case of chances. What more do you want? Viridae^Talk 12:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Having read Coren's statement that he does not intend for this to be a ban at present, I endorse the indef on Mantanmoreland as well. Also leaving a note at Mantanmoreland's talk page. Blueboy96 12:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Viridae, to answer your question, "what more do you want?": for this banning discussion to be as clearly laid out as the arbitration case and the RfC, not an ad-hoc process started with no clear end point or framework of operation (have a look at Lar's original post and compare it with the process-heavy page at User:Lar/Accountability). To judge consensus on a community ban discussion, it is important for the people participating to say how involved they are and to say why they endorse the ban. The RfC was open for some time, the RfArb was open for ages. There was no rush or need for the basis of this discussion to be changed midstream by the enactment of a block the way Coren did. I will start a new section discussing the timescales involved and how much 'process' is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• This is not a vote. There was not adequate consensus for the block of Mantanmoreland. It was conducted in a precipitate manner in the face of strong and well supported arguments against: to wit, that the user is under a sufficient remedy imposed by the arbitration committee. Suggestions that we wait and see (under his very generously worded remedy he can be indefinitely blocked if he ever edits disruptively) were apparently ignored by the blocking administrator. This block should be undone and the user should remain under the sanction of the arbitration committee to edit under only that username and to refrain indefinitely from editing articles related to the dispute. This is ample remedy for the case. A stronger remedy especially as here in the absence of sufficient consensus for a community ban, would be perverse and would tend to divide the community. I say this as a person completely and wholly uninvolved in the dispute. I had, in fact, no knowledge of mantanmoreland until two weeks ago. I should add that, other than being under almost continual attack by Wordbomb for nearly two years, there is no evidence that the user imported any dispute into Wikipedia. The charges on that line seem to be especially thin. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, undoing the block would create even more drama. One of the possibilities now is that the user in question appeals to the arbitration committee, is told that an unblock would not be in the best interests of Wikipedia (ie. would create a firestorm of protest), but to be told that he can edit under a new account known only to ArbCom, and being watched by ArbCom (this is well within the remit of the Arbitration Committee). This is not an ideal outcome, as it would have been better for the community to openly scrutinise the edits of the person behind the Mantanmoreland account, but it seems that the community does not want to do this. This, of course, is another of the subtle distinctions between a block and a ban. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • A stronger remedy especially as here in the absence of sufficient consensus for a community ban, would be perverse and would tend to divide the community. Perceptive. No, wait, its divided already. Getting rid of these accounts, however, is our best chance to put it behind us. I say this as a person completely and wholly uninvolved in the dispute.... as are a lot of people. Most of the others spent some time reading the case pages, though. Relata refero (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on improving the process

Looking at points 1 and 2 that Coren raises: (1) "Most any other editor would have been blocked on much less disruption, and with much weaker evidence" - I agree, but from what I've seen (and I won't repeat the arguments from above) there were reasons not to do that. (2) "the very magnitude of the drama above is the perfect illustration on how immensely and irremediably disruptive this editor has been, and how much strife he has caused" - I strongly disagree with this. The day that we start to block merely because the community is having one of its periodic dramafests is the day that the community is finished as a coherent entity that can be respected and its decisions seen to have any worth outside that of mob rule. In any large community, there will always be disagreement and differences of opinion. That should not result in a general principle that 'drama in the community' = 'disruption by the editor being discussed'. That veers dangerously close to the often unprovable accusation of trolling. Stick to the facts and discuss those and come up with a process to reduce the drama and allow the community to express itself in a calm manner. Which brings me on to my main point. Community ban discussions at AN are, at present, chaotic and poorly structured affairs. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Community sanction for discussion on how such community ban discussions could be better handled. For now, I'll repeat what I've said before:

"I think the process of community banning could be improved a lot: (1) Clear start and end points and no closing early; (2) People declaring their interest and article and/or editor involvement (or uninvolvement) up front (ie. have they been involved with the editor before and how - anyone failing to declare this gets their comment discounted); (3) Clear presentation of the latest evidence and links to previous evidence; (4) Giving the editor in question a chance to defend themselves; (5) Such discussions not being a response to the "latest incident", and hence not decided in the "heat of the moment"."

Things like "saying what alternatives are available and why they wouldn't work" are other possibilities. RfC is very structured. RfArb is very structured. Is there any reason why community ban discussions need to be so dramatic and ad-hoc? Carcharoth (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Carcharoth's idea to document the process. Perhaps we can agree to conduct these discussions on a subpage, with a notice on the main page. That subpage could be structured a bit, perhaps something like the way we organize WP:RFCs. Jehochman ^Talk 11:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Concur - and I suggested something along these lines above in the context of the Whig topic ban. Jay*Jay (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up the paperwork

I've made the following edits to the user pages concerned: [7] and [8]. This moved the pages from the "temporary wikipedian pages" category to Category:Blocked historical users. This should have been done anyway, because of the sockpuppetry concerns, but is also needed to prevent the user and talk pages being deleted a few months down the line. There is history here that needs to be preserved. These were not throwaway accounts with only a few edits. Please, when people place indefinite blocks and use the {{indefblockeduser}} template, can they remember this. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't forget. At the time of the block, I felt it better to not throw further oil on the fire by dumping a stock template on the MM page, especially one that would cause the page to be eventually deleted. I've left a succinct note on MM's talk page this morning, inviting him to make a case for is continued contribution, if he so chooses. — Coren ^(talk) 12:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say you forgot. I was speaking in general. Thanks for clearing up what you were thinking at the time - something it is difficult for others to know. If you want to still use the indefblocked template, but not have the page deleted, please use the "historical" parameter. It is all in the template documentation if you read it. Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Coren, in IRC, stated that he was leaving placing templates to someone else. So I placed them. I hadn't thought about the temporary page aspect, which is a good point! So thanks for the changes, Carcharoth. ++Lar: t/c 13:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timescale and process

Two points here:

• (1) Compare the timescale of the three processes people have cited so far. The RfC opened at 16:52, 12 February 2008 and the last edit to date (which was also still part of the discussion there) has been 03:43, 16 February 2008. That is over four days of discussion. The RfArb opened at 22:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC) and will effectively close at 11:49, 13 March 2008. That is nearly a full month of discussion. This thread was opened by Lar at 17:13, 12 March 2008, and Coren blocked at 03:05, 13 March 2008 (I know, a block not a ban, but still). That is just under 10 hours of discussion before the block was placed (though discussion appears to be ongoing).
• (2) How process-heavy should community ban discussions be? Have a look at the process set up by Lar at User:Lar/Accountability and compare this with the initial post in this thread. Is process something that we only allow in some cases, and we ignore it in cases like this?

I'm deliberately not giving my views here, so please just give opinions on what you think the right timescales and degree of process should be, rather than opposing what others think. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have telegraphed your views anyway. :) I think that if I had been proposing a community ban out of the blue, with no prior history, I would have provided a fair bit more in my opening statement. But given the 1M bytes of prior history here, just referencing things seemed adequate to me. I suppose I could have done better. But I'm also not seeing any lack of knowledge of the priors, really. Mostly what I see in the subsequent discussion is that a very small minority thinks there wasn't consensus that these two were socking, and a slightly larger small minority thinks there isn't community consensus for a ban. I'd also note that Coren blocked these userids ahead of when I would have done so (I would have waited till the case was over) but also didn't position the blocks as community bans per se. ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In hindsight, there shouldn't have been an ArbCom case and the RfC should have continued and expanded to cover the community ban. Given there was an ArbCom case - which certainly massively increased the quality of the evidence - this discussion should have been moot because ArbCom should have blocked. A lengthier and more calm community ban discussion then could have been allowed to run several days. Ideally such discussions should be structured with pre-determined parameters as you suggest. Having said all of that, the unblocking means this discussion is about to be swamped as a deluge of protest begins. In short, water still moving too fast (sorry). Jay*Jay (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mantanmoreland unblocked by Doc glasgow

Apparently, against the displayed consensus here (note, consensus need not be unanimous ever), User:Doc glasgow has unblocked User:Mantanmoreland. Lawrence § t/e 13:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Can we all please be calm here. Go straight back to Arbcom if need be, but no further blocks or unblocks please (of anyone). Please. :-( Carcharoth (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there was any such consensus, even accepting that it doesn't need to be unanimous. A dozen admins in reasoned opposition should give you pause, at least. Dmcdevit·t 13:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to think very hard about what "uninvolved" means now. Relata refero (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And examine where given admins have stood on the previously now proven false attacks on both sides. Wordbomb may have acted scummy, but he was right in the end. Mantanmoreland=Samiharris. Lawrence § t/e 14:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mantanmoreland unblocked

I have unblocked this user. whilst I'm openminded about this case, there is significant admin disquiet here. There is simply not the unanimity required for a community ban, especially when the evidence (however strong) did not compel arbcom to feel the need to act - and the blocking admin was also aware of significant admin dissent. Where there is doubt as to a block, and no evidence of immediate disruption, we don't rush to block. I don't like reversing another admin, but the status-quo is for the user to be unblocked, until the matter is resolved. If anyone disagrees, they may take the matter to arbcom. Please remember that re-doing the block, knowing that another admin contests it, is wheel warring.--Doc^g 13:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this unblock, and would plead for the community to take a calmer approach to this. To repeat myself from above, one of the possibilities if the indefinite block remains in place without a community ban is that the user appeals privately to ArbCom and is told that he can edit under a new account known only to ArbCom, and being watched by ArbCom (this is well within the remit of the Arbitration Committee). This is not an ideal outcome, as it would have been better for the community to openly scrutinise the edits of the person behind the Mantanmoreland account, but it seems that the community does not want to do this. This, of course, is another of the subtle distinctions between a block and a ban. Carcharoth (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that is an entirely sensible approach. We have an arbitration committee, let them deal with it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Even when they've said they want us to deal with it? This epidemic of buck-passing is ridiculous. Relata refero (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The case isn't even closed yet! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read through the discussion on the proposed decision talkpage, where several arbitrators have commented on what the ArbCom intends, before commenting further. Perhaps you might want to strike out your previous statements till you have done so. Relata refero (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it's true I have been unable to find anywhere on the proposed decision page that states that the community should ignore everything the AC says and simply ban people before the case is even closed. Perhaps you can point me to it? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Effectively it has closed. There is a 24-hour clause from the point at which 4-0 is obtained, as Newyorkbrad noted in his vote on the motion to close, and that point has passed. It's just no-one has got around to tidying up the paperwork yet. See here, where it is currently 7-0 to close. Carcharoth (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please complete the unblock template. For sock puppetry the puppetmaster normally gets a block anywhere from one week to indefinite. There is a middle ground that leaves the account blocked, but not banned. I think this is the consensus, and it should be restored to that position. Maybe a 6 month or 1 year block would be more appropriate in this case, rather than indefinite. We need to discourage sock puppetry. Letting puppetmasters off the hook with a slap on the wrist (Oh noes. A stern warning!) is a poor idea. Jehochman ^Talk 13:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A year of stalking, a month of concerted drama, a topic ban and article probation from ArbCom and eternal scrutiny from the community is not "a slap on the wrist." In fact, it (or the ArbCom part of it) is a preventative measure against the actual problem. Just because some people were out for blood and didn't get it from ArbCom doesn't make this case decision a "warning." The least the community could do is see if it works. Mantanmoreland hasn't even resumed editing yet, and yet this is being treated as if it's somehow urgent. Dmcdevit·t 13:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I get it now. Are we giving Mantanmoreland so much extra rope here because Wordbomb was out to get him? Wordbomb was RIGHT. Mantanmoreland=Samiharris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence Cohen (talk • contribs) 14:01, 13 Mar 2008

Please don't distort my words. I understand tensions are high, but I said nothing of the sort. My point is clearly that there have been preventative measures enacted, not "a slap on the wrist." that's true whether or not the sockpuppetry suspicions are accurate (I didn't even give an opinion there). Dmcdevit·t 16:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Its urgent that we try and put it behind us.

A slap on the wrist and a restriction to one account has "been tried before". A suggestion from an admin (SV) that this account not edit certain articles has been tried before. I think the community can see it didn't work. So I think trying it again is considerably less than an acceptable "least". Relata refero (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not withstanding Theresa's comments (and the obvious question that follows...) I should note that the policy specifically states that a community ban is deprecated if an uninvolved admin proposes an unblock. I am aware that Doc has participated in the ArbCom, and thus wonder how "uninvolved" he may be considered, but would primarily suggest that the policy only condones the proposing of an unblock - and not the actioning of same. I think we will need to enquire of ArbCom whether actioning the unblock was wheelwarring or an acceptable BOLD action, as well as how "uninvolved" an admin has to be to be able to perform the task. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear how involved you're claiming Doc is. I don't consider myself involved at all, not having heard of Mantanmoreland until a fortnight ago. Doc glasgow has not even given evidence on the evidence page. Nor is he named in the evidence page. He is not listed as an involved party in the application. He participated in the workshop but that does not make him an involved party in the dispute. Moreover David Gerard, who is not involved in the dispute, has also proposed unblocking. I'm quite sure you will find others in this discussion, perhaps even a former arbitrator or two, who still would propose unblocking. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

David Gerard uninvolved? How many citywide ip's, in attempts to stop WordBomb socks, does he have to block to convince you that he has some interest in acting in what he sees as against WordBomb interests? Ant, I also came onto this particular situation - although aware of a general unpleasant background - only weeks ago with SirFozzies initial investigation but I was quickly aware that the genus of this matter is more than two years old and David Gerard was at the core of that. You also fail to comment on that both DG's gave an incorrect interpretation of the WP:BAN wording - it specifies "proposing" rather actioning an unblock; proposals are an indication of seeking agreement, not of unilateral action. A ban, which this wasn't per the block rationale, is only a block with a consensus that it shall not be lifted - when an unblock is proposed it just becomes an indef block under review. What we got was something else. As for Doc g's uninvolvement, I was fully aware of his opinion prior to the commencement of this AN thread - his comments opposing rigorous sanctions against the Mantanmoreland account is a matter of record at ArbCom. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

David Gerard blocked a banned editor who remains banned and will remain banned. This does not make David an involved party in the Mantanmoreland case unless you factor in the agenda of various off-site interests, who don't have any voice here. David's knowledge of the banning policy is intimate and well founded. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There is much that is wrong with DocG's rationale.

• the evidence (however strong) did not compel arbcom to feel the need to act: ArbCom made clear that they expected this to go back to the community. I don't think that that is the same as them not feeling the need to act. I further submit that ArbCom has not felt the need to act in many problematic cases recently, so this is now a statement with significantly depreciated value.
• the status-quo is for the user to be unblocked, until the matter is resolved - would sound better if the blocking admin indicated what he thought "resolution" would look like.
• the blocking admin was also aware of significant admin dissent - How significant is significant? Numbers, please, or - preferably - strength of argument. Are you' a dissenter? Or are you "neutral", and merely acting on process because you feel others dissent?
• and no evidence of immediate disruption, we don't rush to block - you have presumably been unaware of the fact that this has taken up a month of some people's time? That MM has been obstructive and difficult on the ArbCom page, as Durova points out above? That no credible defence has been offered? That off-wiki disputes continue to be imported and living persons attacked on those pages? That is disruption the way it is generally understood. One month is not a rush to block. Relata refero (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So, for that matter, is reversing admin action without taking even a moment to confer with said admin— had you done so, I would have clarified the point I made above (which you obviously did not notice) that this was neither a ban nor an infinite block. — Coren ^(talk) 13:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That's just word play. The block was indefinate was it not? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you can select an option for infinite, as opposed to indefinite, or say this in the block log. So there is a subtle difference between infinite and indefinite. Most people don't bother with the difference though. Carcharoth (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Again though that's word play. Look at the bigger picture if a person is blocked without a time limit then they have to be unblocked by someone or remain blocked forever. If a person is blocked while a ban is being discussed and then anyone who unblocks is accused of wheelwarring that simply isn't right! We are not a mob. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's all go and read ochlocracy and then vote on whether we are a mob or not... Carcharoth (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"...blocked while a ban is being discussed.." I really am puzzled now. He has had weeks in which to come up with a credible defence. Instead he has been obstructionist and disruptive on the arbcom pages. Are you claiming the only valid reason for the unblock was so he could participate in this discussion? Because that is totally not worth it; we are aware what he would say, that we're buying into a coroporate smear campaign and propagating Bagley memes. Relata refero (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You have completely missunderstood me. My point is this:Was there concensus for a community ban? No! Therefore he was blocked indefinately until concensus was somehow reached. That is simply wrong. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I did so. If that's your point, though, I don't understand the 'mob' reference. Relata refero (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In practice, this 'emergency indefinite blocking' does actually happen more often than it should. Indefinite blocking is sometimes used as a preventative measure to prevent ongoing disruption and to allow discussion at leisure as to whether to shorten or unblock. It would be better to block for a week in such emergency cases. Carcharoth (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Relata refaro, I'm serious: go and read ochlocracy. It is fascinating. If you must talk about the mechanics of the discussion, what about the length? If the RfC took 4 days, and the Arbcom case took a month, was there really a need to block after only 10 hours, with one of the stated aims of the block being to avoid the drama of more discussion? That just looks bad. I'd have supported any ban or block (in the absence of new evidence) if there had been a structured, proper discussion, with a clear endpoint and exit strategy. As it was, the discussion was "hanging" and was prone to someone coming along and making a summary judgment. There is a reason why XfDs and DRV have notional endpoints after which a decision is made by an uninvolved admin. Community ban discussions should have at least the same level of process. Carcharoth (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• This might be relevant. I begin to think DocG did not put very much work into this. In particular Proposed Finding of Fact 2.1 directly contradicts his stated rationale about ArbCom. Bad show, particularly given that when going against consensus you should at least get the facts you're supposedly basing your rationale on correct.. Relata refero (talk)

[edit] Chill

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for clarification: Mantanmoreland. Jehochman ^Talk 13:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is largely because of ArbCom's wishy-washy decision in the Mantanmoreland case that we are where we are now, so unfortunately I doubt throwing this mess back to them will do much good. I guess we'll see though. Doc has undone the block and a number of others object so it seems like it will not stick regardless of what happens now. The fact that we as a community have failed to deal with this editor in the same fashion we would deal with other editors who engaged in similar behavior makes us look ridiculous in my opinion, however I'm afraid we are going to just have to look ridiculous for awhile. Some folks either don't see abusive sockpuppetry by Mantan or don't think we should deal with it the way we normally do - by blocking - and that's where we are probably stuck for the foreseeable future. ArbCom could have done a lot to prevent this by simply voting on the MM=SH question. Had it passed we would have had good cause for a block even if the committee wouldn't do it; had it failed a block would have been very questionable. The committee failed the community and now the community remains split (roughly 85-15 as I make it). There's really nothing good about any of this. Sorry for the pessimism, but we have a serious "SNAFU" here as they say.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If the AC isn't willing to take on the hard actions they kicked back to us to make A decision, then they've failed in this case, and it's time for some enforced change. Lawrence § t/e 16:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, are you seriously agitating for change, as in ochlocracy, or are you making these threats while waving the banner of "the community" in order to make a point? I think if you started a real discussion on whether ArbCom is doing a reasonable job in the circumstances, you might find your position has less support than you think it does. As Jehochman said, chill. Several others have climbed the Reichstag in the past, and the result is never pretty. Carcharoth (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I take issue with the statement that "we as a community have failed to deal with this editor in the same fashion we would deal with other editors who engaged in similar behavior". We have forbidden him to use any secondary accounts or proxy, and we have forbidden him to edit the four articles named in the controversy or any article related to them. If he edits disruptively any administrator can block him for an unspecified "suitable" period. In the circumstances, the urgency to block would need some strong justification that has not been demonstrated. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, how much more right Tony sounds when he's both right and civil at the same time :)

Anyway, there was obviously no consensus to ban, or the block would have held. Everybody, please bear in mind that we have a system where everybody can register as many accounts as they want. There's no way to prevent banned users from editing. All we can do when we decide to ban somebody is try to track down their new accounts and revert any damage they have made. But, even if we track them down and block them, we can't stop them from registering more accounts from more IPs. If we don't ban them, we still have to revert any damage they make, but we at least don't have to spend the time and energy (and good will) on tracking them down. Plus, if they're not "officially banned", hopefully the overzealous admins won't be going around reverting typo corrections they make. Zocky | picture popups 16:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that the block was too early, can we now get back to discussing the pros and cons of blocking/banning Mantanmoreland? If people believe there is no consensus to block or ban right now, then let's try to move on from the surrounding drama and get back to discussing the block/ban of MM. It's not clear to someone who hasn't been following this exactly what phase this discussion is at. daveh4h 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Discussion should continue. Clear consensus may form in due course. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restarting the community ban discussion

Can we lay some ground rules for the community ban discussion? Someone type something below that seems reasonable. Carcharoth (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We should discuss possible community action (which may include a ban). Any proposed community action must satisfy us, as a community, that in the circumstances it addresses issues not adequately addressed by the Committee, and is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. The discussion continues as long as it needs to, but if it's still going after a week I'll probably declare it over. Administrators should avoid taking action that might be interpreted as a controversial revert of Doc's unblock. Meanwhile, Mantanmoreland's arbitration remedies apply and the fact that this discussion is taking place must not interfere in any way with the implementation of the remedies to their full extent. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I mostly like that, with some differences. I don't think "necessary" is the right standard. There may well be multiple possibilities, among which no particular one is necessary but choosing at least one of them is necessary. More importantly, the standard should be "in the best interests of Wikipedia (the encyclopedia)". In the best interests of the community is significant because the encyclopedia is built and maintained by the community, but secondary to the interest of the encyclopedia.

I also think there needs to be a much stronger encouragement to users to explain why they think their position is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. The conversation above was deficient in this on the part of all sides and almost all parties (myself included). GRBerry 18:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

that in the circumstances it addresses issues not adequately addressed by the Committee, and is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Okay? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The wording on the "must not interfere" with the AC is not correct. By that wording, a ban would interfere, since it would trump his editing restrictions. The community can in any way "exceed" any AC decision, as the community has primacy over the Committee. Lawrence § t/e 18:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to "the fact that this discussion is taking place". Moreover a ban would not, in my opinion, interfere with the arbcom remedies, which are sanctions and not statements of a right to edit. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems a fine starting point to me.

My Proposal based on the above discussion starter - Due to repeated abuse of the community's trust through the use of sockpuppets and undiscolsed coi editing which brought a real world dispute and perpetuated it on en.wikipedia for most of two full years that the communities patience with the person behind the account of User:Mantanmoreland be banned for one year from the project. An appeal that includes a full explaination of the abuse and appolgises for it would mitigate the ban to time served. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be asking for an admission of alleged actions upon which even the checkusers and the arbitrators could not make a determination, based on evidence of uncertain reliability. It's a philosophical problem. Also the duration is ridiculous. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's one end of the sanction spectrum. The other current end is the arbcomm proposed decision of a topic ban on a few articles. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the arbitration sanctions are stronger than that. His topic ban is "articles related to", so if he edits short selling or Mark Cuban he's breaking the sanction. Also if he ever uses a proxy or a second account he's breaking another sanction in the case. These are targeted sanctions but there's no way they're weak. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are weak, I'm saying they are the other end of the spectrum from a full ban. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Next proposal

It appears that the above community ban proposal does not have high enough support to pass. Would somebody like to propose something different that might gain a consensus? Jehochman ^Talk 18:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland is banned for two weeks and warned not to try the community's patience again. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

there is nothing that will gain consensus right now. Until we decide that double standards are not ok for en.wikipedia, there is a significant minority that will not go along with the normal response for someone with this level of community abuse. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep trying to achieve a consensus. Perhaps we should propose a block, rather than a ban, and specify conditions for unblocking. The problem seen with the arbitration decision is that the "sanctions" merely tell Mantanmoreland to follow WP:SOCK and WP:COI, which they were already obligated to do from two years ago when the shenanigans started. There has to be some downside for repeated attempts at deception to discourage them, and others like them, from trying it in the future. What sort of deterrence would be effective here? Jehochman ^Talk 18:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks is not unusual for a first time sock puppeteer. I would propose a three month block on Mantanmoreland for repeated sock puppetry, with an agreement that it becomes indefinite if there is a next time. Samiharris would be blocked indefinitely, because users only need one account. Jehochman ^Talk 18:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that seems like a start. Does anyone else have an opinion? After all this I'd really hate it if it ends up being me, tony, and jehochman who decides this. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How would we determine if there was a "next time"? In light of the threshold that's been established for only this user, it would seem nigh impossible. That said, I might go along if there is a permanent ban as well, with respect to RfA's, RfB's, AfD's and the like. Basically, a ban in any situation where there is a !vote (or a real vote. . . -ArbCom comes to mind). R. Baley (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Support for the previously imposed block was sufficiently overwhelming, and there should not be a need for anything further. Banning this person for a limited amount of time seems pointless to me. If he wants to turn a new leaf, fine—he can say so at any time, block or no block. Otherwise, it is unacceptable to have this person as part of our community, regardless of how much time passes. Everyking (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Jehochman's proposal sounds workable ... especially in light of the fact that I can't find any evidence (unless I missed something) that his double-voting actually changed the result of an AfD or the one RfA on which they both voted. I would also think that at least a year-long ban from RfAs, RfBs, XfDs, etc. makes sense. Like I said, he has to earn the trust of the community again. Blueboy96 19:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the lack of consensus stems from the hasty nature of the original proposal of Lar, compounded with a lack of awareness of the discussion surrounding the ArbCom's proposed decision, compounded with the (in my mind incorrect) belief that the ArbCom's role in the matter was to decide whether or not Mantanmoreland (MM) should be banned as a result of the RfC, compounded with a vague sentiment that such a ban would be a victory of WordBomb (and obviously, most of us cringe at that very idea). I believe that before we decide on the future course of action, we should agree on a few basic facts.

1. Mantanmoreland has, in the past, been caught using sockpuppets abusively. The ArbCom did not include this in its findings since it was somewhat tangential to the case (focused on the specific link between the MM and Samiharris (SH) accounts). Still, this does suggest that MM is willing to abuse Wikipedia processes and it seriously diminishes the credibility of this user. Though he has not been caught since, a majority of the ArbCom found that the evidence was consistent with a link between the two accounts, even if a definitive conclusion is impossible.
2. The ArbCom decided to avoid the question of the relationship between the MM/SH accounts with Gary Weiss. One may question the wisdom of that choice but the point is that this choice was not made because evidence for such a relationship did not exist. In the words of NYBrad, "it would be highly undesirable to write anything in an "official decision of the Arbitration Committee" that was likely to be used, or misused, in the context of off-wiki disputes." Fair enough. Nevertheless, there is a strong body of evidence that suggests this link. (See in particular, Cool Hand Luke's evidence) If Gary Weiss (or someone intimately related to him) is editing as Mantanmoreland, then the time-shift and the Varkala coincidences make perfect sense. To date, nobody has suggested any sort of alternative explanation (let alone a sensible one) for these coincidences. Mantanmoreland has also declined invitations to reveal his identity to trusted members of the foundation.
3. It is my understanding that a minority of people (and probably a sizable minority) believe that the above is insufficient to conclude that Gary Weiss is, in fact, editing as MM. But I would humbly suggest that everybody agrees with the following: if he is, then his behaviour on Wikipedia has been beyond unacceptable and a simple "please don't do it again" is inappropriate.
4. Wikipedia has been repeatedly invaded by hordes of sockpuppets of WordBomb. WordBomb is banned, rightfully so, and anyone suggesting that he be unblocked is not thinking straight. However, the behaviour of that editor and his clones should not have any sort of impact when assessing the behaviour of editors who have held and fought for radically different ideas on the relevant articles.
5. A significant part of the community a) has completely lost any sort of confidence in the good faith of the MM and SH accounts, regardless of the sockpuppet issues and b) believes that even letting MM discuss the edits on the talk page of the relevant articles is unlikely to help resolve the absurd disputes that have arisen there.

To anyone arguing against a ban for this account, I'd respectfully ask answers to the following questions. Do you expect that MM will in his future editing have a positive impact on the project? Do you believe that MM can gain back the respect of the community? (and do you still have respect for him as an editor?) Would you feel comfortable with MM participating in processes like Requests for Adminship? Of course, the flip-side of this is that I should answer the question: Do you expect that banning MM will have a positive impact on the project? Actually, I do. I think it is a meaningful step towards closure. I think it's important for the community to be more proactive in showing the door to tendentious editors. I think it's important to send a signal that blatant abuse of Wikipedia should not be subject to the forgive-and-forget attitude that we have, say, towards vandalism. Dealing with POV-pushers is incredibly time-consuming and even more incredibly patience-exhausting: we probably have an endless supply of recent changes patrollers but we have limited resources when it comes to dealing with long-term abuse. Personally, I have no doubt that both MM and SH are Gary Weiss, so the ban is an obvious decision from my perspective. But I'd support the ban even if I had lingering doubts because I feel that MM has, for a long time, been an unhelpful editor and one that is more likely to foster disputes than to appease them. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pascal.Tesson, especially the last couple of sentences. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That is why I'm waiting to see what Mantanmoreland has to say. I already let it be known on his talk page that I'm one of quite a few admins whose view on where to go with this hinges on an explanation of his behavior. I think we can all agree--if he doesn't show that he can abide by these sanctions, his privileges to edit here should be terminated with extreme prejudice. I say again ... while I'm very uncomfortable with Lar's original proposal as the reasoning sounds too much like that used to justify the Iraq War (ah, my political leanings coming out), if I'm not satisfied that he can abide by the decision, I'll indef him myself. Blueboy96 21:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that there are a number of people who feel as you do. It's also the case where lar and some other folks have been up to thier eyeballs in mm issues for far to long now. So, while the reasoning of the first proposal might not have been great, unlike some of the political decisions made in the US it was nearly all done in an open manner that others can review (and come to thier own conclusions). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Utter and total topic ban

Why not do this, as a starting point. Cribbed from the User:Whig sanction:

A permanent ban on any and all interaction or discussion, broadly interpreted, of any articles related to finance, Gary Weiss, Patrick Byrne, or Overstock.com, broadly interpreted. Any and all edits involving these articles, invoking actions on those articles in any dispute resolution process or Wikipedia process, or discussions of issues with these articles in any namespace or situation, will result in escalating blocks from any non-involved admin. Simply put, those topics as they exist in any portion of the English Wikipedia and discussion of it is off-limits to User:Mantanmoreland and the user behind the account, under any current or future username. Any additional sockpuppetry by this user will result in an immediate and permanent ban from Wikipedia.

Thoughts? This is an obvious extension of the AC decision. I think this wording is essentially bulletproof. Mantanmoreland won't even be able to oppose an RFA by citing an editors work on these articles, nor have any needed or allowed role in any dispute resolution with them, as he's barred from them, let alone anything more mundane. Will this appease people to start? In my opinion it needs to be either this, or a total block. Lawrence § t/e 19:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Far too broad, and moreover prohibits reasonable discussion and dispute resolution paths. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would Mantanmoreland have anything to do with dispute resolution on these articles? He's no longer able to edit them, and has claimed to not be Gary Weiss, so we have no compelling reason to allow a thrice-discovered sockmaster to play any role there. He edits other articles, and can continue on those. The sockpuppetry footnote is a needed minimum. He does it again, anyone NOT blocking him is either slow in the head or not fit to have access to blocking tools. Lawrence § t/e 19:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

He is already under a remedy to curb his socking. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

He's been barred from his abusive socking since he joined Wikipedia, and how has that worked out? When a Checkuser and arbiter told him to stop, how did that work out? When he was confronted with evidence of socking again in the RFAR, how did that work out? He lied at first and said he never socked, and when confronted with Fred's warning and was asked to clarify, he lashed out, and when addressing all the new evidence he lashed out again and blamed it all on Patrick Byrne. Hows this all working out, then? I ask you, Tony, tell me: how does Wikipedia benefit from Mantanmoreland's continued presence? Lawrence § t/e 19:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has passed an adequate remedy for socking, and a strong topic ban. Please address something for which there is as yet no remedy. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

My proposal is an extension of the AC topic ban, and your singular opposition is noted, but your usual contrary tone is of no special weight in decision making. Your input is noted, though. This is what I propose--Mantanmoreland is no longer welcome I feel if he remains to participate in any fashion or capacity on these topics. The community will now decide. Lawrence § t/e 19:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being contrary, simply observing that those issues are covered by existing remedies. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Which, if he stays, lack the sufficient teeth to ensure he cannot do things he was already proven to do, like double !vote in discussions on the subjects. If he can participate on Talk:Patrick M. Byrne as Mantanmoreland, we will never know if the random user, the next Samiharris, editing behind proxies is him or not. This extension guarantees that Mantanmore won't get in trouble for this, and my extension benefits Mantanmoreland. Since he won't be able to participate in any fashion on these pages anyway, he has no motivation to sockpuppet there to advance User:Mantanmoreland's aims. This of course can't address if he socks under wholly new names, but if he does that with his very distinctive voices, he won't last long anyway and will be summarily booted before he can blink by many administrators now. Lawrence § t/e 20:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Patrick M. Byrne is covered by the article probation, as is any related discussion (such as a deletion discussion). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

False:

4) Mantanmoreland, under any current or future account, is banned from editing articles related to Gary Weiss, Patrick Byrne, Overstock.com, Naked Short Selling, and other mainspace articles in the area of dispute, broadly construed. He may make suggestions on talk pages, subject to the requirements of remedy 1.

My proposition has more teeth. How does Wikipedia ever benefit again from the account "Mantanmoreland" participating in any fashion on these articles? Lawrence § t/e 20:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I cited the article probation. You've quoted the topic ban. Those are two different remedies. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

All I've been talking about IS a ban. Can you think of any reason this user would be welcome to do anything with these articles ever again? Lawrence § t/e 21:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth considering if he actually says he wants to work in other areas and gives an appropriately convincing assurance that he will follow policy and respect the community's wishes. In the absence of any statement from him at all, aside from denials and accusations, I don't see how we can justify allowing him anything. Everyking (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

He has worked on the Glenn Greenwald article, if he is allowed to continue to do so, I'm outta there. I want nothing to do with him no matter which account is used. R. Baley (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

THat article seems to have some NPOV problems (which don't appear to be Mantanmoreland's fault). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it would be ok to let him edit Varkala. :-) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence's Utter topic ban is also similar to that imposed by the committee on a user from the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review case. That one was really for simple disruption as the user was unable to play well with others. It has had the effect of site banning a mostly spa editor (which mm seems to be). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. If Mantan is here for Wikipedia, this total topic ban is no harm to anyone. Lawrence § t/e 21:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable enough ... I endorse this. As I've said before, Mantanmoreland has to prove that he's willing to regain the community's trust if he's to stay here. Blueboy96 22:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Simple Proposal

I suggest that we request a CheckUser, other than Lar and Alison (and possibly Thatcher - please identify other conflict of interest CU's) review the weight of evidence already collected and pronounce upon both its legitimacy (given the lack of ip ident) and whether it indicates alternate account abuse so egregious to justify an indef block. If it does pass the WP:DUCK test and be liable for such a block we can enact that and then discuss whether the independent CU's findings can form the basis of a community ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Many CUs looked at MM/SH, way back at the beginning, myself included. We all opinied that on the basis of the CU/technical evidence available, it was not possible to establish a technical connection. I don't think that CUs are any more, or less, able, as a class, to evaluate the statistical/correlative/DUCK evidence developed subsequently, than anyone else. So maybe I'm not following you there. Note: I've already opined about the statistical/correlative/DUCK evidence, (although I think I was careful to say I was not speaking as a CU)... I found it compelling. ++Lar: t/c 22:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting a rerun of the original request, but with the finalised quality and quantity of data, by a CheckUser who by some small miracle has not been exposed to this matter. A simple up and down request to an uninvolved reviewer asking if a) the material passes the Duck test, and b) what would the reviewers suggestion of sanction be, in view of the history of socking also presented. The advantage of an independent CU review is simply the experience of dealing with such cases - we all (well, most of us...) are able to recognise the fact of socking, but are not familiar with dealing with it in context. Frankly, I would be shocked if a answer any different to the ones given by you and Alison was arrived at - but we need it heard from someone who hasn't been subjected to the Bagley/Byrne Patented Mind Control Brane Waive Machine. We then take the findings back to the community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

Reposted from WP:AN

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Wikipedia's role with respect to serious off-wiki or "real world" controversies and disputes is to provide encyclopedic coverage of such matters from a neutral point of view where they are notable and sufficiently documented in reliable sources. Neither Wikipedia's mainspace article content, nor its administrative and dispute-resolution procedures culminating in Arbitration, are intended or may be used as a vehicle for off-wiki disputes such as those involving the financial markets or legal or regulatory issues. Actions related to the articles involved, including naked short selling, overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, the (now-redirected article) Judd Bagley, and Gary Weiss, have been repeatedly disruptive and have had serious implications both on and off wiki. Any current or future editor making substantial edits to these articles is directed:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account;

(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration;

(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and

(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.

Any uninvolved admin may impose reasonable restrictions, after warning, upon involved articles or editors. Knowledgeable and uninvolved editors are urged to review these articles to ensure accuracy, fairness, and adherence to wiki policies. User:Mantanmoreland, under any current or future account, is banned from editing articles related to Gary Weiss, Patrick Byrne, Overstock.com, Naked Short Selling, and other mainspace articles in the area of dispute, broadly construed. He may make suggestions on talk pages, subject to the requirements of remedy 1 in the decision. User:Mantanmoreland is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account and to advise the Arbitration Committee of any change of username, and to edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration.

For the committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 21:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with the remedy the ArbCom has made? Samiharris, someone who is significantly similar to Mantanmoreland or is Mantanmoreland, is already indefblocked. Mantanmoreland is topic banned from Overstock.com and related articles and he is restricted to a single account. And even so, if abusive sockpuppets are made to disrupt those articles again, there is a well-defined set of rules to editing the articles, so abusive editors can be dealt with. My question is what else needs to be accomplished with this remedy in place, besides those wanting a lynching? — Κaiba 22:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If Mantanmoreland is to remain, my concern is that he is still permitted to further manipulate the topic banned article content through Talk pages, Wikipedia-space discussions, and via the Dispute Resolution processes. Lawrence § t/e 22:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There is as yet no convincing evidence that Mantanmoreland caused, by design or otherwise, any damage to any article on Wikipedia. To suggest that he might be able to do so by manipulation on talk pages of articles that are under probation that explicitly covers the discussion pages is fanciful, but why not wait and see if he does? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That you cannot see "damage" does not mean that it does not exist. Accurately reporting only on one aspect or using only well sourced references that support a particular viewpoint in fact damages an article when you are also using alternate accounts to ensure that other contributors with differing sources or opinions on the subject matter are removed from the editing process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If Mantanmoreland is using one account and is restricted from editing it himself, then it is a personal choice of the other editors of the article whether or not to be biased from his comments. Any POV-pushing or otherwise disruptive edits are restricted to the same guidelines the ArbCom just made for the article above. I see no reason why Mantanmoreland wouldn't be allowed to express his point of view in deletion debates, etc. so long as he is not acting disruptively and he is on a single account. — Κaiba 22:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) In addition, is the ever present threat of being blocked for opposing him by admins concerned with mm's real life opponents participation at en.wikipedia. (see User:Mackan79's recent block). We are codifing a double standard, and we are not doing it while clearly thinking that's what we are doing. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that GWH's block earlier was patently wrong and the block was removed (and confirmed later that the user in question was not WordBomb). As far as I can see, administrators who abuse the blocking policy need to be dealt with seperately from this case. — Κaiba 23:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We're trying to keep the battle off Wikipedia. The battle has certainly been imported by an agent and employee of one of the involved, and there is a possibility that others may do so. We're reacting according to how much damage the accused parties have done. They are not the same. Mantanmoreland, whoever he is, is no WordBomb. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Where have I said that wb should be encouraged to participate? What I've said is that folks get blocked, some banned simply for sounding like wb or disagreeing with mm. Some get it overturned pretty quickly (Cla68, Mackan79) once actual evidence is reviewed, some don't (piperdown). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought Piperdown was just some innocent schmuck at first, but his edits on external sites gave the game away somewhat. Perhaps not an Overstock stooge, but certainly not an honest editor either. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

piper was a moderately disruptive user, who was driven to great lenghts of disruption by some folks unwillingness to think forthemselves once the wb was invoked. Make no mistake, he would have gotten tired of mm's ownership if his short block had been left and he came back to face mm again. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the lynching comment, it's appreciated, really it is! R. Baley (talk) See my Lynchings!22:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

When users act like a lynch mob and refer to their contributions link as lynchings, don't be surprised when others call a spade a spade. — Κaiba 23:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for dropping in/flying by to personally attack me, also appreciated. R. Baley (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I refuse to call you a manual geomorphological modification implement. — Κaiba 23:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion going forward

The one thing I would love to see added to this is MM restricted from talking about WordBomb or Patrick Bryne. No comments of "paid stalkers". No sly "SEC investigation Patrick". None of that crap. 95% of MM's ArbCom contributions were BLP violations against one of those two. SirFozzie (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be as well if Mantanmoreland were to refrain from such comments, but for the record, it has been established beyond a shred of a doubt that Mantanmoreland does have a stalker who claims he's Gary Weiss, and that stalker is a paid employee of the entrepreneur Patrick M. Byrne, who fully supports his rather nasty behavior. Mantanmoreland has been proven absolutely correct.

Moreover, having very carefully surveyed 100% of Mantanmoreland's edits to naked short selling and Patrick M. Byrne, I can confidently refute your false claim concerning Mantanmoreland and BLP violations. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Paid stalker is not a BLP violation? You're ridiculous Tony. SirFozzie (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And since, you can't apparently see the truth until it's shoved in your face.

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

I'm sorry. Relevance. Do we now forbid discussion based on people being under investigation by outside entities? I mustn't have read that WP policy. Achromatic (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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

After your bacon, or Gary Weiss'? Clarify? Achromatic (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Dr. Extreme, I was being stalked by Judd Bagley off-wiki and on-wiki, for the purpose of achieving very much the present case, long before you became an editor. Please don't lecture me about the "tone" that results from that. Have a nice day.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC) SirFozzie (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, for the benefit of all who are as confused as I, do clarify how such statements by MM do not constitute BLP violations. Or maybe I'm incapable of basic comprehension of WP:BLP - I didn't see the clause "open season on 'enemies of WP'" as an exception. Achromatic (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I know he said these things. His statements were well founded and correct, and in no way a violation of any Wikipedia policy. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Whilst you were so eager to "confidently refute SirFozzie's false claims", you might want to actually read what SirFozzie said. Something altogether trivial about "contribution to Arbitration proceedings". You immediately go on a rant about the NSS article. Quite the non-sequitur. Achromatic (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem a little confused. You do realise that the bolded stuff above, to which you have replied, is a set of quotations from Fozzie that he, Fozzie, believes to be violations of Wikipedia policy? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I do, though it could have been formatted better. Funnily, as you acknowledged, all quotes of MM. From a cursory glance, I can see violations of BLP sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4. Feel free to refute your assertions that SirFozzie's claim is "clearly false" - focusing on what he originally said, not your redirect to a completely different space, and how the above quotations do not violate BLP, not "well it's true, isn't it?". Achromatic (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Achromatic, you probably won't be too surprised if I say I've already addressed those quotes in my comment of 00:28. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The

I disagree with Ant's take on blp'ness of many of mantanmorelands comments on talk pages. Unless it's part of the double standard he gets? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing against Tony or his new username, but please don't refer to him as "Ant." That is the nickname frequently used by Anthere (Florence Devouard), the chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors. With respect, it's not right to use the same nickname for Tony. Risker (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ant is fine, and probably more appropriate in this context than Tony. I think confusion is unlikely (the pronunciation is quite different in English). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I am a very talented person, but I am not hearing "Ant" when I see you referred to with that nickname, I am reading it. Ant is NOT fine. Anti is fine. AOANLAT is fine. Tony is fine. The Green Green Grass of Home is fine. But Ant is taken. Risker (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

The best suggestion going forward is "drop it".

Regarding any problematic editors in this dispute, they're never going to edit adversely again. We all know that.

So be it. Job done.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can assume that someone with such a history of manipulating the project will give us no further trouble. Everyking (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

per Everyking! I'm willing to hope for the best but I'm not so naive as to actually bet on it at other than rather long odds. But what choice do we have now other than to do just that, hope for the best? Sorry if that seems overdramatic. ++Lar: t/c 01:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The odds of improper editing being possible by any party (if inclined) are minimal to none. Effectively, almost nothing sustainable and adverse can be done once this kind of awareness is in place, on a situation. Arbitration of this kind casts a light strong enough that a user inclined to ignore it or push on a topic, would usually measure their ensuing wiki-careers in terms of a very short time period. Some try. It never seems to succeed though. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please also note enforcement provision 3 in the decision. Any serious violations of the remedies in the decision should be reported to the Arbitration Committee. I will be glad to propose immediate and definitive further action if it proves necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we don't know that. We can logically deduce that it is unlikely. And what about blocking folks for appearance of wb'ness? That one really chaps my hide. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope FT2 is right, but I am bookmarking this diff for the next arbcom case that involves MM.  :-) Furthermore, during the ban discussion of MM an editor called it a "preemptive block" and compared it to the preemptive war in Iraq. Well, here's my Iraq war comparison: The job done statement is comparable to Mission Accomplished. daveh4h 05:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

GWB was doing it the first time. There's probably been a hundred or so cases at arbcom. It's a slightly better precedent than the president. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

More detail, if you're unfamiliar with how much impact Arbitration usually has. It's very difficult to have any potential for future problems after a case like this. Editing on a few articles is more watchable than a country, and the problems in the first case were usually made possible to escalate because of the time factor, as the community wasn't fully aware of the growing problems, which Arbitration usually fixes. That's one of the biggest impacts. As a result, major follow-up cases are rarely needed - usually the community can handle any further issues - and the follow-up cases that are needed are usually very transparent and simple. A few cases have follow-ups but it's often a mere request for further enforcement powers or appeal, and usually trivial compared to any first case. People might try (you can't really stop people wiki-suiciding if they insist) but when they do, it's unlikely to have even 5% of the legs that the first case has had, and a rather brief wiki-lifetime.

As a result, attempts to game the system usually lasts roughly until the point the first admin says "okay, enough of this, they clearly haven't got the hint despite arbitration" and posts evidence of it on ANI. Lesser problems end up at AE. Too much light's been shed on it.

Put another way, it's the first case that's inevitably the very heavy duty one, since up till then everything was a slowly accumulating mess, whereas after that the past is transparent and everyone pretty much knows what's what (so to speak). Arbitration doesn't need to rule on everything, for users to get the sense what the genuine issues to watch for really are, so we tend to not overdo it. Even exceptionally heavy duty cases don't usually need to come back that often. Arbitration enforcement if ever needed is this way.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

'Scuse me?

"More detail, if you're unfamiliar with how much impact Arbitration usually has. It's very difficult to have any potential for future problems after a case like this..."

is exactly wrong! Never mind the specific case, articles and participants, I worry for the "potential for future problems" in having an individual regarded by most as an abusive sockpuppetmaster, and by many as the editing account of a certain individual, being able to impugn respected and long time contributors such as SirFozzie, Alanyst, Durova (!) and others as being the tools - willing or otherwise - of an off-Wiki campaign orchestrated by named individuals (but never mind the BLP consideration - Ant says its true, and a spade is a spade) and get only a strongly worded decision regarding civility in future editing... Whereas a sysop with a faulty memory and a lack of ability in checking his facts before acting can block another long term editor on the suspicion of sounding like a banned user (one of those not mentioned by me, above) in one old email - when reminded by victim/said editor...

Do you truly have any idea what kind of potential for future problems you create when parties or groups of differing opinions of what constitutes NPOV are treated with disparity? I strongly suspect that you do not - I doubt that you are inclined to even contemplate expanding what you are pleased to call your thought processes in considering the wider potential for future problems when it becomes obvious that there are differing standards of evidence needed and sanctions applied to subject related accounts when they act similarly but to different ends.

Both on wiki and off there is likely to be much the same reaction, which is confusion where it is not understood what is happening, or anger (or smug complacancy, if ones views accord with it) if it is understood. You really believe there is a lessening for potential trouble from the wider community when these factors are considered? Possibly you do, but then you probably believe that each case is considered on its own merits only - and that decisions reached on a case are not precedent or example for future cases. Never mind sock farms, go invest in one for ostriches. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Insults not called for, LHVU. As background, I've been dealing hands-on with some of our most difficult tenacious cases of this kind for close to 4 years now. I've taken several through arbitration, and seen first hand how effective even routine admin handling is, and handled tough cases for others, and done a load more than my own share of it. I'm content. I'm sorry you find it hard to believe. But it's experience, not ostriches, over here. You're grossly overdoing it. What a problem user can do before Arbitration, and what they can do after are vastly different, that's very usual. Even a user who has been tenacious, caused people to leave, wrecked articles, and sprawled POV over entire topic areas, is usually quite effectively dealt with by such a case. I've taken enough of them myself, to feel fairly sure that your view, whilst held in all good concerns, is nonetheless a bit uninformed.

On a side, if you want to insult me, you can. But please do it civilly, and contemplate that some of us might actually have a good sense what we're doing (your view aside), and maybe a bit less apprehension and anxiety. Also contemplate my comment that the "loud voices" are often the biggest problem. Left to calmness, most of these cases are easy. Arbitration - occasionally followed by final blocks, bans or extensions - is a very effective end of the line for out-and-out problem editors.

As for your concern that Mantanmoreland might by some chance use a stay to "impugn" any editors on the wiki - that is, engage in wanton personal attacks - then see my comment above. It's lacking in reality-check. The realistic lifespan for that kind of conduct after a "restricted under a cloud" arbcom hearing, is usually minimal. Typically it results in a warning, followed by either a block, a ban, or in some cases civility enforcement (backed up by block/ban) if continued. Any of those solve it very fast. Remember the aim is to keep any positive contributions (if any - that's their choice). Whether or not there are any, negative contributions are almost without fail, self-limiting in cases like this.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

FT2, you're wearing me out with your patience and even-tempered approach! I appreciate your and NYBrad's time & efforts in explaining the decision, and I think it's going a long way toward healing this situation. Here's what continues to worry me:

• Mantamoreland, even if he acts like a perfect angel from this point forward, is going to take not just a cloud with him wherever he goes on Wikipedia, but acute worry (bordering on paranoia) of all the editors watching him. He'll make an edit and numerous editors are going to be looking into whether thare are any other socks contributing on the same page. He'll continue distracting editors from editing.
• If he had been banned, there would have been a much stronger deterent effect on other editors tempted to create sockpuppets with IP proxies. I think a ban sends a message that lesser reactions don't send. Now if you don't believe he's a sockpuppeteer, then these problems are worth putting up with. My other concerns are not really about MM but about ArbCom.
• IP proxies are currently an almost foolproof way to sockpuppet. Word will get around about that. I wish ArbCom had asked the community to consider dealing with it.
• ArbCom makes me queasy in several ways. For instance, there is no assurance that the committee members are paying adequate attention to each case (I've got to wonder, given the volume of reading and editing that has to be done).
• The committee's lack of respect for statistical analysis (or call it computer analysis perhaps) is appalling. When CheckUser can't establish sock puppetry because of IP proxies, statistical inquiries should be done. Regularly. The committee should be looking into how that can be standardized and how they can be assured of its quality. I could say more, but my blood is still boiling over this. In fact, I'll say this: Adults don't run away from something that's potentially dangerous (like, say, an automobile or a meat slicer) if it's a tool that can be used safely by adults. I have yet to hear a mature response as to why statistical evidence is not useful.
• Committee members can hide a lot from the rest of us because nearly all the deliberations (that is, discussions) are in private -- it's hard to tell whether or not arbitrators are being careful or trying to be even-handed and unbiased, or whether or not they may be angry or afraid or whether or not a slew of other possible things are influencing them that shouldn't. One extremely good way to both reassure the rest of us and to bring more care to deliberations is if each arbitrator would write at least a paragraph about their reasoning and post it for the public to see before any voting takes place. Outsiders could then bring up points that may have been overlooked by the committee members, who would have a chanct to change their minds. Alternately, committee members could ask questions at that point and get answers from outsiders and their fellow arbitrators. Confidential business could remain confidential, but the community would be of more help to the arbitrators, and the community would have evidence that arbitrators are paying attention and in a reasonable frame of mind before voting. That's important, although I don't think most of the arbitrators realize it. It involves some more work, but it would be worth expanding the committee or creating a second one if need be to accommodate the extra work. It isn't just important for the committee to be fair, it's important for it to seem fair. It is stone-cold obvious that the committee needs to make greater efforts at transparency (which don't have to intrude on aspects that must remain private).

Thanks for reading this far. If you really want to see me tearing into the committee, follow this thread at Wikback. Noroton (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What insult? I see nothing that should be construed as an insult, but I shall apologise for having made you feel you were so. Please could you point me to the offending phrase or material, so I may be more sensitive in future. If you are referring to me suggesting that you have your head in the sand (re ostriches), I would comment that is a long understood analogy for putting oneself in peril by ignoring a present or future danger - which is very much the point I am trying to make here. It is a common enough figure of speech.

I am also concerned that you have misunderstood what I was saying when I commented on Mantanmoreland impugning established editors; I am unconcerned that he may do so in the future (it would be extremely foolish for him to engage in further personal attacks within a community where the majority want him gone) but was commenting on the perceived - and I am stating then and now, real - disparity between the treatment of two factions in an off-Wiki dispute who have attempted to use the encyclopedia as a battleground; Mantanmoreland has socked, been caught, warned and yet socked again, disrupted WP through the use of socks, disrupted WP in the manner by which he conducted himself during the sock investigation, RfC, and ArbCom case, and gets only a topic ban and a restriction on editing. Mackan79, however, gets an immmediate block from a careless admin who makes a mistake over identities - the identity being of someone who is in the party in conflict with Mantanmorelands conflicted interest. I repeat, with emphasis for clarity; Do you truly have any idea what kind of potential for future problems you create when parties or groups of differing opinions of what constitutes NPOV are treated with disparity? ...that there are differing standards of evidence needed and sanctions applied to subject related accounts when they act similarly but to different ends. That is what I was referring to when I noted MM impugning editors.

As for speaking in what might be considered a loud tone; what is one to do when one sees something that they cherish and believe in apparently not listening or otherwise paying attention? I suggest that there are only two kinds of editor who habitually "shouts"; trolls and those who feel aggrieved, and I very much hope that you would determine that I am in the latter. My background in 'net dispute resolution is that a forum in which I was a very active member was finally closed down by the hosts because of the action of just one troll, despite the majority pleading for a simple flood posting barrier to combat the trolls activities. The hosts dedication to freedom of speech was such that they would not restrict the activities of a troll even though it ended up closing down the forum - fantastic freedom of speech for everyone else! I am therefore fully conversant with the risks of not having your views heard, and while something as drastic as what happened elsewhere is unlikely to happen hear (very different dynamics) it isn't something I wish to be part of again.

I regret that you don't care for my tone, but please don't mistake heartfelt passion and commitment for anything else. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some observations from a newbie admin's perspective

Well, well. I didn't expect to be involved in a humdinger like this in my second full week with the tools. A few observations:

• A cursory reading of the Mantanmoreland saga (from the perspective of someone completely uninvolved) proves beyond all doubt that regardless of who Mantanmoreland is, he has used Wikipedia as a battleground for an off-wiki dispute, and that is beyond unacceptable.
• Lar and Foz were theoretically on solid ground in proposing a community ban. NPOV is a Foundation issue, and no ArbCom action can take away the community's right to take action if it feels that a user is not here to create an NPOV encyclopedia. However, the way it was worded had the tinge of a preemptive ban--something which, regardless of how onerous MM's actions may have been, would set a bad precedent for Wikipedia. Moreover, there is no evidence (so far) that MM and Samiharris' double-voting actually altered the outcomes of RfA's or XfDs--something which is unquestionably a bannable offense.
• While I don't think a ban along the lines of Lar's original proposal would stand up on appeal to ArbCom, Jimbo or the board, a ban for being unapologetic about his behavior certainly would stand in my view. For instance, Jimbo specifically stated that the reason he banned Primetime was because he was unapologetic about his rampant copyvios. And Just H (talk · contribs) probably would have been banned for only a year had it not been for his utter lack of contrition. As it stands, Mantanmoreland's trust with the community is hanging by an eyelash--which is why I'm waiting for him to join this discussion. If we get anything along the lines of Archtransit or Just H from him, I have a hunch there's gonna be a long line of admins wanting to hit the "block" button--and I'll be one of them.
• Lawrence's proposed topic ban is something I endorse wholeheartedly. Since there is considerable doubt whether we can assume any contributions he makes in the areas of the dispute are in good faith, there is no reason for him to be allowed to interact in any way with those articles either. I also think he should be be banned from project space for a time as well.

Blueboy96 12:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

One point. A double vote doesn't have to be the deciding vote for it to be a bad thing. ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I don't understand why the question of whether or not it actually altered the outcome would be thought so important; the fact that it was intended to alter the outcome, to manipulate the process, is what matters. Everyking (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it a bad thing? Yes. But is it a bannable offense? Unless it actually changed the outcome of the discussion, I doubt it. Looking at the Just H discussion, it seems that a ban proposal wouldn't have gone anywhere if his double-voting hadn't changed the outcome of Pascal's first RfA. Blueboy96 21:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, double ivoting through sockpuppets should involve at the least a slap on the wrist block (week or two) as a serious warning for a first time offender. Longer blocks for repeat offenders, such as a few months and longer if it is a pattern of community abuse. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't understand how using a sock puppet for a double vote would be anything less than a permanent bannable offense, all by itself. It bothers me more than most abuse. The person who does it shows a willingness to subvert Wikipedia rather than support it (more, I think, than most offenses), and if we don't deter it at a very early stage, I think it will just flourish. Fear can be a pretty good deterrent. But I guess I'm in a minority on this. Noroton (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support for the emerging consensus

I said over a month ago that we should impose a topic ban on Mantanmoreland and indefinitely block Samiharris (the main POV-pushing account) at a minimum.

I see that Samiharris does indeed have a community ban and I endorse it. I'm also glad that after weeks of drama and delays, ArbCom did impose a topical ban on Mantanmoreland (although notably not Samiharris—perhaps, based on the comments quoted above, because they realized banning Samiharris was a forgone conclusion). Anyhow, I think we're mostly done here.

I don't expect anyone to apologize for calling editors "witch hunters" and "lynch mobs," but if anyone did apologize, I would sincerely appreciate it. For what it's worth, I intend to further develop non-CU sock-detection methods. This is not a problem that will go away until we amend several of our policies. Cool Hand Luke 00:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't vote for any sort of restriction on Samiharris because he hadn't edited for a month and had declared he was leaving Wikipedia permanently. Even if he hadn't been reblocked, if he were to resume editing, and certainly if he were to resume editing the articles in question, the situation would certainly call for a close and prompt scrutiny. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't encourage the use of those untried methods. I will not apologise for calling what happened a witch-hunt and a travesty. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I have told you twice now that these comments really are not helping. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a legitimate opinion, and one I hold very strongly, that the fabric of trust upon which Wikipedia depends will not survive a wave of amateur fishing expeditions with pseudo-statistical tools of unknown reliability. I cannot believe that the expression of such an opinion with honesty and without venom can be other than helpful to Wikipedia's health. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Debate on the viability and reliability of statistical methods and "investigations" and their potential positive and negative impact on community trust and confidence is fine, indeed welcome. References to "witch hunts" and "travesties" are unhelpful. If you can't distinguish between one of these types of comments and the other then you should avoid the page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Where a user can be described as a sock puppeteer by appeal to unsound statistical arguments, there is a good English word for the situation. I used it. I'm English. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Being a little more reticent than you, I won't use the good English words that are at the front of my own mind right now. I will say this: please stop fanning the embers of a controversy that is just now beginning to quiet. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking Luke to stop now (or was, until you abruptly changed the subject). What are you doing to dissuade him from this? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to critically and skeptically evaluate the reliability of any methods that he may use to induce me toward a conclusion as an administrator or an arbitrator, and urge others to do the same. And I'm going to do it without calling lots of good contributors to the project various names. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony, these methods should be able to clear people as well. For example, which of these accounts are socks? I think I can write a script to quickly sort out the edit times in a case like this. In fact, I hope to test my methods by predicting RfCU results for purported socks with more than 100 edits. I don't see why this is a bad goal. Cool Hand Luke 04:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the topic at the top of the thread, I too support the emerging consensus. I suspect many editors have put these articles (and a few others) on their watchlists and are keeping an eye on them, although I suspect any editors whose intentions are less than honourable will lie in quiescence for a few months until people become distracted by the Next Wiki-Crisis. It's my opinion that part of the strength of expressed disappointment with respect to the Mantanmoreland remedies comes from the fact that many people have been aware of the issues for a very, very long time but felt powerless to address them. When finally people could no longer ignore the elephant in the room, and several brave editors banded together to systematically collect and analyse the evidence, there was reasonable dismay at the duration and extent of the deception and many anticipated a remedy that was equally as extensive.

Everyone involved in this process must be feeling very mentally drained now; however, we have one last task to do. We must advocate with our peers who are knowledgeable in the subjects at hand and encourage them to systematically and rigorously review these articles to scrub them of any bias, and to bring them into balance with excellent writing and sourcing. They should know that they have Arbcom and our community of editors and administrators standing with them. I'm going to post something over at WikiProject Business and Economics requesting experienced subject experts to give these articles indepth reviews. I hope others will also encourage our finest to take these subjects on. Risker (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC) And done[9]. Risker (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a bit premature to describe an "emerging consensus" when so few editors have commented on any one proposal. Give it time. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Zero have opposed the Samiharris block. Looking at the number of people who have commented here, I think it's a true community ban. This discussion is winding down, and I think that this is the take-away. Cool Hand Luke 17:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is consensus (which I support personally) to ban samiharris. In view of the uncertainty, there is too much risk in permitting that account to continue editing. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean by "emerging consensus," and I also think there's a consensus for the view Risker expressed, that these articles need a close look. That's also ArbCom's main message. Cool Hand Luke 17:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A number of editors are already looking at them. More would be welcome. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. IP proposal

My status as a periodic - if largely reformed - problem user throughout my long WP career informs my opinions on how to deal with the Mantanmoreland situation. I would propose a simple solution based on the following principles:

• Problem users are a bane to the encyclopedia, wasting time, wasting resources, and frustrating others.
  
• We're dealing with one of the most extreme problem users in project history, one whose relative sophistication and ability to learn and game the system allowed him to burn countless man-hours, divide the community, and bring its processes into disrepute.
  
• The ArbCom case did a wide disservice and left all parties dissatisfied. The sooner that the AC understands this series of events as a failure of process and a learning example for the future, the better off Wikipedia will be. Not only was no resolution reached and a wound left to fester, but the process was sufficiently baroque, ineffectual, and opaque that suspicions of corruption, malfeasance, legal trouble, and hidden truths sprung up as naturally as flowers after a rain.
  
• Mantanmoreland "and company" will never edit productively in any area related to his personal hobby-horses and disputes, and must be permanently topic-banned.
  
• A total ban will never gain the level of support it needs, and will become as much a disruption and source of discontent as the continued presence of the offender. An indefinite block is close enough to suffer the same problem. Is this fair? No. But whether we like it or not, Mantan has successfully divided the community and will need to be dealt with more carefully than a less sophisticated user.
  
• WP is an encyclopedia, and no one's presence can be justified unless they intend to contribute positively. In normal cases, we assume good faith, but bad faith has been conclusively shown along a number of avenues.
  
• Since this user has established that good faith cannot be assumed, he must make explicitly clear how he feels he can contribute to the enyclopedia in the future. Wikipedia editing is not a right, nor a privilege, but an opportunity. Mantan must show how he intends to use this opportunity.
  
• If the user cannot make this clear, then a ban must be made regardless.
  

Conclusion: Mantanmoreland should be required to provide a pro-active statement regarding the areas of the encyclopedia where he can make positive contributions, and how he intends to do this. These areas must differ from his past areas of involvement, which must remain closed to him. If Mantanmoreland cannot provide a simple and clear statement along these lines, he will have conslusively shown that he has no ends here beyond disruption and POV-pushing, and can be safely banned. Mr. IP (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New thread

As this thread has grown to 242 KB, I'm starting a new one here. Blueboy96 04:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)