Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Lets get started

Just a note saying that I'm ready to start presenting evidence, but would like to give the named parties a chance to present theirs first. In other words, lets get to it. Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

my advice is that if you've got it ready, just leave blank sections at the top for the named folks to use....better to get it out there so there's plenty of time to look at it and refine it (IMO). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I think I'm going to assemble at least some of it on a userpage sandbox before I formally present it so it will be ready for primetime when posted. Cla68 (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence, especially if it is well-organized and not duplicative, is very welcome from any user. There is no need for any user to wait or particular order in which the evidence needs to be submitted. Our only request is that everyone submit his or her evidence or comments within no later than one week of the case opening so that our decision can be issued in as timely a fashion as possible consistent with a thorough review. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Go ahead

I am pretty despondent at this point.

I doubt that a committee that serves at the pleasure of Jimbo would disagree with him.

I used similar sorts of evidence as previous sockpuppet inquiries. I imagined that adding user comparisons would make the evidence more persuasive, not less. We've banned people on much less, but this case requires nothing less than a doctoral thesis for some reason—for the benefit of people who received off-site emails on exclusive lists. These emails supposedly demonstrate that they're separate individuals. (It's something about their style or tone, never quite defined.) They're staking everything on their estimation of their own hand—emails, which we can't see. They've already made up their minds and they're all in. I guess sometimes nothing's a pretty cool hand, 'cuz I'm about ready to fold. Cool Hand Luke 06:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please go ahead and present your evidence. I like to think that at least most of our current arbitrators are willing to respectfully disagree with Jimbo if they feel it's warranted to do so. Your evidence is very compelling and should be presented. Cla68 (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you should present your evidence. You don't need to argue its relevance, its proprietary, or even explain why you used the examples you did. Just put it out there for the Arbs to consider. Of course, if you really don't want to... you have released it under the GDFL and I have no qualms in presenting it myself! ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I've re-read Jimbo carefully. All he's said is that he doesn't know. The passage comes across much more as "get off my back, I don't really know this guy, I don't like him much, I'm not protecting him, I've got nothing to hide, I personally haven't taken any action because I haven't had access to persuasive proof." I think that's fair enough, and he might change his mind when he sees the product of the SF-CHL-GDett-Durova Dossier. Relata refero (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Not submitting evidence in the anticipation that the decision will go the other way would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. --bainer (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Any interpretation of my remarks which would suggest that I am instructing or requesting the ArbCom to come to any particular conclusion is mistaken. My testimony is just one person's testimony. I posted it primarily because there were some false claims floating around. Some people misunderstood a quote from me to mean that I had some kind of confirmation. I do not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC) (Jimbo added this then reverted because he mistakenly also deleted another post. Apparently he is having technical difficulties, so I am readding his comment WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC))
Thanks for finding that, WAS. That makes Jimbo's position much more clear. Cool Hand Luke 18:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remark

I've gone ahead and put some evidence down. If it doesn't speak directly to the sockpuppetry that caused this case to be initiated, it speaks directly to the reason why we should investigate this, and what negative consequences the actions of these editors, and any unacceptable collusion/puppetry, have had. If this is not entirely clear, I am open to reworking my statement to make that absolutely obvious. Relata refero (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proxify.com

Thatcher's comments regarding Checkuser evidents state SamiHarris used Proxify.com. There is then talk about computer setups and how SamiHarris and Mantanmoreland had very different computer setups. Thatcher then comments that paid subscribers to Proxify.com can mask these setups. However, from a quick check ONLY paid subscribers can use the POST function anyway, so surely the SamiHarris account was a paid-for account?

Note: I just performed a test post attempt on se.wiki through Proxify and received the following message:

"POST access and interactive content are available only to paid Proxify subscribers. Subscribe to Proxify now and get special access to this and much more. Subscribers enjoy faster, ad-free access to all of Proxify's features. Please click here for more information."

So I think that may rule-out the computer setup argument? Whitstable 00:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Even assuming Samiharris was a paid subscriber, that indicates that user agent spoofing was available to him but does not prove he used it. User agents can also be spoofed by various other means. I am not offering an analysis of the evidence, merely providing a summary of my findings. Because proxies are involved and user agents can be spoofed, the value of my "evidence" may in fact be quite small, but I would not want other involved editors to think I was keeping information (pro or con) hidden. Thatcher 01:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that, and even if the evidence does prove to be quite small it is clearly crucial to have it included. But I think it should be made clear that to save an edited page through Proxify.com, a user has to be a paid subscriber. So even if SamiHarris did not use the Proxify.com option of agent spoofing, the option would have been available. It may only be a small point, but I would like it to be emphasised that "as a paid user, agent spoofing would have been available to SamiHarris" Whitstable 01:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the value in this is just how difficult any definitive statements that rely on technical evidence are going to be. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
In case anyone doesn't already know, there are extensions for firefox that can change user agents and proxies - including proxify proxies - at a single mouse click. (Use this knowledge only for good, my children.) The pattern of edits between SH and MM, however, strongly suggests two different computers to me. Relata refero (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW, may I just say I found the suggestion that WordBomb and Samiharris to be linked because they both used proxify to be.. humorous. It is one thing to suggest that WordBomb has used tactics that could be considered distasteful (I myself said that very thing to him.).
But to suggest that someone would spend over a year posting in the same general hours, agreeing with someone he so obviously dislikes with a passion, working with him on a whole class of articles to make it reflect the near-complete opposite of what he believes, and doing this while posting similar conversational tics and never crossing over with this editor? That requires a Guiness Book of World Records level leap of faith. SirFozzie (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of personal opinion and analysis, I agree that it is an unlikely suspicion because (a) Wordbomb seems to use strategies with a much faster payoff and (b) if Samiharris was a Joe job I would expect some degree of edit time collisions, as I would if they were completely and innocently unrelated. However, it is a suspicion raised by more than one checkuser and by at least one non-checkuser admin, so I felt it was worth noting as one element of the uncertainty involved in the technical evidence. Thatcher 21:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warned IP

This edit is that IPs only edit. I've warned him. Thanks to CHL for reverting it. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

While I'd rather we didn't blanket revert stuff, that was irrelevant, unless the ip has a whole lot of on wiki information to add to it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It was inmaterial to the case as I saw it. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unseen off-site emails

Jimbo has made reference in his evidence to off site e-mails received from Samiharris and Mantanmoreland. I know JzG has referenced these also and I believe others have as well. I find reference to evidence that no one else can take a look at extremely problematic in a case like this. There is a lot at stake in this case and transparency is extremely important in my opinion. As much of the evidence as possible should be evaluated by the community, rather than just Arbcom and/or Jimbo and a select group of users who received e-mails from the users in question.

As such I highly recommend that someone - probably Jimbo - contact Sami and Mantan and ask if they would be okay with a significant number of these e-mails being released (of course it is entirely up to those users). Significant identifying information and comments made in the e-mails which the users would not want others to see could of course be redacted (probably by someone like Jimbo or JzG who has the original e-mails in their possession, or by members of Arbcom). If even 20-30 such e-mails were released (the more the better though obviously) this would provide a means for editors (particularly those that have developed much of the evidence to date) to see for themselves if the assertion of Jimbo and others that these are two different users seems likely to be true. Personally I remain very much open to that possibility but so far have just seen no evidence that convinces me. If these e-mails are really a smoking gun that absolves Mantanmoreland of the sockpuppetry allegations and wraps up this whole mess then I think it is in everyone's interest for them to see the light of day.

Obviously I understand that this is a dicey matter since these were private e-mails. In no way should the users in question be forced or even heavily cajoled into allowing members of the community to look at them, and a refusal to do so should not be interpreted in a negative light. However if the community cannot see these e-mails then I don't think they should have much bearing on this case (if Arbcom members can look at them that would be a little better, but even that is not advisable in a case like this). I would hope that the committee (and Jimbo) understand that "secret evidence" that is highly determinative of the outcome of the case could have a real deleterious effect on community trust, and that a number of editors will not be convinced by the mere assertion that a number of private e-mails prove these are two distinct users (largely because evaluating that kind of thing is quite subjective and open to different interpretations). Rather they will understandably want to see that evidence for themselves.

I don't think this is at all an unreasonable request, but as I said it is entirely up to Samiharris and Mantanmoreland.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In practice ArbCom can review evidence presented by email; that is, not seen by the rest of the community. I would prefer that some mail content be made public to back claims that they are seperate individuals, but I would accept ArbCom as being sole recipient if that was the only alternative. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree, and just to clarify I think having Arbcom review these e-mails would obviously be better than nothing. I just think giving some of them a wider release would be advisable and that's a possibility that should at least be explored.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of common convention and respect for privacy, emails between two people should not be made public without the consent of both people. Thatcher 16:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I might be misunderstanding your point, but I would think that anyone can freely release e-mails they have personally written at any time. Therefore if Sami and Mantan want to release e-mails they have written (whether to one another, Guy, Jimbo, or whomever) I don't see why that would be a problem so long as their e-mails do not include significant text from a previous e-mail by someone else, references to personal information about anyone, etc. (obviously they would need to be carefully vetted). However I would not be averse to erring on the side of caution here and running those e-mails by whomever was on the receiving end if others feel that is important. If I misconstrued your point let me know.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It should be both the recipient and the sender as it is often possible to determine what someone else has said by reading the response. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, which is why I think the e-mails would need to be "carefully vetted" as I already said above. However if Sami and Mantan can/want to release e-mails they wrote which would absolve them of sockpuppetry, I don't think we should make that dependent on the approval of users who received the e-mail (though if they approved it would be better). I don't see why it would be difficult for the two parties in question - working with Arbcom - to release a significant number of relevant passages from e-mails (including times stamps as LessHeard vanU suggests below) while excising private comments, information, etc. that other users might not want released. Anyhow I'm not seeing any interest in doing this from Mantanmoreland, though I know Guy has offered to forward e-mails to Arbcom which I think would be better than nothing (I assume he would need Mantan's and Sami's permission for that though).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I would be interested in whether Jimbo or Guy would allow the publishing of the timestamps of these emails, so they can be reviewed in the same manner in which the editors contributions have been. This would mean there is no disclosure of content, since the stamps are produced by whichever mailing service that was used. Again, we would be looking for disparity between the two sets which may provide for the argument that the two respondents are different people. Although this falls very short of being able to compare content, which requires the permission of the sender, I don't see why any recipient should refuse to provide this information. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on sockpuppetry observation

The counterpoint to Cla68's observation might be to ask why others have had such different treatment than Mantanmoreland? That is, why has "much less scrutiny and analysis than is going on here" been considered sufficient in the past? --bainer (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it would be possible to get the community involved to the degree it has in this matter on a regular basis. In this matter I think all of us just want some closure, which is why the normally uninterested have put a lot of work into studying the diffs. Relata refero (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with bainer - basically, the fact that previous cases have had an even lower level of methodological confidence doesn't argue for allowing that same problem in this case, it argues for using better methodology in all future cases. I haven't been involved in duck test sockpuppetry cases previously, but if its true that cases with no "smoking gun" are decided based on evidence like this I think that is a mistake. Remember that there is no direct or individually compelling evidence here of socking, and additionally no evidence that either accounts acted disruptively alone. Avruch T 14:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Relata refero pretty much says it all right there. When I took this up, and then after the first discussion on AN.. I realized that due to the history involved, personality wise... the normal level of detail was not going to be anywhere near enough. Therefore, I brought up my Investigation page, and others chimed in as well (basically blowing my report away in amount of detail, etcetera). Was it way over the top of the amount of work normally needed for a DUCK test, oh yes it was. In fact, one CheckUser (User:Lar, endorsed the findings, but worried that this would set a precedent, stating The minor issue I have is that the community cannot afford to do this every time, it is too labour intensive, and now any future suspected sock who is clever enough to evade CU detection can say "unless it's as thorough as this one was, it won't count" and will perhaps get some sympathy.. [1]
But it was necessary in this case? Almost definitely. Due to the long-standing nature of this issue, and the level of ill-will on both sides, it had to be completely as airtight as possible if it was going to prove anything. The community consensus on the RfC part of this makes me think we did a damn good job of that. SirFozzie (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The committee should absolutely deal with both sides of the coin as articulated by Cla68 and Thebainer. The first question to ask would be: is the amount of evidence presented more than that which has been presented in the past for the typical "duck test?" From the answer to that a series of possible outcomes and further questions would follow:
  1. The answer is yes, the evidence is more than that presented in the typical "duck test," and the committee decides Mantanmoreland has engaged in sockpuppetry with the Samiharris account. In this scenario it would still probably be useful for the ArbCom to explain how the evidence here went above and beyond the normal standard and opine on whether less-detailed evidence can still pass the "duck test," or whether that test has been applied based on too-flimsy evidence in the past.
  2. The answer is yes, but the committee does not find the evidence sufficient to conclude that there has been sockpuppetry with these two accounts. If this is the case the two key questions would be A) What kind of evidence is necessary in order for the duck test to definitively demonstrate sockpuppetry, and should a standard be formalized in some fashion? B) Have socks been blocked in the past on the basis of far less evidence, and should something be done about that retroactively?
  3. The answer is no, the evidence is not more than that presented in the typical "duck test," and the committee thus probably decides against the sock accusations. This seems the least likely end result, but it would still seem useful in this case for ArbCom to explain how and why the evidence did not measure up and what more should have been done.
I do hope that these questions are part of the case, since the end conclusion about the sock accusations will be controversial regardless and will have ramifications for future sockpuppet cases whether we like it or not.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is this really about?

Is this Arbcom about Mantanmoreland socking or the real-life person behind those socks? Because Jimbo's evidence jumps into the real-life debate early on. I would also like to express my disapproval at Jimbo adding his evidence as soon as he did. Rightly are wrongly, there are those in this community who are scared to go against the views of the (co-)founder and I cannot help but feel having his evidence smack bang at the top from an early stage will prevent contribution from others. Whitstable 14:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if they're the RW person they're claimed to be or not, as Jimbo seems to think. They're tendentiously defending his interests on-wiki at the cost of the quality of our articles, and that's that. I'm sure Jimbo would be equally disturbed by that. Relata refero (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Relata, the actual blp is less important than the allegations of sockpuppet abuse and POV pushing by mantanmoreland. Others feel differently, but until that issue is resolved the rest is too contentious to make any progress on, in my opinion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The POV pushing is, from my perspective, the central issue. Accusations of sockpuppetry get tossed around on Wikipedia with abandon, well outside of the original sense of the word, and I really don't want to see banning or other discipline here based simply on the basis of multiple identities. In this case the accusation is that the classical use of the term is being applied, and that requires action. But even were Samiharris's departure to prove long-term, the tendentious editing of the particles in question is a persistent problem, regardless of who (in real life) is doing it. Mangoe (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I would wait until Jimbo comes back from his trip, and takes the time to fully review the evidence that has been available at the RfC (and which has been transposed to this arbcom). Whatever belief he may have held from review of emails should be set against the findings viewable there. I have some points to make regarding those mails, which I shall do presently. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The appropriateness of Jimbo's statement

I am an uninvolved but interested editor and have been reading copiously regarding this current Mantanmoreland saga. I've yet to form a concrete opinion. That said, I was personally surprised at Jimbo's statement as evidence and his decision to become involved in this particular forum (arbcom) with such a statement. I see no actual evidence provided by Jimbo. Jimbo must understand the weight of his statement here and his personal analysis of evidence—being part of the evidence section—appears to be unfair and, well, inappropriate. Had Jimbo made statements that his emails indicate Mantanmoreland and Samiharris are the same person, that would also be highly inappropriate without offering up the actual textual evidence, the emails. I am not suggesting that he does so, for obvious privacy reasons, but I can’t believe he would use his singular analysis of personal email exchanges to make such a sweeping statement, and include it as evidence to consider. The purpose of my post here is not to be accusatory, rather I feel I have never been so concerned with how something is being handled and I would like an explanation for myself and other interested editors. Is Jimbo’s statement of evidence appropriate? Gwynand (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

To the last question, yes. Statement such as that have a place on the evidence page. While it would be even better for him to also post on-wiki evidence that support his statements, it is not crucial. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Statements and evidence are welcome from any editor and all will be reviewed in full, though of course concrete evidence is the most useful form of input. The question whether a given presentation constitutes "evidence" that belongs on the evidence page, as opposed to a "statement" that belongs on the case talkpage, is generally not worth worrying about. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
True, but I sure hope that Jimbo's statement, without supporting evidence other than his word will be treated as such. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
What, do you think people have read and taken to heart Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem. I think there are plenty that haven't. GRBerry 18:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I sure hope so, but I think we all know that a statement like that made by Jimbo is bound to influence the case more than when the statement had been made by a random other editor. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope that when an editor posts the equivalent of "I looked into his soul and don't believe he's a sockpuppet," that the arbitrators will take that for what it means: very little. Cool Hand Luke 19:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

At one time Jimbo thought maybe MM was a specific real life person (that for some weird reason we are being coy about naming; but we all know who, so it doesn't matter). He looked into it and decided he did not have proof, and his editing didn't seem a problem. That was about who he was in real life and not if he was sockpuppeting. He is making his statement here before the evidence has been presented here, so it is not a comment on the evidence now being prepared and in the process of being presented. In short, he is doing his best to not influence this process. He is only saying "I don't know; please proceed without me." In fact, this is what I think. But I don't have proof, so don't claim I said it was a fact :) WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thank you. Cool Hand Luke 01:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Are we looking at the same statement? I quote: "Regarding the specific claim at issue here, whether Sami Harris and Mantanmoreland are the same user, I can say quite firmly that I do not believe it to be true". This is not someone saying "I don't know", this is someone saying "I think these allegations are false". Hence, this statement might and unfortunately will influence the case. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
See also Jimbo's clarification in the section above. Cool Hand Luke 19:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point, there's a tripod of supposition that forms one of the core reasons this case is before the ArbCom.

That being

1) Mantanmoreland="GW" 2) Samiharris="GW" 3) Mantanmoreland=Samiharris.

You can believe none of the three steps above are true, one part of 1 and 2 is true, or both 1 and 2 are true and thus 3) is true. You can even believe that neither 1 and 2 are true, but 3 IS true. (if neither of them were "GW").

Jimbo has stated in the past, leading up to this ArbCom case that he believes 1 IS true, he just does not believe 2 and 3 is true. Guy has told me previously that he considered whether 2 was true, but does not believe 1 and 3 are true.

Again, this is why we're here. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence generated pre-ArbCom that suggested that the third leg of the tripod is true. Now, during the evidentiary phase of this ArbCom, we're seeing evidence (again, circumstantial, but strong) that the first leg of the tripod is true.

We still need to continue to search for, and post evidence that prove or disprove our theories. But at no point should we point fingers at the other side and castigate them for believing differently then we do. Instead, we get back to Wikipedia's core theorem of interaction: AGF, and DISCUSSION WITH each other, not ACCUSATIONS OF each other. SirFozzie (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: JzG

Perhaps Cla68 can identify a case of a long-term user in good standing who denies the puppetry but has been banned anyway, since that seems to be what he's calling for here.

Piperdown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - maybe not quite so long-term, but prior to the allegations of puppetry he doesn't seem to have not been in good standing. It is, at least, absolutely clear that C) he denies it and D) he is banned anyway. —Random832 16:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
If anyone wants to read the whole sorry history of Piperdown's unblock request, it can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive123#Review of indef block of Piperdown. Make sure you have a pot of coffee handy, because it's a long read.
I have to agree with JzG that Piperdown is unlikely ever to edit constructively again, but I would also suggest that the reason for that is because he was treated abominably. The vast majority of his edits are reasonable, constructive copyedit and cleanup stuff; edits to the contested articles are a small percentage of his output. However, the fact of those edits attracted attention, and in April 2007 he was accused of being Wordbomb by User:MONGO (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/WordBomb). The checkuser was refused, but then on September 11 he was banned anyway by User:David Gerard [2]. I have looked all over the AN and AN/I archives for that period, and I haven't found the slightest trace of any discussion of the block at the time. Piperdown immediately fled to WR and has assumed an increasingly hostile stance ever since.
Piperdown made circa 2000 edits in about six months; the fraction of these on the contested articles is small compared to the whole, though it is not insignificant. As far as I can tell, he was slapped down for editing on the wrong side of those articles, and then banned permanently because he took it poorly. In the unbanning discussion there was no consensus reached as to whether the editing on the contested articles was sufficient proof of identity. Personally, have reexamined matters, I think they fail the WP:DUCK test in a big way: what I see is someone who carried a pattern of copyediting into the wrong place and ran afoul of a group of people who were monitoring that article and who had the power to apply admin actions to those who edited the article against them. The DUCK principle relies on us all being able to recognize a duck when we see one, and one can read in the extensive discussion of the block that editors do not see the incident that set this off in the same light. The only additional material I could find was an exchange in the talk page of Short and distort [3] which is masked by a redirect to Talk:Short (finance) put in by JzG exactly a week ago [4]. Looking at that, I see a typical kind of content dispute, but no intimations about anyone's identity-- and a pair of familiar names.
What is particularly depressing is how the AN/I argument settled out along wearyingly familiar lines. I imagine that people people with any knowledge of the greater history of this case can guess the names of those that argued that Piperdown was an alias for Wordbomb.
As I said at the beginning of this, I don't think Piperdown can come back and be constructive. But I think the reason for that is that we made an enemy out of him. Mangoe (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is User:Cruftbane doing?

Unless I am very much mistaken User:Cruftbane has been adding to Guy's section without signing. Whitstable 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is an alternate account of JzG and he forgot to check which account he was under. I'll leave him a message. SirFozzie (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
An arbitration centred around sockpuppeting with people giving evidence via sockpuppet. You couldn't make this up! Whitstable 18:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)When I saw it, I googled the name - its quicker than navigating to a redlinked user's talkpage with this nifty extension I have - and noticed that according to the Board of Outer Darkness Where There is Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth, its generally known that it's Guy's alternate account, so I guess he didn't bother being careful.
It is a technical violation of the evisceration of WP:SOCK that Guy argued for and ArbCom legislated, though....Relata refero (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
In this case, there's a difference between sockpuppetry and alternate accounts. What Mantanmoreland and Samiharris are accused of is sockpuppetry.. they would be double-!voting, consensus, et all. Cruftbane (sounds like a weapon you get in Final Fantasy, don't it?) normally is used ONLY for completely opposite things, it's used for Guy (who everyone will admit is involved in high drama, regularly), to relax and still improve the encyclopedia without getting targeted when someone sees his signature. He even mentioned that he was going to be doing a lot of editing under his alternate account on his /wp-stuff page. No harm, no foul here. SirFozzie (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree there's not a problem here - we might even do well to blank this section as a courtesy to Guy as I assume he would prefer that as few people as possible know the name of his alternate account. Perhaps a clerk could do this assuming that such an action is kosher on Arbcom pages.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Please. There's no intent to deceive, it's my quiet wikignoming account for those stressful times. Everyone who needs to, and has expressed an interest, knows about it, I think. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
But using it to post to discussions related to internal wikipolitics is just the sort of thing you vigorously block others for doing. Somebody who's an enthusiastic proponent of the "Zero tolerance, shoot on sight" faction shouldn't expect any slack cut for his own errors. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Except that I didn't. I made one edit clarifying a comment. Nice try, though. Guy (Help!) 00:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. It is only common sense that we should see there is no problem with these edits. However, "zero tolerance" ≡ "zero common sense". As someone who takes such a hard line elsewhere, you should expect a bit of good-natured laughter when you slip up yourself. —Random832 04:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As JzG/Guy lets this be known, there is no reason to delete any of Cruftbane's edits. Legit alternate accounts are not socking. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you, and think its completely OK. Please tell the ArbCom that we all disagree with them when they say, in principle 3 of the PrivateMusings case, "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates." Sorry, but that absurd ruling is something of a hobbyhorse of mine. Relata refero (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
There was no conceivable reason for PM to use at least eight separate accounts, including one registered for the purpose of forcefully advocating a contentious opinion in policy space, with allusions to long editing history to get reputation benefit without allowing accountability and confirmation. I suspect you might have spotted by now that there are one or two people who follow me around provoking me. Sometimes I want to be free of that for a while, for various reasons. And anyone who wanted to know and asked, was told. And I volunteered the information to several people anyway. There's a difference between using a user with a long history of blocks, sockpuppetry and tendentious editing using a sockpuppet to argue for the holy right to link to external harassment, and an admin of some years' history using one for a bit of quiet Wikignoming when they want a quiet life - my alt account has not, I think, engaged in policy debate at all. It has, however, created a number of articles and got a couple of thinks on DYK (whicih process amounted to a bit of research into the user experience, incidentally). Guy (Help!) 09:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Guy, I'm not comparing your quiet-account to PM's behaviour, because that would be ridiculous, as you correctly point out. I'm actually saying that ArbCom's silliness in that ruling could, if you were not who you were, be used against you. Which means its a silly, silly ruling. Did I mention it was silly? Relata refero (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] La dii da

Thanks to those who took care of User:La dii da. I was at work and unable to keep an eye on this during that time. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

gah. that person undermines a real point in this proceeding with disruption. no wonder this broader conflict has made no headway towards resolution. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It happens, quite often. Just WP:RBI. SirFozzie (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
oh, I know it, but it's still frustrating since it so clearly does not help. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

He's got to be a sock of someone. Any ideas? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the kind of sentiment that is behind one aspect of this case. My immediate reactions are, "Who cares?" and "If you really want to know, why don't you hang around at WR and see if anyone there owns up to it?" It's hardly likely to be the work of any of the case participants or hecklersonlookers. Mangoe (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Tor. Just ignore it and move on. Thatcher 21:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 600 emails-

600 emails are easily analysed using grep. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diff

Cla68, The diff you are looking for from JzG dated 07:49 13 February is [5].

To easily find diffs of signed comments, you can set your timezone offset to 00:00 and browse the user's contributions. —Random832 22:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am officially declaring that Most Useful Tip of the Day. Relata refero (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To JzG

Perhaps Cla68 can identify a case of a long-term user in good standing who denies the puppetry but has been banned anyway, since that seems to be what he's calling for here. I'll answer that one: Runcorn/Poetlister. DurovaCharge! 22:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that JzG will regret the tone of his question, as it will encourage folks to dig them up and there will likely be many many users found to have been banned similarly and for the good reason of being on the wrong side of a debate. There are also a few I can think of right off who have been driven away by snotty admin attitude towards their concerns (regardless of the policy aspects, that are sometimes vague) such as badlydrawnjeff, and gianoii. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Whoa there. Let's keep this topical without editorializing. Runcorn/Poetlister was banned for the good reason of vote stacking. DurovaCharge! 23:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for striking through. DurovaCharge! 23:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, not really. "the good reason of vote stacking" is only a good reason after it is concluded that someone is a sock. The reason for identifying/suspecting the user as a sock is quite separate from that. I recall reading a blog post from the checkuser who analyzed the data for Runcorn/Poetlister saying that she felt pressured into delivering a particular conclusion, and the question therefore also exists of why that pressure was applied. —Random832 04:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom compiled information from several sources and I was on one of the teams. Having seen that share of the evidence (and having stayed up until four in the morning helping to assemble it) I consider it very safe to say the following:
  • Neither I nor the person I worked with were under any pressure whatsoever.
  • Vote stacking issues played a significant role in our research; this was not an afterthought.
  • The issue of vote stacking was quite serious.
DurovaCharge! 05:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you enlighten me as to how "vote stacking issues" can be something that _establishes someone to be a sock_, rather than, it having already been otherwise established, shows that a sock was used abusively? It doesn't seem to me that research into vote-stacking issues could possibly, alone, establish someone to be the same person as someone else, or could even significantly contribute to such a conclusion. —Random832 06:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Please take this to your talk pages. Let's focus on the case at hand here. Cool Hand Luke 06:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logs

I was going to present as evidence the block of that IP range that effectively shut down IP editing by an entire town in Utah but have no idea where to find it. Where are the logs that record actions like that? Cla68 (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Are these any use?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:204.15.84.2

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:204.15.84.2

Whitstable 00:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Punctuation marks

Those who were properly taught typing during the typewriter era use two adjacent hyphens--as representation for a dash as a matter of course. Many word processing program offer to convert them automatically into a true dash—but I don't let them, and I'm sure there must be a number of other archaic typewriter-mindset individuals who do similarly. DGG (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I go back and forth. for my own writing/word processing I usually make it do '--' for other stuff on computer/email/websites I usually let it go. I'm inconsistent, in general. I wonder how I would fare in a comparison with other users as far as CHL's interesting evaluation goes? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the string being analyzed is "space, hyphen, hyphen, space", not simply "two adjacent hyphens" alone. Whether that makes any difference, I don't know. —Random832 03:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. hyphen-hyphen is much more common than space-hyphen-hyphen-space. These accounts use the latter almost exclusively, as have the previous socks. Cool Hand Luke 06:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
DGG is correct about the space-hyphen-hyphen-space style. But the point is limited. Cool Hand Luke's point in bringing it up was that it was an unusual feature of edit summaries. I use " -- " all the time too, but if I ever use it in edit summaries, I doubt I do it nearly as much as these accounts do. Space-hyphen-hyphen-space appears to be rare enough in edit summaries that it can be called an identifiable quirk. It seems to me that if it could be demonstrated that the quirk was not rare, then CHL's point would be undermined. Overall, the case rests on identifying (a) an unusual number of (b) shared rare habits (the rarer the habit, the better). Interestingly, " -- " is Associated Press style, which would be permanently drilled into the head of anyone, say a certain New York financial journalist, who previously worked at newspapers. But we could expect to find it among many, many other Wikipedia editors, those who worked for newspapers and the even larger population of "archaic typewriter-mindset individuals". Noroton (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I thank Nototon for pointing this out; I was unaware of the old styleguide preference. It looks like most Wikipedians do not use this style, but those who do use it do so exclusively. I thought it was remarkable that these four accounts used " -- " more often than anyone else, but I see not that's not the case. e.g.
However, considering that only a minority use this style, I still think these and other traits add up to something in conjunction. Cool Hand Luke 22:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sauce for goose, sauce for gander: where's Weiss's wife on WP?

  • The above thread will stay closed and I hope we don't see any more similar threads. There is no need to hypothesize about RL off wiki interaction. Absent a specific request from an arb to provide such input, contact myself or an arb if you truly feel a need to bring this material up-you could also email it to the arb email list. User:Jayvdb will be making a workshop proposal on this issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I did not call anything silly, see the edit history, that was someone else. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

A number of the statements of evidence (at first pass, those from Jimbo Wales, JzG, Durova and LessHeard vanU) seem to be less evidence, and rather opinions. Per the header ("This page is not for general discussion", should they be excised to this talk page? Neıl ☎ 11:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Some are descriptions of personal experience of interacting with the relevant editors and so forth, and these broadly fall under the description of evidence. Analysis of evidence is better suited to the workshop (indeed, there's a section for it) so feel free to suggest that people move some of their material there if it's more analysis of evidence than actual evidence per se. --bainer (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, Bainer. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Or you could wait for diffs... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Well yes, people do tend to work on their evidence :) --bainer (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there is a good point which I allowed to slip past; opinion is used as evidence in Court - the use of expert witnesses. Now, I'm not saying that the opinions presented are to the level of expert witnesses but then this is not a court of law either. I will ferret out a few diffs to support my contentions, but the conclusions I am presenting as evidence (that is, evidence of the opinion of an individual) will have to stand as it is and be given such weight as the ArbCom believes it due.LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, from my point of view, input is welcome from any editor, particular if it is well-organized and non-duplicative. The dividing line between a "statement" and "evidence" is not always clear, and policing which presentations belong on the evidence pages versus the case talkpage is generally not the most productive use of time as the arbitrators weigh the comments made based on their content (with concrete evidence being given the most weight) rather than how it is labelled. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest (humbly) that absence of a single diff or link to back up a contribution is indicative of a "statement" rather than "evidence". But if you're happy, Brad, then I'm happy. Neıl ☎ 00:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
There were in fact numerous diffs referenced in my statement. I linked to the pages where I had previously provided them. DurovaCharge! 04:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Heh, this is why I said "at first pass" - didn't click through to those. Neıl ☎ 13:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] noticed on Gary Weiss

from Jan 19 or so 6 of the last 20 edits to the article are reverts, or move backs. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by G-Dett

Gary Weiss is a writer and some people here question whether or not he is capable of talking as if he were someone else. Well, duh. Writers do that all the time. Gary is an investigative journalist. Some question whether he would lie or be sneaky. Well, duh. That is a prerequisite for being an investigative journalist. Some wonder about motivation. He has written books. To sell books, you need a topic people care about (like wikipedia) and a hook or two.

"Tombstone’s most famous tourist site is the Boothill Graveyard, where many of its legendary gunslingers and historical personalities are interred. Boothill has within it a Jewish section, which went unnoticed for over 100 years; a memorial was added in 1984. [148] [149] The small Jewish burial ground has no remaining headstones, and only one grave – that of a child. [150] He died in 1889, when he was one year and four days old. There is still a small stone marker for the child in the burial ground today, next to the memorial. His name was Sam Harris. I would like to be able to say that User:Samiharris was created one year and four days after Mantanmoreland was created, but he wasn't. He was created – for what it's worth – one year, three days and ~three hours after Mantanmoreland.

You guys were so set up. He's gonna make a lot of money with his next tell all book called Corruption at the 'Pedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett's evidence made me immediately think of Foucault's Pendulum (which, come to think of it, should probably be required reading for any Wikipedian about to embark on an investigation of complex sockpuppetry - hell it should be required reading for everyone). It also put me in mind of Keith Jenkins' concept of "imaginaries" as a replacement for for traditional Rankean history. I like the way G-Dett chose to lay this out, and I hope other editors don't dismiss this evidence because s/he chose to present it in a form more in keeping with the practices of art than those of science (at least we don't have to worry if proper statistical methods were used!). There are some pretty damning diffs there even if Umberto Eco is not your cup of tea on evidence pages (but he should be!).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This is the most stylish evidence I've ever seen on Wikipedia. How did you figure this out G-Dett? Cool Hand Luke 07:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Tombstone – both the place name and the common noun – was the gift that kept giving.--G-Dett (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
My jaw has officially hit the ground. Relata refero (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Gary Weiss' piece in Forbes on India's Jewry mentions a trip to the largest Jewish cemetary in India (shades of Longfellow). He's into that sort of thing. But a fact which I mentioned to G-Dett and can't seem to get on the table here, is that Earp of Tombstone was a gentile who married a Jew that he met there. Who spent her days ever after, traveling with him. Though not to India <g>.
Yeah, this sentence in the Forbes piece on India's Jews was a major clue sending me back to Tombstone in search of tombstones:

A short distance away is a Jewish cemetery, and again the distinction is in what you don't see--there's none of the overturned headstones and vandalism that have been sadly common in Jewish cemeteries in the U.S.[6]

Whether due to desecration or some other cause I haven't been able to discover, but all the bodies and headstones (with the exception of Sam Harris') were long ago removed from the Jewish burial ground in Tombstone's Boothill. The following is from an April 18, 1933 piece in a local paper, the Tombstone Epitaph:

During the week, Dewey Chadwick, who has been in charge of a crew of workmen engaged in clearing and cleaning Boot Hill graveyard, counted the graves and found there are 259 outside of the drift fence, besides seventeen excavations from which bodies have been removed. This is more than were supposed to be in the old burying ground. There may be seen here a small grave marked by a tumbled-down stone bearing the name "Sam Harris." This is the only remaining grave in what was once the Jewish section of the cemetery, originally surrounded by an adobe wall. The wall long since disappeared without right or authority and the bodies all have been removed to other resting places with this one exception.

--G-Dett (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The other more prosaic possibility is that Lastexit and Mantanmoreland are simply Uncle and Nephew, as both have in fact claimed. If they both went to India for Weiss' marriage, it may well have simply been family vacation. "I am the uncle of another Wikipedian" [7]. User:Mantanmoreland: "Editor is nephew of Lastexit." Mantanmoreland 28 July 2006. And [8], "uncle" & "nephew" use Wiki talk pages to discuss "collaborative" editing of same stock market issue page [9]

Note, the above is not my research. I got it from WR, but the diffs are on Wikipedia (fair game). But again, it brings up the problems of applying "meatpuppet" criteria to family members. SBHarris 17:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, the idea of relatives shacking up together and communicating via Wikipedia talk pages is not prosaic but fantastical, a taller tale than any I've told.--G-Dett (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if they do it all the time, at the same time. But there's nothing to keep two relatives who live in the same timezone from taking a trip to India, and then later editing from different sites on the same stuff, and with the same opinions. Geez I've taken trips with my parents but don't live with them. Many of my interests are shared, however. Uncle and nephew share an interest in Jewish geneology and cemetaries? And finance? So? Oy, you think this stranger than fiction, you do? SBHarris 19:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, they edited each other's posts. I think we're beyond doubt on those two. Cool Hand Luke 19:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, that was Mantan and Tomstoner. But what Sbharris is forgetting is that there was a confirmed CU on Lastexit and Mantanmoreland. After Fred's warning in July '06 and an edit-war over sockpuppet tags on his user page, Lastexit added the note about being Mantan's uncle. They were posting on each other's talk page from the same computer; hence "shacking up together and communicating via Wikipedia talk pages." That scenario – not, as you say, a shared interest in Jewish ancestry, cemeteries, and finance – is what's stranger than fiction.--G-Dett (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
And there's also this Mantanmoreland edit of Lastexit. Cool Hand Luke 20:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
!!! Never noticed that one.--G-Dett (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Must confess that it came from W---B--- on Wikback. Cool Hand Luke 22:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd say you've got me there, UNLESS these incidents (which prove only the same computer use) happened when Weiss was visiting NM, during which time he would presumably have stayed with Uncle and used uncle's Albequerque computer and perhaps even account. Geez, this sound like I'm defending Weiss, but I'm simply examining all angles, without any particular prejudice that I'm aware of. Lastexit certainly sounds like an old Southwesterner to me. Have you found him editing financial articles? Wups, I see this was one: July 12, 2006. And when did Weiss go West to see Ernie Pyle's house there? Yep. April 2006. Exactly when Lastexit first appears. Now, how do you know he didn't introduce Uncle to Wikipedia right then using the new account himself during the visit? If Lastexit continues to edit from NM after Weiss returns East, I'd say that was pretty good evidence he's NOT a sock. Just a meat and perhaps a sock while the account was created during a visit. SBHarris 20:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The all angles approach is great, until it devolves into speculative complications with no explanatory payoff. You could ask Fred Bauder, but I think if his IP data had shown LE's edits coming from New Mexico, he'd have considered this exculpatory. And yes, Lastexit was all over Naked short selling, Patrick Byrne, etc. – the whole lot. And lastly, remember that not just one but all three sock accounts – Lastexit, Tomstoner, and Samiharris – debut with these cryptic tombstone allusions. That's a lotta clever uncles out there in the territories.--G-Dett (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, we can have him look now for where that IP is. I will add in the spirit of impartiality that loose evidence for a Lastexit-Mantanmoreland connection which is really very close, is Last Exit's name. Last Exit to Brooklyn is EXACTLY the kind of novel that Mantanmoreland goes on and on about liking, in his Userpage. Sigh. But why bother to create a new sock for yourself just for a trip to New Mexico, which we know Weiss took? I doubt very much that Mantanmoreland had any idea that people would be scrutinizing these diffs so carefully, 2 years later. A last possibility (okay, okay) is that Weiss and future wife BOTH took the Albequerque trip, and M is still the wife, and M set up the account for the uncle. I dunno if it's Weiss who likes these potboiler old novels with gay-noir themes. Doesn't sound like a Wyatt Earp fan. Or not the average one. SBHarris 21:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW, we still need that IP check. For all the bruhaha, it's still possible that MM and Lastexit (LE), even though the last has been blocked for being a MM sock, were telling the partial truth about being older uncle and younger cousin. LE starts off with Tombstone topics, and doesn't switch to finances to a week later. And though LE has been blocked for being an MM sock, MM hasn't been blocked for HAVING a sock? That's... odd. In any case, I've had a look at LE's userpage and this is it: [10]. You know one of two articles Lastexit created was a little stub-bio for Alan Abelson, a guy born in 1925 (just the right age to have been a WWII vet and admire Ernie Pyle), and who was an editor for Barron's and still writes a column for them. And who, I will bet a silk pajama, lives in Albuquerque. So, how now. The uncle. Who said he was in finance, and is now an editor. Said it, but wasn't believed. Probably because GW was editing from this account, AND because there were others that WERE socks, like Samiharris, tomstoner, etc. Cry wolf. SBHarris 23:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, as you'll see from the dab page for Tombstone (I actually knew this) a Tombstone is, among many other things, a type of SEC permitted financial ad for IPO sales. I had to throw that in to this soup, just because it's fun. SBHarris 23:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) When I blocked Lastexit and Tomstoner, the accounts hadn't been used for over a year. If there are no more recent socks, which I still had an open mind about at that point, then blocking MM would be punitive instead of preventative. (Not that this semantic distinction is a real difference, but the community likes to pretend it is and I'm willing to go along.) That was before MM had responded at all, and before we had as much evidence about MM and SH as we do now. Now we see both even more evidence and the pattern of response that MM is making. GRBerry 23:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I agree with G-Dett's interpretation of these correlations, but what a coincidence: a "Pat Bryne" is also buried in that cemetery! Weirder and weirder. Is this Wikipedia or an episode of Deadwood? Ameriquedialectics 00:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Further, I believe G-Dett's evidence is the coup de grâce to this investigation. There seems to me no reasonable way to argue against the primary sockpuppetry or COI claims now. I wrote an email to MM months ago expressing the hope that his activities here would lead to a published exposé of corruption at the top-levels of WP, but warned him that with the way he was going about it, Weiss would more likely end up the subject of such an inquiry, rather than the author. The only thing I'm satisfied with is that Wikipedia, through the outstanding efforts of its more principled members, was able to, essentially, re-publish this material on-site and conduct an open investigation of where it lead, using on-site diffs and time correlations with the Weiss blog. It seems to me that, the principle editors other than WB and MM involved in carrying out this conflict, don't have much if anything at stake (other than a sense of pride, however wounded) in pursuing these matters further. Everyone involved would be better off if they acknowledged their past mistakes and collectively agreed to let bygones be bygones.) As for MM, it seems to me there is nothing more to do other than oversight this entire Arb Case and related RFC and indef-block all his accounts, if only for the sake of Weiss's own career. That guy is a danger to himself. Ameriquedialectics 02:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] just a thought

Has anyone tried mailing to Samiharris? User:Dorftrottel 06:44, February 18, 2008

On Feb 8, soon after being apprised of this proceding by ArbCom, user:samiharris blanked user and talk pages, leaving as GoodbyeCruelWorld edit comment: "...forward my pension checks to Bagley" [11]. Evidently user:samiharris feels persecuted by Bagley, which is very odd, given that samiharris is either an alternate account or part of a group of related users editing from the same computers, who had been editing Bagley/Overstock/Byrne-related articles. Bagley/Wordbomb's complaints about this, and about bias resulting from it, as well as his hamhanded attempts to give people a dose of their own medicine, had previously gotten Bagley and all accounts related to him, permanently banned. Including an entire IP range provided by ISP Broadweave near Salt Lake City. For samiharris to feel persecuted in such a position, now that Bagley (however bad Bagley is) is proving to have had a point, is ironic in the extreme. But it's part of the entertainment here at Wikipedia, sort of like watching gladiators and Christians die in the Colosseum arena. (Always provided you're not a gladiator or Christian, of course...) SBHarris 20:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name calling completely out of line

It is unnecessary and completely out of line to call people derogatory names, whether they are Wikipedians or not, as was done here, labeling someone as a "vile agenda-driven troll". The principle behind WP:NPA and WP:BLP applies. --MPerel 10:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the cherry-pickers remark. This is less evidence and more a personal attack, to both banned and active editors. Cool Hand Luke 10:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Have you tried asking Guy to redact his insults? He will, usually, do so. The fact he continues to make them in the first place is unfortunate. Neıl ☎ 11:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
He made them in response to Cla68's evidence. I don't think there's much chance that he'll redact them. Relata refero (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I will if Cla68 removes the blatant trolling in his evidence section, since it has no relevance whatsoever to the case in hand and is posted in furtherance of an apparent grudge against everybody with a sysop bit. It is simply not acceptable to say "x made this snarky remark" while forgetting to mention that it was in response to a remark at least as snarky if not more so by y, where x is someone he dislikes and y is one of his mates. If Cla68 wants to make the point that he believes Bagley to be a wronged saint, he has done so.
But what the hell. I forgot, foolishly, that Bagley is a saint, everybody who opposes Bagley - especially Jimbo - is a villain, every admin is evil (though Cla68 would not have been if he'd passed RfA), and all this is of surpassing relevance to an unproven allegation of sockpuppetry against Mantanmoreland because... because... well, just because it is. I'm out of here before I engage in any further "rhetorical exuberance". Guy (Help!) 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
A lot of us have admin bits, and I (at least) have a problem with your comments. At the very least, if you're going to complain about Cla68 supposedly-irrelevant evidence, you could at least include some evidence of your own to counter Cla68's findings. Personally attacking Cla68 for posting diffs where you're apparently attacking him doesn't exactly clear your good name.
Please refactor. Cool Hand Luke 22:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Cla68 has not presented any evidence about Mantanmoreland. He's aired a long list of grudges, some on behalf of a banned user, but that's about it. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, you haven't presented any evidence, period. It's just a personal attack. I'm not Cla68, so I won't press this, but your failure to fix an attack which many editors (including admins) find reprehensible doesn't look good. I'm sure you've seen Cla68's sandbox.
For what it's worth, Cla68's trying to prove that editors who have tried to inquire into Mantanmoreland before have been bullied, and I think that's a legitimate part of this case. Cool Hand Luke 00:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please AGF. It's obvious JzG/Guy that is merely helping Cla68 with his research for User:Cla68/RfC/Sandbox. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please AGF, the remarks by user:JzG/Guy constitute a snide attack on Cla68, yet another attempt to smear that user by mentioning them in the same breath as bannedBombword. But a name-caller, when called on it, now has the accusation of "name-calling" to level at those wishing, (and see the /Workshop -Tu quoque) and expecting, the user to refrain from such tactics, and strike the offending remarks, or at least apologise, and moderate their position in accordance with community standards and fairness.Newbyguesses - Talk 17:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As to User:Jzg -- There is no crusade against Bagley, that is wishful thinking on GUY's part, not a statement of fact.Newbyguesses - Talk 17:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I will talk to JzG about this and please don't anyone else use such terms, name-calling, etc. See the strict civility notice on the evidence and workshop pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

JzG got in a dig on me too: "Even if SlimVirgin did own the mailing list (which I can't remember), so what? SlimVirgin is an admin in good standing, and the lists were set up to discuss a problem which was experienced by a number of editors, albeit you and Dan Tobias feel the need to pretend this problem does not exist. Jimbo thinks it does, I think it does, the victims of harassment think it does, and really there is nothing at all wrong with wanting to discuss how best to handle that. Your "evidence" on this point is therefore moot." The implication that I "pretend [stalking / harassment] does not exist" is false. In my essay responding to his essay, I said "Now, harassment and stalking is a genuine problem." That's hardly saying it doesn't exist. I do, however, go on to say that the issue (while genuine) is greatly exaggerated in order to play a game of "victimology" in which victims of harassment (real, imagined, or faked) can gain special consideration for themselves, and punitive treatment of their opponents, by asserting and inflating their claim of being such a victim. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • VICTIMOLOGY: There is a major problem inasmuch as anonymous people tend to act more nastily ANYWHERE, vs. people whose identities are in evidence. Wikipedia allows anonymity among its editors and its police, and has to deal with the result: faceless vandals being forever chased by hooded narcs. What a waste of time. Occasionally a wikicop goes rogue and unlike real cops, the Wikipolice won't give you an identity, or even a badge number (remember Essjay? I got blocked by him.) The wars of sockpuppets and meatpuppets and checkuser logs are a part of the more general problem which is allowed indeed to fester from the problems of victimology.

    Here it is: somebody once knew an administrator, you see, who got a death threat! How horrible. Nevermind that out in the real world, death threats from faceless cowards (anonymous people on a phone, usually, vindicating my point) are made against cops, judges, doctors, politicians, dogcatchers. It's part of public life. Jimbo Wales edits here under his own name. So do I. Guess what—it won't kill you. And you probably won't even get any death threats, and even if you do, the chance of you actually being assassinated over your wikipedia activities, vs. the chance of you dying from a freeway accident or natural causes (heart disease, cancer, stroke, etc), are very, very, very, small.

    So if this worries you, as with the idea that Al Qaeda terrorists are going to fly a hijacked jet into your house, I would suggest that you need some serious help with realistic readjustment about your risks in the real world. See a professional. Meanwhile, could everyone here please try to be a sane and unhysterical, and try not to ruin this encyclopedia with the products of needless fears about dying due to your edits? The worst thing that's going to happen to you on Wikipedia, is that your privacy will be violated. And if it is, you'll just get a new outlook on WP:BLP. You'll experience something much like what happens to the average celebrity or public figure. Do you feel bad for the exposure of public figures? Perhaps you should. There are good lessons to be learned here, but this thing is constructed to make it nearly impossible for anybody to learn them. "If you don't like the heat, you should stay out of the kitchen," is something we routinely say to people in public life. Well, Wikipedia is part of the real world too (WP:WRW), and this is something that needs to be said to those who edit and sysop here. But don't worry. Skiing or scuba diving or the 10 Freeway may get you, but not this place. Calm yourselves. SBHarris 01:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you had your family threatened with real life harm just because you chose to edit a website for free?...how about your employer called?...has your employer been sent emails from some miscreant who thinks it's funny to link them to an article about you that might appear on another website?....how about death threats?...do you really think that the price of writing articles here and helping to maintain this website from those who wish to waste our time means we have to be harassed, especially since none of us are making one red cent? For the record, the nonsense I have had directed towards me has been very minor, but when dozens of admins and editors feel compelled to leave this website due to real life harassment, then attitudes like the one you and Dtobais are demostrating indicates you really don't care. I wonder how much you would like it, or how well your family might like it if you had to tell them that the reason they have been getting death threats and having to deal with harassment is because you edit this website.--MONGO 02:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Mongo (not to be confused with Mangoe, I suppose), FYI I've edited in many a group on USENET, aka The Wild West, which makes this place look tame indeed, for decade 16+ years. And on Compuserve groups before that, back to 1985. No, I didn't get paid. I have several million words up under my own name. Feel free to read. I've had people threaten me, I've had people try to influence employers, and for all I know, I've had employers read what I write. And you know what? I don't give a shit. If you're going to go through life like that, I feel so sorry for you. It's one thing to be like that in a country where the government can take away your livilihood, or beat you to death (I don't advocate fearless in, say, China). But I live in America. I also come from Utah where 3 in every 4 person is a Mormon, and a large fraction of people carry concealed weapons legally, and are very polite to each other (and you can bet the cops are polite to the citizens also). So I have a different world view of how society should function, than you may. Licence plates on automobiles are a good thing. Remove them, and your road would turn into Wikipedia. SBHarris 02:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Just because you may deal well with those sorts of issues, doesn't mean everyone else will or should be expected to. Simply put, some people take great offense to the sort of thing you claim you have endured...and in a number of cases, editors and admins have left after they felt that they had reasonable concern that they may have their personal safety compromised. Telling editors "to get thicker skin" etc., is simply not helpful. Our goal should be to do what we can to minimize harassment, not just sit back and explain to them, well, shucks, please contribute to our encyclopedia effort, but do so at your own risk. That is not the message we should be sending if we expect to encourage people to contribute here and or stick around.--MONGO 03:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
People have left politics for the same reason. And left the police force. These are NOT good reasons to have anonymous politicians, and anonymous police. On the contrary encouragement of such a thing would harm society greatly, by encouraging people not to take responsibility for their actions, due to their complaints of harrassment. Well, you know what happens when people are given power without responsibility? They BECOME the harrassers. Wikipedia is FINE example of this, but it goes all the way back to classic sociological experiments where people are "labeled" prisoners and guards, and then begin to act their roles. If you tell people they don't have to answer for what they do, and that they're working for a larger cause and you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs, most of them will do anything. Things they'd never do otherwise. So, the signers of our Delaration of Independence from Britain in (new) US signed their own names for King George to read. That's why we honor them. Had they signed "MONGO" or "MANGOE" or "SLIM VIRGIN" or whatever, it would have sent the wrong message, I'm afraid. SBHarris 03:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you missed the part about the fact that what we do here provides us with nary one red cent profit wise. Not everyone wishes to have their real life identity "outted" and the right to edit anonymously is something that Jimbo Wales has long supported. Besides, many people (like myself) are simply not notable, so using my real life name wouldn't in any way increase the reliability or integrity of articles I work on...these sorts of things are substantiated by using reliable sources, not by signing my real name to every content edit I make.--MONGO 03:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I edit under my real name, and post under my real name to numerous forums, mailing lists, newsgroups, and so on, as well has having a personal Web site under my own name with accurate contact information in the domain WHOIS, and un-munged MAILTO links all over the place. As a result, I get everything from people seeking free technical help to mentally-unbalanced people wanting to use me to pursue their obsessions... and, over the years, a few people threatening to sue me or get me criminally prosecuted for something they imagined I'd done. A time or two I've gotten creepy phone calls at home or work as a result of some online thing. But none of this has stopped me from maintaining my openness and candor, or caused me to don "victim" garments and seek special dispensation in online communities. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. And this has led you to the erroneous conclusion that such issues are therefore not a problem for other people, whether or not they choose to edit pseudonymously. But it is. We lost an admin because trolls called his firm and tried to get him fired. Your friends at Wikipedia Review just did the same to Feloniousmonk. Some female users and admins are enormously worried about such harassment. One banned user, Andrew Morrow, has been jailed for it. So, Dan, I am happy that your self-confidence leads you to be able to dismiss such things, but it would be a terrible mistake to assume that everybody is or should be capable of that, and an even worse mistake to extend that to the assumption that such activities are not actually problematic, because even if the target does not feel threatened, the intent is plainly to threaten, and we should not tolerate that at all. Anyone with OTRS access will readily understand that the range of human reaction to perceived attacks is wide, and no reaction can be defined as being inherently appropriate or inappropriate. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not plain at all that Bagley's original intent (before being banned; he has since crossed many lines) was to threaten. As far as I can see, he sincerely believed that someone with a conflict of interest was trying to distort Wikipedia's point of view, and it is now beginning to look like he has indeed 'been some form of "right all along".' It is absolutely inexcusable to tar someone who appears to have, once upon a time, had a genuine concern about the encyclopedia with the same brush as Andrew Morrow. —Random832 16:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
'Question to all: How does this help figure out the facts of the situation and to apply them? It doesn't? Oh ok, that's what I thought.
Both sides need to stop prodding each other with pointy sticks. (It's all fun and games, till ArbCom puts an eye out) It's hard enough to determine what's going on in this case without the wars.. SirFozzie (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I would enjoy debating the anonymity vs COI issue that currently exists in the project but this isn't the appropriate forum. Cla68 (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Strongly agree with SirFozzie. I suggest Wikback as a very appropriate forum. Or somewhere else. Anywhere else, really. Noroton (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this has gotten way off track, please stick the focus of the case. THanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

USER:Rlevse, could you clarify, please, when you say :Yes, this has gotten way off track..., what are you referring to by the pronoun *this*? I can agree with you that much in thisdiscussion is wasted air. There are personal attacks: off-topic. There is discussion of personal attacks: off topic, and I thank the clerk for ensuring to date that at least our current interlocuters are attempting to achieve highest standards throughout. You speak well, but as to *This* - my point is that this discussion has meanderered somewhat from and it in particular included user:sbharris's valuable statement, VICTIMOLOGY]].[12] To my present thought, User:S.B.Harris's valuable statement, VICTIMOLOGY, and the following remarks by thatuser [13], [14], and by Dan T just above constitute a valuable contribution, given that the ban'm if they squeak, "shoot on sight" approach has not been successfull in "saving" our volunteers from harassment. So, even if it is not vital, or even central, to this arbcom, it may certainly form the basis of another discussion, later, at even that level.
PS: If I mis-speak at any time, i will retract upon reasonable request. Especially if I mis-identify inadvertantly, any User.
And if any clarification of my position is necessary (?), I only asked, per the above post,
User:Rlevse, what did you refer to with the word, this, please Newbyguesses - Talk 09:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"This" means most of this thread. It's best if users just drop it and don't post on this thread and don't start new ones that aren't directly related to the case. Keep commments focused on the issues of the case. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A pair of socks

I am firmly convinced at this point in time that the evidence unfolding overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Mantanmoreland and Bagley apologies, i meant wordbomb (inserted after the following comments!) are a pair of socks. in fact, as Samiharriss is looking to be proved guity momentarily, that makes a pair and a half of socks, at least.

i must state before i forget to refute some ludicrous proposition. User:newbyguesses is not a BOT, and U:newbyg is not, not, a sock, and i would get extremely cross were some user, or blow-in from a social-site accuse me of such. Dont do it. For the record, I have never visited or had any interest in visiting any of the BADSITES that get named and bandied about here, and where the supposed evidence resides. Bollocks if anyone says i have, and i mean it. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Additional note-- nor to date have i ever perused such material in a sandbox, or log, or deleted contribs/other--. stated here,also, I will [redact] or retract upon reasonable request any statement made by user:newbyguesses objected to as disproven, misleading, or malicious at this forum. Thankyou clerk, for your discretion and professionalism. Newbyguesses - Talk 16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Um.. WHAT? Mantanmoreland and WHOM? I think you have your dramatis personae mixed up a bit there, Newbyguesses :) SirFozzie (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, up to a point. Bagley and his hosiery drawer are one half of the pair, and if this case decides that Mantan has done the same on the other side then that makes the pair. I suspect the only sane outcome is "a plague on all your houses"; this is too convoluted to be settled unequivocally either way, in the end it'll just be opinion. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I was thinking someone had mixed up (name of WordBomb) with (supposed name of Mantanmoreland). I don't know which of them would complain more about it.. but it'd be impressive either way. SirFozzie (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, SirFozzie and all, beg pardon I mis-spoke. I am saying it looks to me like Mantanmoreland is a sock, Samiharriss is a sock, and Wordbomb is a sock, right? That makes a sock drawer full of socks, and the real world actors, names, personae, can all go hang, they are irrelevant. Clear? —note my computer problems recurring, apologies—Newbyguesses - Talk 02:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Guy, seriously, you're not doing yourself or anyone else or the situation at hand any favours with such comments. User:Dorftrottel 03:04, February 19, 2008
(logged in, I hope) - No, Guy got that right, in my h/opinion. This isnt a tragedy, it isnt very funny, but shakespeare applies. "A plague on all your houses", gruesomely—nbgNewbyguesses - Talk 06:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree that everything will end up being just opinion. User:Dorftrottel 13:19, February 19, 2008
I concur. the evidence of sock use to further a COI seems incontrovertible. Ameriquedialectics 16:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree also there with User:Dorftrottel's point, we are gathering massive evidence, and this matter has gone beyond mere opinion. Newbyguesses - Talk 21:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

<-- RETRACTION - Above, I echoed Guy's comment - "a plague on all your houses". That was before I read SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)'s explanation of the actions which caused Wordbomb's initial blocking. Now that I have read that statement by SlimVirgin, which is unconvincing and appears self-serving, I withdraw the implication that Wordbomb, as a newby, got what he deserved, This is not so; at the time, WB was treated poorly. I retract this slur against User:Wordbomb, and apologise, unless SlimVirgin provides a more plausible explanation, including giving the text of her (deleted) "smoking gun" post to talk:Wordbomb. Newbyguesses - Talk 10:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To Smallbones

The number of accounts having no same minute edits as Samiharris is just a small fraction of the evidence presented. Moreover, we could expand this study. Mantanmoreland and Samiharris made only one edit within three minutes, and no other edits within five, I believe. Additionally we have the style tics, well-matching editing patterns, previous sockpuppetry, shared POV and interests, and a history of long-term lying from Mantanmoreland.

A note about the stylistic tics: You're right that given enough time, one could come up with meaningless similarities between users that would be unusual to the population at large. However, I have not done that here. Except for "as per" and "duplicative" (which were other's suggestions), I came up with a list of these traits in minutes. And I didn't do it by checking back and forth. I looked at one contribution history until I found a trait that had been used multiple times within that history (these aren't one-offs, except for "phraseologies," which I do accept could be meaningless). As it turned out, every trait I've found that occurred multiple times from one editor also occurred in the other. I didn't fail to report negatives because I had literally no negatives.

All this said, I do recognize the potential for abuse, and I'd love to hear any suggestions. I think that confining study to idiosyncrasies that occur multiple times in each account is a good safeguard, and beyond that you'll have to rely upon our good faith in this effort.

Second, I have two ideas to make the data more convincing to you, Smallbones:

  1. I've compared the correlations of these two users, and they're within the top 20 (about top the 0.5%) compared to all of the other accounts. It's been said that I can compare all of the accounts to each other, which would be 6,575,751 comparisons. From these comparisons, we could make a nice curve that would suggest how likely it is that any two accounts have at any particular correlation. Would that help? It appears the chance of this occurring may be less than 0.5%, but would you be more convinced if we decisively showed that any two randomly-picked accounts are less than < X% likely to correlate as well as these two?
  2. What if I used my previous definition of 30-minute interleaving to examine all of these 3629 accounts? A preliminary look suggests that having only four interleaves in 2007 (the fifth was in 2008) is a trait that few other accounts will share.

What results from these tests could convince you? Cool Hand Luke 00:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am especially curious to know if arbitrators would have any use for such evidence. I think it's a strong case already, but if any more evidence of this kind would help, I could work on it more. Cool Hand Luke 05:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm morbidly curious about this. How many accomplices would be needed in order to process 6,575,751 comparisons before this case closes? — CharlotteWebb 15:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't given the computer time requirements much thought. Maybe a couple hours—probably less time than it took Alanyst to parse relevant time stamps from the whole 6 gig compressed data dump. It would talk a short while to write a script to run all of the comparisons. I'm a little curious myself, and might end up running them anyway—perhaps on the weekend. I just wish we had some clues about what sorts of evidence are especially desired, and I would like to know whether this would address the concerns of those worried about "statistical" evidence, or whether it would make them even less trustful. I'd also like to know when the arbitrators suspect that the case will be ready to roll.
Incidentally, Alanyst is working on more evidence as we speak. Cool Hand Luke 03:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the case has only been opened for a week, and since the committee has taken a load of deserved crap for rushing the proposed decision out before it was ready recently, and several of us asked for more thought, less shoot first in the Request....we seem to be getting what we asked for. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cla68 evidence on Thatcher retraction

Just a note to report that I retracted my evidence statement on Thatcher and I apologized to him for making it. Cla68 (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ananlyst evidence - disturbing

3000+ editors, and a direct hit? Lawrence § t/e 14:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm struck with the brilliance of this test. Alanyst directly addressed the concern that we were plucking just a few traits from these user's histories. Using known algorithms, he examined every word in every user's history, to show rather decisively that these two users write edit summaries more similarly than any others. The comparison of shared words makes it even more convincing—unlike Piperdown, these users shared many non-topical writing traits. Cool Hand Luke 14:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This pretty much is the literal nail in the coffin. Mantanmoreland is Samiharris is Mantanmoreland. I think it's in Mantanmoreland's absolute best interests, given his proven history of disruptive sockpuppetry, to answer this evidence that compared him against every established user on Wikipedia. Otherwise, I'd say he's due for an indef vacation. Lawrence § t/e 16:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Point of order: this was not a comparison with every established Wikipedia user. That data set is too large to analyze in a timely manner. The comparison is against editors with a similar level of editing activity during 2007. alanyst /talk/ 17:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Alanyst, is it possible that with these three accounts (Piperdown, MM and SB) all editing certain articles, the words from the subject at hand (SEC, Byrne, Weiss, Bloomberg, Forbes) actually skewed the results, pushing all three together on that bottom chart on your data page? If the same test could be run without, say, 20 or 30 subject-specific words like that, wouldn't the result give greater weight to personal diction (rply, expanding, clarifying, distort, duplicative) and less to subject matter? In fact, I would assume that even the comparison of your final table with the results of that test would demonstrate more dramatically (in a good way!) how similar these two accounts are at the core. If, on the other hand, the test showed the closest 20 users were on the whole even closer to these two editors, it would tend to undermine this type of comparison. (I've just now mentioned this in a discussion (#3104) offsite.) What do you think? Noroton (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Forgot to mention: I'm blown away by your research. Really valuable work. Thank you so much. Noroton (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Alanyst just ran the numbers. Thanks! That was fast! I'll look it over. Noroton (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I wonder what this analysis would show if the "conflict articles" were excluded entirely. There are disjoint sets of articles edited by each of these people (including those with high similarity but not thought to be GW, like Piperdown). If they use similar linguistics in topically unrelated articles, that's stronger than using similar linguistics in topically related ones. The high correlation of the two target accounts with Piperdown indicates that this test, by itself, is subject to topical-related false positives. If the correlation remains strong upon exclusion of those articles, then the topical-related connection is excluded as a sole explanation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If the conflict articles and their talk pages were taken out, it looks like Samiharris would have perhaps less than 800 edits for the year (he was quite focused in this area as Mantanmoreland withdrew from it). That's an interesting idea though. Which articles would you put on the exclusion list? Cool Hand Luke 05:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Good question. Hmm... As some obvious examples, Naked short selling, Patrick M. Byrne, Overstock.com ? Alternately, as a related but slightly different idea, do the same exclusion reanalysis with the exclusive OR of the set of articles Sami and Mantan edited... i.e., do they have similar edit summaries (statistically) in completely unrelated aticles.
I am afraid, looking at the current analysis, that it's actually measuring association with the conflict topics. Taking as a working assumption that Piperdown isn't a bad-hand sock of GW being used to infiltrate WR, it seems to have measured proximity to the conflict articles better than user to user similarity, for the set of editors who edit those articles... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm no expert here, but as I read up on the Vector space model I concluded that it was primarily derived in a context of trying to match documents on the same topics for the purpose of indexing so they can be retrieved in later searches. So I'm not surprised to see that it highlights topical interest patterns. Alanyst, the person that did the research and probably understands the method best of us, said "Also, I should emphasize that even a high degree of similarity does not (at least in my mind) imply sockpuppetry necessarily. It's just one possible clue that can be reinforced or undermined by other pieces of evidence. The Piperdown result shows that shared interests can influence the similarity rankings quite a bit, so it's not just a matter of looking at rankings and crying "sockpuppet!" GRBerry 22:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with GRBerry. But the amount of evidence beyond this is enormous. So far, we have two accounts who:

  • Edit at more similar times of day than any other editors against whom they were compared, and yet almost never edit within thirty minutes of each other.
  • Use more similar edit summaries, even once these are controlled for topical words, than any other editors against whom they were compared.
  • Use similar uncommon expressions.
  • Edit many of the same articles, advocating many of the same positions on those articles.

Is there anything else that I've missed? It doesn't really matter; this evidence is overwhelming enough. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd add this: user:Lastexit was a sock used to edit Gary Weiss among other articles and user:Samiharris was a sock used to edit Gary Weiss, among other articles -- a persisting, strong pattern of past behavior. Noroton (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note

I volunteered by e-mail to add diff links to Cla68's evidence section if he wanted to provide evidence based on the content of the AFD - this was my sole involvement with such material. I did not supply him with a copy of the deleted material; he presumably found it somewhere on the web. —Random832 16:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

While this pushes the edge of what would be acceptable, the way that Cla68 has gone about placeing the information, and your linking to the still deleted diffs, is I think fine. It may turn out to be moot, depending upon how far the committee wants to take this proceeding, but is somewhat relevant to the case purely regarding mantanmoreland (gets to motivation, and previous less than good behavior). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this would be okay given the circumstances of the case. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, my post was both to explain that there was a prior agreement between myself and Cla68 allowing me to edit his evidence section, and to point out that I was not his source for the deleted material. —Random832 18:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The current situation

Folks, the current pointless editwar is ridiculous and ill-befitting Wikipedia. I have a request in to the ArbCom clerk on this case for a decision. No one should be editing other people's evidence sections in the mean time. SirFozzie (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit-war was unbecoming, it was an insult to the arbitrators and to this forum and the respected editors who were inconvenienced in that the /Evidence page was protected for two days. 02:14, 25 February 2008 Newbyguesses (Talk | contribs) m (10,462 bytes) (→BLP violation: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive371#User Crum meat puppeting at LAYOUT) - [DIFF]. Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 03:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The edit-war was unbecoming, it was an insult to the arbitrators and to this forum and the respected editors who were inconvenienced in that the /Evidence page was protected for two days. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PatrickByrne&diff=193836278&oldid=193834737 02:14, 25 February 2008 Newbyguesses (Talk | contribs) m (10,462 bytes)
(correct archive -(→BLP violation: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive372#Crum375 meatpuppeting on WP:LAYOUT). Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 10:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BLP violations

Folks, it's very easy to conduct this case without violating BLP. Simply make sure that any derogatory BLP evidence that is not backed up by diffs or reliable sources is forwarded to ArbCom via email. Crum375 (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

While the way that this was done was disruptive and caused some drama, I do have to question why the links are necessary at this point. —Random832 18:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 hour. After 1 hour the page will be automatically unprotected. - Ok, ok. This has gone to the ridiculous. I've taken the liberty of fully protecting the evidence page for 1 hour (on the Wrong Version, as usual). Whatever's going on here - please try to resolve this on the talk page. This goes for all of you - Alison ❤ 18:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Trying to suppress all links and mentions of "BADSITES" is just the sort of thing that has caused the underlying disputes to fester all this time. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think having the Evidence page of an Arbitration case protected is a good idea. Its only one hour so probably not that big a deal and may have a productive "cool down" effect but people need to be able to present evidence eventally. If edit warring continues, it seems to me that it's going to need to be dealt with by blocks (however unappealing that might be) given that long term protection is untenable. WjBscribe 18:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a good idea and I let things run on for a while before slamming on the brakes. However, protection of that duration will not hinder the wheels of justice, IMO. On the contrary; 7rr or whatever was going on there certainly does - Alison ❤ 18:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If long-term protection becomes necessary, people can write their evidence sections here and have Rlevse make the edits. —Random832 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, isn't the fact you Crum was edit warring alone against 4-5 others suggestive that he might have been wrong about it being a BLP violation in this context? For what it's worth, the comments about "stalking" and links to inflammatory posts on Weiss' blog don't seem to be much better. I think the case (and the project) would be best served by not editing other's evidence sections.

If we literally did not allow speculation on BLPs, then any claims of COI could be suppressed on this rationale. Cool Hand Luke 19:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As I noted above, any evidence or material that is not backed up by diffs or reliable sources, and may violate either privacy or BLP. should be forwarded to ArbCom via email. Posting it on talk is not acceptable, nor anywhere on WP. Crum375 (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyone edit warring on this page, including you, should be blocked immediately. Let the Clerks do their job, and mind your place. Lawrence § t/e 19:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that letting the clerks do it is better, but the removal of BLP violation is not "edit warring", and is not subject to 3RR for that reason. Crum375 (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Crum, you appear to be arguing then that we can't link Byrne or Weiss' blog anywhere in this arbitration. Is this correct? So far I have not seen anyone that agrees with this position. Mackan79 (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
When everyone disagrees with you, and Arbs and Clerks have allowed the material to stand this long, it's probably not a BLP violation. You're up to 7rr based on that. Stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point--we know you hate one side of this dispute based on your own BLP violating comments that you escaped sanction for (Bagley "violating" wives etc). You need to watch your own BLP step. Lawrence § t/e 19:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
But Crum is the one-man Judge Dredd, prepared to be judge, jury, and executioner on this issue, and to heck with what anybody else thinks! *Dan T.* (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think a direct link to a page that includes unsourced derogatory material about a LP, or an outing attempt of a wikipedia editor, as is the case here, is clearly material that violates BLP and must be removed. Whether linking to a general person's blog that contains, among others, such improper material, also constitutes a BLP violation, is subject to debate. Crum375 (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I happen to know a little something about 3RR BLP violations. Crum375, since this is an ArbCom page, may I suggest that you leave it up to the ArbCom clerks and members to decide what is a violation and what isn't. Because the decision is up to them no matter what you do, isn't it? Noroton (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless you can show why this policy is wrong, it is up to any editor to remove BLP violations from anywhere on this site:

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Crum375 (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand where and how the "biography" part of BLP comes into play here. User:Dorftroffel 19:28, February 22, 2008
Biography means writing about a person's life. On WP BLP applies to any discussion of a living person, anywhere. Crum375 (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Better shut down the ArbCom, then... pretty much all their cases are about living persons (there wouldn't be very much point to bringing one on a deceased person, would there?), and the things people have to say in the course of those cases are rarely sourced by such reliable places as The New York Times. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Crum375, several different editors, most (all) of them administrators, have concluded that your actions were wrong. My initial reaction on looking at the watchlist and seeing the protection was "WTF?". And for that link? "BFD". Nobody with a clue is going to be surprised by anything they find there, nor is Byrne doing himself any favors by posting it. But I strongly suggest Crum that you abide by Arbitration policy and edit only your own evidence section. That is why the page says right at the top in nice bold letters "do not edit in anybody else's section" and a bit later says that the Arbitrators or Clerks can remove content if needed. You are out of line in editing someone else's evidence section, no matter what content it might have in it. As to your quote, you are not removing contentious material about a living person, so it doesn't apply. And WP:IAR trumps everything. GRBerry 19:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying this material is not contentious? Or properly sourced? If so please show the sources. And outing attempts don't even need to meet those tests. Crum375 (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I am calling the material you are removing both of the following: 1) properly sourced and 2) not contentious. All you are removing are links to blog postings. (The content on the other end of those blog posts, while no doubt motivating your misbehavior, is not the content you are removing.) Lets look at the first. Mr. Byrne says that "It is reasonably well known that Overstock.com staff including ... have believed for some time that MM is the financial columnist the current RFAR case is focused on, and that SH and MM are the same individual. An early convenient example to call upon is this entry at antisocialmedia.net [link you redact improperly] ... a more current one being [link you redact improperly]" There is nothing contentious about the statement that staff of Overstock.com believe that MM is GW; we all know that they do. And a link to a blog post by a named member of their staff is precisely a reliable source as to what that named member believed. Both of those are reliable sources for the claims being made. They may be unnecessary, and as I believe unhelpful to the poster, but they are not violations of BLP. So you are clearly in the wrong here. I am not a clerk, so I myself am unlikely to block you should you repeat this behavior - but I do think that the clerks should ban you from the case pages if you repeat it. GRBerry 19:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that he actually _does_ consider the content of the blog posts to be the content he is removing, per the "linking to libel is republishing libel" principle from back in the bad old days of BADSITES. —Random832 20:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Any alterations of statements should be under the strict purview of clerks and maybe arbiters. How many admins/arbiters are watching these pages? Yet one person gets to unilaterally decide/interpret what constitutes a BLP violation? That's ridiculous. The blocking policy should be amended to reflect this, otherwise it's an invitation for disruption and edit warring. R. Baley (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Any editor can remove BLP violations from anywhere. The policy is clear, as quoted above. Crum375 (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Are we saying BLP trumps the A.C.'s rules? Lawrence § t/e 19:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
AC rules don't call for violating BLP, or any other WP policy. Crum375 (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
"Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section." and "If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move."
Which takes precedence if there is a conflict? Your view or the AC rules? Lawrence § t/e 19:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not party to this dispute, have never posted about it, and don't care much about the outcome (as long as it's just, for which I trust ArbCom), so I don't have an 'evidence section.' BLP applies everywhere on this site, and that includes evidence sections, so my role here is simply to enforce that policy. Crum375 (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess your thoughts here were unrelated? Mackan79 (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying with a straight face you have had no postings on Bagley, including posting your own BLP violations about involved editors[15], and participated in the historical conflict[16][17]? And that you aren't involved as named in the workshop?[18] Your fly bias is open. Lawrence § t/e 20:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Please WP:AGF. I have no stake in this dispute of whether MM is a sock of GW. The diffs you provide don't show my view in this matter or that I am a party to this case, and anyone can post anything they want in the Workshop. Crum375 (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Folks, there's at least one link calling for a Clerk or arbcom member to step in on this situation. Let's not get caught up in the "Yes it is", "No it isn't" ad nauseaum. SirFozzie (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm concerned that someone will just resume edit warring again when protection lifts. Lawrence § t/e 19:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think BLP probably trumps any other policy we have.
That said, nobody agrees that this is a BLP violation. We link to tons of sources that happen to mention unverified details about living people; links don't generally have to maintain our standards (we rejected BADSITES, remember?) One person cannot unilatterally claim thier edit war is correcting a BLP violation. If they could, there would be no such thing as 3RR. As for outing attempts, lets not play coy here. A significant part of this case concerns the identity of Mantanmoreland and the POV wars that he's tracked in with him. Cool Hand Luke 19:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
What I learned from my experiences reverting in a similar situation was that once the matter was brought to AN/I and was the subject of a consensus as to how it applied in a particular situation, I couldn't overrule that consensus just by pointing to policy. I wish somebody had explained this to me when I was at the stage you're at now, but now I'm explaining it to you. Actually, it was CHL who came by and explained it to me just a little later, and I've been grateful ever since. I see Slim Virgin recently posted some prudent advice on the WP:BLP talk page as well. Think about it. Noroton (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The clerks can't be online every minute of the day; nobody can. Let's keep this dignified. It's better to err on the side of caution where BLP is concerned, even regarding someone you don't like. No, especially regarding someone you dislike. Remember that there are other instances where BLP bumps up against possible COI, and the actions taken here are likely to set the tone for how future cases of that type get handled. I really wish anything approaching the latitude of this proceeding had been extended to me a year ago when I tried to address a long term vandalism problem. Please bear the big picture in mind. If you want this type of issue to get addressed effectively and consistently, then don't tank the effort over small stuff. DurovaCharge! 20:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Random832 makes a good point at the beginning. Drama = bad. I think this was an error in judgment, and Crum has succeeded in drawing much more attention to the link than it would have gotten otherwise. It wouldn't be terrible if we let it rest. But in the future, editors should let the clerks work these things out. The disputed link had been up for hours, so this was not a case like Durova suggests. Users should not edit war under dubious claims of BLP. Cool Hand Luke 20:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: the link was actually up for a day, and the better part of a second day. —Random832 20:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] If this is the case...

Mind redacting everywhere on WP where we call WordBomb by his supposedly real life name? spryde | talk 20:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors who self-identify onsite may be identified by name by other editors in later discussion. DurovaCharge! 20:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I must have missed it when he did. I really am trying not to get involved in this but there does appear to be a double standard here. There are a ton of attacks on this site towards this Bagely guy yet those who persist with them are not sanctioned. The guy could be the nuttiest guy on the planet but we should take the high road and continue RBI rather than taunt and attack. How are the attacks on him not a BLP violation and most certainly not a violation of NPA? Honest question. spryde | talk 20:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
For ease of administration, this is why I think no evidence sections should be edited. And yes, some of these cases are documented in Cla68's evidence. Cool Hand Luke 20:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that taking the high road is best. Let's do the right thing and ask people to refactor whenever they write something over the top about a living person. If they don't cooperate, raise the issue with a clerk. Sounds fair? DurovaCharge! 20:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. And as I say above, I think it would be fine if we take Random832's suggestion and go ahead and leave the link out. We all now know where it is anyway. Cool Hand Luke 20:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Leave it out leave it in, discussion is a waste of time, edit warring looks to prevail at this time. All it takes is for one editor to do it. R. Baley (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, but I don't think it's worth the drama. It's still in GWH's section anyway. Cool Hand Luke 20:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Having been up for 32 hours yesterday and then asleep through most of this... what the heck? I had the link there, because it's needed to demonstrate the off-wiki behavior of those who initiated it. If Byrne thought it was his finest hour and work, him pointing to it too is fine by me... I think it's evidence of a completely different interpretation, but that's up to Arbcom. Deleting Byrne's copy of the link but leaving mine intact doesn't make any sense to me. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Where on Wikipedia did Wordbomb say his real name? Diff please just so we're all on the same page. Lawrence § t/e 20:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WB has admitted his identity elsewhere, and makes no secret of it (it's his handle on Wikipedia Review and Wikiback). There's nothing to protect here about his identity - it's out and open. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, maybe, GWH. If WB admitted to being "B" somewhere OFF-WIKI, then we can only sensibly refer to that information if it is supported by a link to the evidence and if that source qualifies as a reliable source. Otherwise, you could, of course, produce ANY WP:DIFF, if there are any, where WB admits to being "B". Or, equivalently, any Diff ON-WIKI where MM admits to being "W" would constitute significant evidence.
Since i cannot, myself, point to a RELIABLE SOURCE, I have struck the *one* occasion in MY evidence where I (it was a slip of the tongue) referred to "B", when in fact I meant User:Wordbomb. If Crum375 (talk · contribs) resumes edit-warring in defence of his entirely mistaken understanding of WP:Policies, not to mention etiquette, then there would be a problem. I think the arbs have this matter under control, now, though. Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 23:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Please calm down. The clerks have laid down a very clear policy against editing another's evidence section. If Crum persists, we'll deal with it then, but I think we're all at an understanding here. Cool Hand Luke 01:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, let's not start the fire, just put it out if one occurs. And yes, I will block someone (other than arbs or clerks) who edits someone else's section. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We didn't start the fire... it was always burning since the world's been turning. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crum375

As he alone is asserting this against all other editors, could we enforce his not editing this page? If nothing else, a time out for sustained and likely to continue disruption may be in order. Lawrence § t/e 20:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Crum: Self revert. You edited the page after it was protected and are involved in a content dispute. Lawrence § t/e 20:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 2 hours. After 2 hours the page will be automatically unprotected. - and again. Two hours this time. This whole situation is ridiculous. Please, everyone, just try to resolve the matter here, at least until a clerk or arbitrator shows up to put the record straight - Alison ❤ 20:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we you refactor his edits that he did AFTER you protected? Lawrence § t/e 20:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And another intentional edit after protection here. Lawrence § t/e 20:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If he weren't an admin, he would have been blocked. I think that would be an appropriate means for preventing disruption from anyone who persists in this edit war going forward (on either side). Cool Hand Luke 20:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
He's self-reverted.. and I'm firmly in Ali's camp on this. Come on guys and gals on ALL sides., this is getting beyond ridiculous. SirFozzie (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
He only reverted the last edit, not all of them. Crum: you missed this edit here that was also after protection. This is the final version before protection you need to restore to.. Lawrence § t/e 20:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Agree with SirFozzie. DurovaCharge! 20:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Big "props" to Mr. Crum for self-reverting and restoring the links here. Crum, will you agree to stop and let the AC decide on this link's disposition? Follow up that noble act with a goodwill move to the community. Lawrence § t/e 21:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's odd because I find it a little absurd that Crum would reinstate the BADSITE after finding out the page had been protected. If he believes it is a BLP vio, why reinstate it? If Crum was removing as a matter of principle, why compromise those principles because of something on Wikipedia called "protecton"? It struck me as odd. daveh4h 21:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
While 3RR is ignored for BLP issues (whatever about it's application here), edit-warring through a full-protect is an utter no-no and is often a blockable offense, whatever about being decidedly ungracious. Crum knows this and I strongly suspect he did this in error. Give him a break here - Alison ❤ 21:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Probably becuase his BLP claims are highly subjective, while post-protection editing is black and white. Don't scorn him for his show of good faith, please. Cool Hand Luke 21:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Because using your admin powers to edit war is worse then just plain edit warring (and if his interpertation of the situation is correct, he's not edit warring?) 9 Reverts is bad. 9 Reverts and then being seen to use administrator powers to continue the war after page protection? Very bad. Very Very Bad. Crum made the right decision here, and now we just need to wait to hear back from ArbCom for guidance. (shoulda just typed ME TOO and pointed at CHL's statement :D) SirFozzie (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the "props", Lawrence, I have no intention to edit protected pages or to use admin tools improperly. As far as letting AC handle this, I agree that AC clerks (or arbs) should ideally remove BLP violations from AC pages, but as Durova noted above, they are not patrolling the site 24x7, and it is not their primary function. Admins, and established editors, should help out with BLP violations, as they occur anywhere on the site. That some editors may disagree with what constitutes a BLP violation is not unusual — the correct solution is to presume removal initially, and then gain consensus among admins to restore the offensive material, if that can be done, per WP:BLP. In AC cases, the material can be emailed to them, so they don't miss it in any case. Crum375 (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't you mean consensus among editors, Crum? Administrators have tools, editors come to consensus about content - isn't that how it works? Risker (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If no admin action is needed (e.g. to undelete material), then yes, editors alone can decide it. But it has to be a wide consensus, and include careful considerations of the BLP aspects. Asking for input from frequent contributors to all BLP policy would also make sense if there is any doubt or dispute. Crum375 (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you miss my point, Crum. Editorial (content) decisions are supposedly made by editors. The fact that some of those editors are administrators is immaterial; at least that is what everyone keeps telling us when they say "adminship is no big deal." Of course, you may be correct and every action taken by an administrator should be considered an administrative action, but then that removes the separation of administrative and editorial actions, and indicates that administrators could have their additional permissions removed for strictly editorial actions. I don't see much of a middle ground here. Risker (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You may be missing my point. This is not an admin vs. non-admin issue. The point is that if there is already some technical reason an admin is needed, e.g. the page is protected, or the material is deleted, then admins would need to be involved. In any case, wide consensus is needed to restore contentious BLP material if there is dispute about the reliability of its sourcing, and input from BLP regulars would be important too. Crum375 (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, on concensus deciding. After you removed it several times, consensus on this page clearly showed it was fine, so you should have stopped removing it thus. In the future, you'll have learned to respect consensus on BLP issues even if you disagree with the outcome for now, like here. Either way, lets move on. Lawrence § t/e 21:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, clerks don't need to be on duty 24-7. That link was up for over 24 hours. If you thought it was a problem you could have asked User:PatrickByrne or a clerk. If you wanted to immediately edit war, you could have tried to convince somebody—anybody—else that it was indeed a BLP violation. We can and do block people when they edit war against multiple parties under dubious claims of BLP. You edited against 5-6 other editors who clearly did not think such a link was a BLP violation. Don't do that again. Cool Hand Luke 21:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Even when a clerk isnt onduty, you could have sought assistance from another uninvolved editor via the BLP noticeboard. Also, if the attention of another clerk is needed, a note on the clerks noticeboard would do the trick. John Vandenberg (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Arbs are aware of the situation

see User_talk:Rlevse#Request_.28RE:Mantanmoreland_and_BLP.29. I hope this knowledge forestalls any more edit wars.. FROM ANY SIDE. SirFozzie (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] STOP

Most of this went on while I was at work and unable to watch it. I appreciate the efforts of others to control this. I've reported it to the arbs and they will decide as a group about what to do about this. On the one hand there's the policy of "don't edit someone else's section" and then there's the BLP side. However, I have to admit I am not so sure that many of the removed edits, especially those that were just external links, were in fact BLP violations. For now, until the arbs rule on this, EVERYONE STOP REMOVING THINGS THAT ARE NOT YOUR OWN EDITS AND STOP ADDING ANY BLP MATERIAL. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've extended the page's protection for two days as the arbs need more than a few hours to resolve this. ONLY ARBS OR CLERKS (including official listed clerk helpers) SHOULD EDIT THE EVIDENCE PAGE UNTIL THIS IS RESOLVED. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
How is anyone going to present evidence if the page is locked? Instead, shouldn't Crum375 be blocked? Cla68 (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Full brakes are needed in this situation. If anyone, including admins, violates the protection, except for non-recused arbs and clerks, I will in all liklihood block them. This does not apply to the edit Random832 just made to update the protection length notice. I am not blocking anyone at this moment as I feel the situation has some semblance of control. If the arbs want to allow more evidence addition right now, they can unprotect, as for people not being able to do so for a short time, a lesson for all to learn from. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with Cla that simply blocking Crum would have done the job and sent a better message. BLP or no, he just kept reverting instead of discussing on the talk page. Bad precedent. User:Dorftroffel 02:27, February 23, 2008
I tend to disagree.. it may have sent a better message, but I think the effect would not have lessened the drama.. in fact, it would have ratcheted it up into the stratosphere. Also, while one could possibly argue that Crum had problems AGF of the original poster, no one can argue that Crum375 doesn't have a good-faith belief that what he was doing IS validated by policy. The safer thing would have been to let things slide and not revert Crum over and over and over again, until the clerks and the ArbCom could speak on the issue. I asked a couple people to stop (which they did) and more folks just came to take their place. SirFozzie (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I've spent most of the last year fighting against the many attempts to impose the idiotic BADSITES policy, so there's no way I'm going to stand by and let somebody sneak it in the back door by calling it "BLP". *Dan T.* (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The bottomline is that everything was very calm and civilised until he showed up today. The intellectual gesture of actually thinking it could be useful to remove those links, and to revert 8 times, is clear-cut evidence of incapacity. It shouldn't require someone to get reverted 8 times in all, by 5 different people (including the anon, but also two admins) to realise that it's wrong to continue and that he should immediately leave it to the clerks and arbitrators. Also, the fact that the removed links are known to everyone is no argument in either direction, and since the links were already in there, he should have just let them stand without avoidably stirring up all this dust, demonstrating nothing but total disregard for the process. He introduced needless drama and demonstrated his willingness to continue. All of today's drama was introduced by him alone, starting somewhere between his fourth and eighth revert. I would have quickly blocked him for 3 hours just to get him to talk in the first place. The worst part is: He got his way. Not meaning that I cry for those links. To hell with them, everybody knows them. But bullying prevailed. It was sort of a test, and the admins failed. User:Dorftroffel 08:15, February 23, 2008
Just to clarify, two of the three links Crum375 was working to delete remain in the text; the two in the evidence of GeorgeWilliamHerbert are currently present, while the one from the evidence of PatrickByrne remains deleted. As Dorftrottel points out, it is more or less a moot point since everyone knows the links, although one cannot help notice the irony of having the link in GWH's evidence but not in the evidence of the author of the blog referred to in the link. Unfortunately, this silliness points to a weakness in the BLP policy that leaves it wide open to this kind of abuse, and the result is more likely to be a tightening of the policy - probably the opposite effect that Crum375 intended. Risker (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
For one thing, the provision exempting BLP issues from 3RR ought to go... it's too subject to abuse by edit warriors. At a minimum, it should not apply to disputes with multiple good-faith editors in good standing on the other side (as opposed to vandals and sockpuppets). *Dan T.* (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is. Normally, when an edit warrior reverts four different users including two admins, and then continues single-handedly, we take it as a rough consensus that there is no BLP violation. We block non-admins for doing this under the pretext of all the time. Crum shouldn't do it again. Cool Hand Luke 17:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

<-- User:Crum375 is trying to single-handedly (?) reinstate a flawed implementation of the BADSITES policy. User:Crum375 ought to be subject to severest admonition from apologise to the arbs. in my opinion, he has insulted them, and this forum. Perhaps user:Crum375 feels invincible, now that the meat-puppet thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive372#Crum375 meatpuppeting on WP:LAYOUT [19] has been archived? DIFF and links to AN/I Newbyguesses - Newbyguesses - Talk 09:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This was not constructive. Please don't lower the level of discourse by unnecessarily dramatizing the situation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
If that is your opinion, User:GWH, then I apologise, and i will tone it down. in fact, in line with an excellent suggestion, i will say no more. Newbyguesses - Talk 12:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just seen what was restored here, that the links were replaced in GWH's section but not Patrick Byrne's. Can we please reassess this? It would be one thing if we were strictly limiting reference to any off-wikipedia allegations from either side in this arbitration, but we clearly aren't, and people's perceptions on that dispute are being presented as relevant. Considering commentary on "amanuensis," etc., I think it would be much better to simply let Byrne present his side himself. Following that, Wikipedians can focus on Wikipedia's appropriate response rather than themselves trying to represent the dispute. Mackan79 (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC) (Added: I also missed Rlevse say ArbCom was going to rule on it, which is fine with me.) Mackan79 (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a question of bias.

[Revision as of 11:27, 24 February 2008 (edit) (undo)

Revision as of 10:41, 24 February 2008 (edit) (undo)

Revision as of 00:26, 24 February 2008 (edit) (undo)

Revision as of 11:51, 22 February 2008 (edit) (undo)

Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 19:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(corrected link, above) Newbyguesses - Talk 05:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replyb to u:Durova

The clerks can't be online every minute of the day; nobody can. agree nbg

It's better to err on the side of caution where BLP is concerned, even regarding someone you don't like. hmmm nbg

the actions taken here are likely to set the tone for how future cases of that type get handled. complete bollocks says nbg

Please bear the big picture in mind. note

If you want this type of issue to get addressed effectively and consistently, then don't tank the effort over small stuff. note

Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 20:00, 20:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a break??

[edit] Full support

Although I hate to see an arbitration evidence page protected, it's even more important to put the breaks on a situation that was getting out of hand. Let's all support Rlevse here. It wouldn't be a good thing for anyone if this degenerated into a circus. DurovaCharge! 21:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Today was a day that did none of us any good, did it? SirFozzie (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Strongly agree Let's support Rlevse. Noroton (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This editor strongly supports any actions the clerk may make to curtail an edit-war, and restore the tone of what had been up to now quite a civil debate.

Notwithstanding that, I consider User:Crum375's attidude incomprehensible. Is Crum375 an admin, who should know better? USER:Crum375, if there were any questions, you should have brought them to this talk page, before starting a pointless edit war. That sort of action should get an ordinary user blocked, if they did not have friends, or allies, in high places. User:Crum has not even offered evidence here to date. User:Crum375 is disrupting proceedings . I would ask User:CRUM375 to Stop it, but it already has resulted in page protection. Newbyguesses - Talk 08:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wha'?!?

I might just have to block myself for a few minutes for even being slightly involved in all this nonsense - and I haven't edited this page recently! C'mon, people, get a grip! Until very recently this was as good a conducted ArbCom as there has recently been. Let's try to carry on as before! Please. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Strongly agree (not that you should block yourself ...) Noroton (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note to clerk

NOTE to clerk Newbyguesses - Talk 11:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contacting Gary Weiss

Has anyone attempted contacting Gary Weiss? He should be very surprised of all this and may want to comment. User:Dorftroffel 19:32, February 23, 2008

I don't think he'd be surprised at all. He knows a lot about Wikipedia, and even about this particular claim. Cool Hand Luke 19:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, most links to this site appear to be BLP violations according to Crum's definition: links to sites containing unverified defamatory information. That said, this application of BLP is clearly wrong, so I don't want anyone to try to suppress my links. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 19:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's not pursue on-wiki the discussion concerning contacting this or any identified real-world individual. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok then, but other RL players have commented here already. User:Dorftroffel 19:54, February 23, 2008

[edit] Notability: how Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot

Since only the evidence page is protected (not TALK), and since I’m not introducing names or BLP information, I presume I’m free to comment generally on the general problem?

To begin, it seems to me that Wikipedia’s problems here derive, as usual, from its mania to include data about semi-notable live people and semi-notable functional corporations (which I DEFINE as those not notable enough for the Britannica). Live people and live corporations “big” enough for inclusion in a paper encyclopedia, are also “big” enough to have pretty thick skins, and aren’t subject to abuse by temporary POV imbalance in the process of writing about them. Nor are they really hurt by negative side reporting, since everybody expects some of that for (say) a president of the US, or Ford Motor Company, or whatever. Again, the paper encyclopedia inclusion criterion serves FINE as a distinction between what can safely be in Wikipedia for “live” things with reputations.

Ignoring this criterion will inevitably lead to exactly the kind of trouble we’re seeing here, on all levels, from writing about a corporation which hasn’t even made a profit (Overstock), to speculating about a journalist who hasn’t won the Pulitzer, and is surely not notable to be included in the Britannica. So, we shoot ourselves in the foot by allowing potshots at small-fry here, because small fry can get very, very angry, and the non-WP internet/blogs provides them with a sting, all out of proportion to their importance.

Now, for the mechanism of how we hurt ourselves, if it’s not already obvious from the above: In order to deal with the thin-skinned semi-notable live legal-entities, in WP we have instituted epecially draconian interpretations of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Supposedly this ought to be enough to take care of the problem, according to, er, revealed scripture. Why it will NOT do so, unfortunately, is illustrated neatly by the present case. Sometimes, semi-notable people and semi-notable companies do bad things (gasp!). Sometimes those things are WP:V, even if they wouldn’t make it into the Britannica. However, they can’t be used in WP without hurting feelings and people, so there’s bound to be war if we use them. Second, some of the bad things that the semi-notable do, are bad things ON Wikipedia, by Wikipedia internal standards (socks, vandals, POV-pushing, whatever), and Wikipedia exists in the real world. It’s impossible to deal with some of these things by Wikicop standards, because they inevitably connect back to real names in the real world, where semi-notable corporations and people are protected by BLP (for people) and extra-stringent WP:NOR and V rules for companies. Thus, a real semi-notable person (or a corporate PR representative, for that matter) may travel around the world in a WP:V way, vandalizing or socking Wikipedia at every stop, and there’s not much that can be done by WP, unless the accounts are connected to a real name. And even doing so requires violation of NOR, and V and it requires violation of the letter of BLP. So, we’re stuck. Protecting the encyclopedia is such situations requires WP:IAR, but it really shouldn’t NEED to, because the basic problems are of the encyclopedia’s own making. We start with a failed policy.

Leave these thin-skinned semi-notables alone! Generally ONLY mention them by name, when they can be conntected with actions which are WIKI-crimes, but not otherwise. Presently, our policy is to only say good things about people if that’s all that can be supported by WP:V (even if they appear to be Wikicriminials, WP isn’t a V source); and we allow WP editors to puff, fluff, or dump on semi-notable companies as they can find WP:V sources for it in real world print from people with bias, even if these companies are leaving Wikipedia alone. That’s bad policy. We should leave these semi-notables alone (for the good or bad, even if there’s WP:V info on them) UNTIL they harm Wikipedia, and then deal with them by name if we have to, to the extent of fixing the damage to WP. However, if we adopt a paper-encyclcpedia-only notability criterion for all this, we’ll avoid from the beginning, all the wars over the real-world reputations of semi-notable corps and people. That leaves only ordinary vandals, and most of these company PR people and the journalists who deride them, have better things to do if Wikipedia has no horse in their private race.

So, the short message is that WP policy thinks that strict WP:NOR, BLP, V, and NPOV will be enough for WP work on semi-notable people and semi-notable companies who are thin-skinned enough to be hurt. And that policy is just flat wrong. Sorry. Time to rethink it. SBHarris 21:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Correction. The Holy Hand Grenade of "Notability" (the guideline, not the concept) is how Wikipedia blows its leg off. No comment on the rest. — CharlotteWebb 21:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Very interesting. This is worth reposting on its own page as an essay, because others should read this after this case is archived. In my gut, I don't agree with it, but it's definitely worth thinking about. Noroton (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with some of the issues but prefer a different solution. First, needs a clear threshold. Second, a lot of people want their companies and biographies to be listed in Wikipedia. So my preference goes to courtesy deletion upon request unless the individual is notable enough to be in a paper and ink encyclopedia. Not necessarily Britannica, but any encyclopedia from a reputable publisher. David Bowie is sure to be in the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock Music, but his bass player from 27 years ago probably isn't. So we'll cover both of them, because they're both verifiable, but if the bass player wants to opt out we'll let him. If Bowie wants out? Sorry dude, you're staying in; there's a price to being a rock star. DurovaCharge! 23:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
27 years ago Bowie was in a bit of a lull between his last great album (Scary Monsters) and the first and best of his long mediocre period (Let's Dance), so it's hard to say who his bassist was at that point, but if Trevor Bolder is not in the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock Music then I'm gonna throw a shit-fit.
Elegant essay there Sbharris but I don't think raising the bar on bios will keep people large or small from pursuing their interests in, on, and through Wikipedia. Even if there were no articles on Gary Weiss or Patrick M. Byrne, our boys would still be shaking their thing over on Naked short selling.--G-Dett (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • ANSWER: Oh, of course. As people fight over any matter which is of interest to them. But remove personal-personal references, and it all gets less… personal. For example, a war on an article on Naked short selling could be partly diffused by deleting or minimizing references to named people and named companies in the main article body. That would leave the thing free of the best specific examples, except in the refs and links, but still workable. Likewise, it diffuses a lot of tension in any contentious article to remove names of major human players in the main article, and offload them to the reference list. That all makes people feel less threatened, and less threatened people are less likely to declare war. And we've been through the rest before in Wikiwars over ethnic groups and religions and alternative medicine and conspiracy theories and so on. It's all not quite as horrid as what we're seeing here, and we already have developed ways to fix it. As a last resort for binary views (is this religion or theory true), a POV-fork pair of articles, one pro, one con, each with a short summary and link to the other, is perfectly within policy. If it can be done for Apollo Moon Landing hoax theories, it can be done for anything. This is not a fix for wikiwars, just the particularly bad ones that spill over onto attack blogs. I think we can actually avoid many of these.

    Durova: Yes, the dead tree standard rules. Any reputable paper set. And yes, we'll have a few semi-notables who want to be included and waive their opt out, and we can allow them their neutral Who's Who type thing, until they either die or make an enemy who wants to stick in some WP:V dirt, whichever comes first. That may force an opt-out for the semi-notables, but I never said this was a perfect solution, just a BETTER solution. Some semi-notable people and companies which are harmless and non-controversial, will never have to bail out (really-- they exist). For them, and us, it's win-win. For the rest, at least when they do bail we're rid of them and the hornets' nest that comes with them. For the truly famous the hornet's nest is well orchestrated on both sides, and again we (and they) have already learned to deal with it. SBHarris 23:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

How many BLPs does Britannica have? Noroton (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know and can't find out. I can tell you that it existed from 1768, but didn't include ANY BLPs until 1911 in the 11th edition. It's up to 15th edition now (1974, reorganized in 1985). So it's out of date badly on the BLPs. Length is roughly 40 million words and 500,000 topics, of which 17% are bio, so figure roughly 85,000 bios. Only a small fraction can be living people, even living in 1985 (but since then, obviously many gone). So I'd guess-- 10,000 or less. SBHarris 00:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not Britannica and should not look to Britannica as any standard at all. We have our own quite reasonable definition of notability, and to move to the deletionist standard you suggest would mean excluding most of our content, effectively destroying the project. Everyking (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Come, now. I hope you're not claiming that most of Wikipedia's content consists of bios of living people, and profiles of active companies, that wouldn't get into another encyclopedia. If that's true, we truly are in a sad way. I personally spend most of my time editing articles on the sciences, medicine, and some stuff about the Wild West where everybody's long dead. So that's my perspective. I see a lot of pop-culture stuff, but it's mostly Simpsons episodes summaries and the like. None of this kind of thing would be affected. The only stuff that would be affected is the stuff you would go bananas about, if it personally was done to YOU and YOUR company, under YOUR real name, without YOUR permission. So please try to imagine harder. Heck, I'm editing here under my real world identity, and you're not even doing THAT. So what's the problem? Wikipedia is composed of mostly anonymous aditors and administrators who take no personal responsiblity for public actions, who seem bent on OUTING for the general net any obscure WP:V fact about any living person and any corporation they can think of, who makes it into the papers and can't limbo under the WP:NOTE guidelines (and the bar is even lower for corporations). This is just SICK. How come everybody here doesn't see that it's sick?? Talk about double standards! Well, you pay for those. Karma. SBHarris 20:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Sbharris... Click Special:Random several times, and tell me that even a majority of the things you find would be in a paper encyclopedia. I dare you. Grandmasterka 01:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

<-- Exactly the point, User:grandmasterka. There a a lot of really fine articles on WP - in the sciences, and Maths, and history, and philosophy, where there is a bulk of resources, and RELIABLE SOURCES going back centuries, ie. since well before Donald Duck was born. These scads of articles you see on Special:Recent changes, about the Simpsons, or Bratfest at Tiffany's, or Pokemon, or Evolution (wrestling) or Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo, etc,which by and large have ZERO RELIABLE SOURCES, well, they aint doing too much harm, i dont want to delete them and you dont know, User:Gm, whethe User:SBH wants to delete them, either. (Although without RS I wont bother reading them, usually.) And it doesnt seem to me that that (DELETE'm) is what SBHarris is saying at all. Newbyguesses - Talk 11:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NON_NOTABILITY

[edit] Response to NOTABILITY by SBHarris

21:06, 23 February 2008 Sbharris Notability: how Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot) 21:06, 23 February 2008 Sbharris (Talk | contribs) m (161,993 bytes) (→Notability: how Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot) (undo)

I find myself in general agreement with User:SBHarris. Weiss and Bagley may be slightly well-known figures in some circles in the USA, but world-wide they are about as notable as belly-lint (fluff). This undecorous battle of Lilliputians is the equivalent of a back-yard or over-the-back-fence dispute between two suburban nobodies, and we all know how much importance and sensible conversation is likely to accrue in such a situation. Even the police would be too bored to attend. Domestic arguments are the pits, that is well known to all law enforcement officers.

For an example of another article, or (soon, maybe) set of articles that is completely worthless to an encyclopedia try Kirkwood City Council shooting. WP is NOT A NEWSPAPER, nor should en.WP be simply a creative writing workshop for violence-obsessed ghouls, and perpetrators of UrbanMyths.

As an example of a BLP article on a notable subject, that is, one which would deserve an entry in a real encyclopedia, (of Music), you can look at Bad Boy Records; of course, it quite likely has other massive, problems, of [COI] but at least the subject is notable. And see a related BLP article, Sean Combs, aka the artist formerly known as PuffDaddy. Notable, yes, contentious, ditto. And possibly a bigger crook or "gangsta", than Weiss, according to Reliable sources available either in the article or at a LIBRARY.

Books are the real currency of information and knowledge, there is too much rubbish on-line that many people appear to take as gospel, especially paltry so-called "outings" and "attacks". Dont read it, and go write an encyclopedia! Ignore all fools. A computer screen is not the bible, just, usually, some person's opinion, presented as dazzling pixels. Infatuation with the latest toys is a well-known trait of adolesvcent males, ie. the majority of those who go on-line regularly, and a large segment of the WP editor pool. Ignore all fools.

(post-haste)Newbyguesses - Talk 01:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it isn't always clear what would constitute "semi-notable" and there is a lot of disagreement about what would be in that category. The most sensible standard in that regard is to include willing public figures, since public figures are people who society has a direct interest in knowing about and the willing ones don't have much of a cause for objection to have people write about them. Furthermore, using what is by all accounts an extreme example like this is not a good idea; exceptional cases make bad policy whether in government or Wikipedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] editprotected

[edit] from User talk:WordBomb

Mantanmoreland's threat

and the very next edit is by Mantanmoreland's sock

Let's see what wordbomb had to say.

[edit] protected

The /Evidence page is protected. I believe this material is acceptable, it is only DIFFs, and thus is verifiable, and definitely ON-WIKI. Would the clerk please add this to my evidence #Newbyguesses if that is in order, f i cannot add it myself, thanks. Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 12:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

N Not done Neither I nor any other admin has any intention of getting themselves blocked by editing this page. If the arbitrators want more evidence, they will unprotect the page so that it can be added. Happy‑melon 17:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It is a request to the clerk, rather than a sysop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As these are onwiki diffs, I've added them. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Runcorn's evidence?

I would also like to add evidence—from the heading below. Cool Hand Luke 08:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, can some one tell me what evidence connected Poetlister and Runcorn with those socks? I see the original report on Newport and two related, but I can't find evidence on Runcorn and Poetlister. It seems the only publicly posted similarities are their consistent votes together, which seems like weird evidence. One would expect editors with similar philosophy to !vote together, so I didn't even consider listing this. If the Committee considers this is convincing evidence, we should make a similar table for these two—I don't think they've ever disagreed with each other anywhere.
Note, I don't have any agenda here. I'm unfamiliar with prior cases, and I'm just trying to figure out what prior cases might have that this one lacks. Cool Hand Luke 09:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Is that a rhetorical question or do you really need a primer? In few other cases have the ruling cliche at wikipedia prematurely stepped into the swamp and pulled a foot up all muddy. But in this one, they did. So, standards are now going to be higher. I doubt if you'll get past them no matter how many stats you run, but it's fun to watch. Also, this is a cultural thing. Neither side likes the other's smell or politics. Wikipedia is run by bicoastal wine-drinkers who wouldn't be caught dead in one of those heartland states that starts with a vowel. Weiss is a NewYorker. SlimV is Canadian/Brit. Wikipedia is headed from Florida toward San Francisco, and they dang sure aren't going to stop in Idaho on the way. None of them give two craps about what happens to a bunch of yahoos running a company in the creosote bushes around Salt Lake City, that's for sure. And until the Mormon crap hit the fan, it would have stayed nice and peaceful with David Gerrard having blocked the whole bunch of them. But blogs are here, so it's not so easy. Mormons can use computers, even when ousted from Wikipedia. Drat. And that's the word. SBHarris 21:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What the heck? Cool Hand Luke 21:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and if any WR types are reading this, I checked all seven accounts listed below, and like MM/SH, they edited in solid blocks. Between all of them and over 10,000 edits combined, 30 minute interleaving occurred only 16 time on 14 days:
  • 4/23/2007 22:49 Newport
    4/23/2007 22:44 Runcorn
    4/23/2007 22:36 Newport
    4/23/2007 22:35 Newport
    4/23/2007 22:30 Newport
    4/23/2007 22:28 Newport
    4/23/2007 22:24 Runcorn
  • 2/15/2007 22:38 Runcorn
    2/15/2007 22:35 R613vlu
    2/15/2007 22:35 R613vlu
    2/15/2007 22:20 Runcorn
  • 1/31/2007 23:07 Runcorn
    1/31/2007 23:00 Brownlee
    1/31/2007 22:58 Brownlee
    1/31/2007 22:44 Runcorn
  • 12/28/2006 22:07 Runcorn
    12/28/2006 22:00 Taxwoman
    12/28/2006 21:29 Taxwoman
    12/28/2006 21:21 Runcorn
    12/28/2006 21:04 Taxwoman
    12/28/2006 20:49 Runcorn
  • 12/21/2005 20:36 Poetlister
    12/21/2005 20:17 Taxwoman
    12/21/2005 20:15 Newport
  • 12/20/2005 18:14 Londoneye
    12/20/2005 18:03 Newport
    12/20/2005 18:00 Taxwoman
  • 12/19/2005 12:54 Londoneye
    12/19/2005 12:50 Taxwoman
    12/19/2005 12:49 Taxwoman
    12/19/2005 12:43 Poetlister
  • 12/16/2005 (just listing days for simplicity...)
  • 12/15/2005
  • 12/11/2005
  • 12/02/2005
  • 11/20/2005
  • 11/10/2005
  • 8/11/2005
This case is exactly analogous—open proxies were used, and only 5 examples of interleaving within 30 minutes. Recall that comparison accounts with similar numbers of edits to SH/MM had 28-41 overlaps, with multiple back-and-forth edits on days when both were simultaneously online. Neither this case, nor the Runcorn case has any examples of such back-and-forth.
I'm therefore confident that all of the Runcorn accounts were in fact socks, but I would still like to know the evidence proffered. Cool Hand Luke 10:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[evidence moved to page] Luke, contact me if you want more background. Roughly 2/3 of the current Committee saw the original work. I was on one of the teams. And to comment generally, the two cases are somewhat analogous, but not perfectly identical. DurovaCharge! 05:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection has ended

The 2-day protection of the main evidence page has ended. I have not received any more instructions from the arbs, so I will say this:

  • Do not edit someone else's evidence section (unless you're an arb or a clerk). If you think something needs removed, ask the person first, then myself or an arb. This applies to BLP issues also.
  • Some wondered why I did not block Crum375. The reason is basicially that I felt it would not solve the situation, as SirFozzie also commented to that affect. When others backed off, others then joined in.
  • Let's move forward in as peaceful a manner as possible. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. If the arbs do not intend to rule, I would like to see what consensus is on whether it should be returned to Byrne's section. I don't think it is appropriate to remove it from Byrne's section (while stating that it is a link "to" a "BLP violation" as if external sites can themselves violate our policies), but to leave it in GWH's section. Maybe a calmer discussion could resolve the issue. Mackan79 (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The fact that Byrne's link was there for a full day in plain view before anyone removed appears to show that it was ok for it to be there. Request Rlevse add it back since he asked that no one edit someone else's evidence section. Cla68 (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally, esp since BADSITES was rejected by the community, I feel that if all wiki has is a link to an offwiki site that in itself would be a BLP vio if it were onwiki, it's okay to link to it as long as the BLP info isn't onwiki itself. That is my personal opinion and I'm open to discussion on the matter. I agree with Cla68 that we shouldn't have such links in one section but removed from another. So I'll put them back. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The arbitrators are generally aware of the external sites that have included lots of discussions relevant to this case. Unless there is a specific link containing an item of highly relevant information not already mentioned on the evidence page, we probably do not need any more links to these sites. I am not saying that such links are prohibited, but unless (as I said) they contain new and important information, they are not worth arguing about in the context of helping the arbitrators decide this case. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, we'll go with that. Thanks for the input. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Guys, remember, we (arbitrators, parties, involved editors, i.e. Wikipedians) probably aren't the only ones watching this case. This is a public forum. Allowing suppression of something presented by someone here, unless it clearly violates a policy, might not be perceived in a favorable way by outside observers. Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration case pages are designed to permit a wide expression of views. The primary purpose of these pages is to assist the arbitrators in reaching a fair, well-informed, and expeditious determination of each case. A second, but important, purpose is to allow other readers to formulate their own views, evidence, proposals, and comments on the issues presented. As a Clerk and now an arbitrator, I have repeatedly expressed the view that in general free expression on these pages should be welcome. Even this broad principle, however, has some limits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, since what P. Byrne posted and you redacted was simply a bowderized version of the Feb 19 article referenced above in the stalking section of GeorgeWilliamHerbert's evidence, you might have simply referred interested readers to THAT link, already up for some time: [20] Problem solved. I think adults can take it. However, the wider implications of what we are to do with this kind of exposé (again) I respectfully submit need to be thought out. Wikipedians who defend to the death the BLP policy for semi-notables, saying if information is public anywhere, it's the same as if it was on Wikipedia, are the same people who redact/oversight/and expunge such stuff when it appears on Wikipedia with a content they don't like (ie, is about THEM). This is a terrible double standard. There are many cases where stuff you can dig up elsewhere in newspapers or the web, is made ever-so-much-more potent and hurtful if it's easily available on Wikipedia. We all know this, deep down (yes we do) but whether or not its acknowledged, depends on whose ox is being gored at the moment. When "outing" editors who want to be anonymous, one standard applies. When writing about people who'd rather not be writen about in bios, some other standard applies. I merely suggest one standard for all: Golden rule. How about that? SBHarris 05:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I should like to express my support for Rlevse's comments here, and am satisfied that any actions he may have to take in future to maintain decorum on these pages will be appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll add that I think Rlevse has done a good job with this difficult case. Cla68 (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Speaking as an outside and interested observer in this case, I agree that Rlevse has done an excellent job keeping this under control. Dr. Extreme (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks guys! — Rlevse • Talk • 02:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Good job, as clerk Rlevse, thanks.
And, u:SBHarris, The Golden Rule - that would be Do unto others as you would have them do to you. Aim high, be considerate Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 06:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. That would include not blocking newbie people when they come to wikipedia claiming their companies and the people who run them, are being attacked by socks of a pissed-off and troubled economics journalist. Instead, their allegations should be checked out (we're 18 months late doing that). And we should think about the harm such stuff does to companies. But nobody did that, because they don't run a company. And so they didn't give a damn, apparently.

While I'm at it, let me observe that there's the golden rule, but also that a lot of ethics depends on who breaks it first. I have no involvement in this case, and know none of the parties. But I've read up on it all most carefully, including hundreds of diffs. Somebody came here complaining of sock editing of articles on shortselling and Overstock, and they were pounced on by "Mantanmoreland," acting like an admin (he isn't) and who threatened them with a block, followed very quickly with an indef block by an admin who liked Mantanmoreland. The newbie, feeling doubleteamed, then made the wiki-mistake of fighting back by trying to figure out who was screwing him. This rallied an amazing amount of Wikipedia SWAT team action like the Gerard Broadweave range block. But such things only delay the inevitable, because this is the internet, and Wikipedia doesn't control it. Unfortunately, the wheels of justice grind slowly and somebody, somewhere, is eventually going to have to admit that the original complaint had some merit, and was dealt with VERY badly. And that this is due to fundamental problems with the way Wikipedia is run. And as with the Brandt case, all this shitstorm was completely avoidable if somebody hadn't been so quick on the block trigger. Again and again, this place shoots itself in the foot. Just STOP. Imagine yourself indef-blocked. Imagine yourself running a maligned company. Imagine yourself under attack in a new media by faceless anons with infinite power, no accountability, and lots of special privilege (one of them got their IP address edits removed from the times they'd editted without noticing they weren't logged in-- do you think I could get that done for me? I doubt it). So when these kind of things happens, do newbies who are bitten, just roll over and take it? Some people won't. Bagley didn't. Though I don't agree with his methods, I have some admiration for the way he refused to just take it from a Starchamber. And IF you want to waste the ENORMOUS amount of time you're wasting with cases like this, you'll keep on doing what you're doing. But MY suggestion is: when you're in a hole, the first thing you might consider, is to STOP DIGGING. I've suggested some policy changes, and won't repeat them. But they're up for your consideration. And if you have better ideas, let's go someplace and discuss. SBHarris 06:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I for one have no idea who Sbharris is (I originally wrote "Newbyguesses" because I did not understand who to read this well). We have never communicated, I am sure. But sbharris has precisely described the Kafkaesque adventure that these 18 months have been. "Soylent Green is people! It's people!" Just kidding. No hard feelings, at least on our part. I am glad to see that some people are having the lightbulb go off about Judd (in my view, he is the good guy). And I am quite impressed catching up on how this arbitration discussion is being run. But I respectfully repeat what I wrote in that post to which I linked, that the real issue is not whether or not Judd's or my feelings are hurt (and I hope no one's here are bruised too badly, even SV's). What's important to get to is that there is a really bad financial problem brewing, a no-joke-tell-your-grandkids-about-it disaster, and the discourse about it has been terribly warped simply because the Wikipedia community here has not enforced its own rules. Please consider that a tribute to your significance. But it's also why, most respectfully, you folks must be non-Orwellian. If you allow stuff like letting an accused (Judd) not be named, not be heard from, and not be defended, then your project will become sealed in an equilibrium that is catastrophic for outsiders. PatrickByrne (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest people not edit war over the link, but rather that we have a ruling on Crum375's action, which does not appear to have been supported by any explanation. Unless I am missing something, it would seem appropriate for Crum to be blocked, pending further action. Mackan79 (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Byrne material Redacted

I have no problem with the way this was handled by the arbs and user:Patrick Byrne. Having now read most of what was posted at this time, I don't see any information there which, if it were true, would cause great injury to any person. There are no death threats, or even swearing.

Even if the material is blatantly false, as some have claimed, there does not appear to be anything particularly objectionable, other than what would then be an insult to "Verifiability". But, the question remains, and I cannot answer it; if this material were submitted for an article in mainspace, would it be allowed? It seems to me that the primary, if not the only question, would be regarding the reliability of the source.

Someone with more time to research the particular primary documents, and their online incarnations would be in a better position to judge. And, unless WP:BLP gets completely re=written, I cannot see that this particular material, in so far as I have now just read it for the first time, could be construed in any meaningful way as "attacking" or "denigrating" any particular editor, or individual, unless extremely thin-skinned. Equally, WP would have to be particularly hypocritical to dis-allow such material, provided the debate concluded that the original sources are Reliable Sources. After all, WP articles routinely contain "negative" information about companies, and people both live and dead, provided the sources qualify as reliable sources. Newbyguesses - Talk 07:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to say that, to date,
(all this can be proved, I think, or it is on the record)
I do not readf BLOG's on-line (that may now change).
I have never been involved with this situation or type of situation (BADSITES, socking) prior to the arbcom case.
I have never been involved with any of the parties, before the afAr/MM., ie.
I have never met, or heard of Patrick Byrne. or judd Bailey , nor GW, nor MM, or User:Samiharris, nor any others involved here
User:NewbyG is not a bot.
User:NewbyG is not a sock, or a clone, or a meatpuppet!!
user:newbyg, may, now that the air is cleared to an extent, I hope, feel that it is safe to visit sites that previously could get me into heaps of trouble. (BADSITES=failed).
But I probably still wont, because, too often, ELs crash my 'puter.
I hope, i am clear, and respectful of all parties and observers.
And, in line with long-established tradition, I reserve the right to squeal like a pig wearing lipstick if i percieve i have been attacked, whilst continuing to make personal attacks whenever I like against others - JUst Kidding! lol Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 10:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "harassment campaign by executives of Overstock.com, including its CEO"

Wow, BLP, anyone? Crum? Dorftrottel (talk) 17:27, February 26, 2008

Good for the goose, good for the gander. That's a total BLP violation. Lawrence § t/e 17:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not a BLP violation. Everything in the section is well sourced. But if we are going to talk "BLP violation," them all the references to/accusations concerning Gary Weiss must be removed from all these pages for the same reason. Throughout this Arbcom and previously, in many pages, people are using their OR, such as charts they've concocted, to "prove" that a BLP is editing Wikipedia. These are mass and very blatant BLP violations. Yet you have the gall to perpetuate that, while objecting to my adding a section that is based upon reliable sourcing. Hell, an entire section of Overstock.com is devoted to Bagley and his smear campaign. At one point it was considered notable enough to warrant an article of its own (which I opposed, by the way). --Mantanmoreland (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
We routinely conduct COI and sockpuppetry investigations to determine this sort of thing. You are not a special person. Lawrence § t/e 18:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be allowed as Mantanmoreland's response. I personally don't believe Jimbo or Patrick Byrne are the root cause of this arbitration, but I respect MM's right to state otherwise. Mackan79 (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find the word "harassment" in any of off wiki articles sourced. Maybe it is a problem of semantics. Could there be a better, more NPOV way to write the section title "harassment campaign by executives of Overstock.com, including its CEO"? It seems over the top (but hey, it's not my evidence). daveh4h 18:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I admit I posted it here partly for the heck of it. Obviously, nobody other than himself will edit his evidence, but I for one would appreciate if it could be toned down a notch. Also, as per daveh4h right above, the word "harassment" is not found in any reliable source, so it constitutes doubtful original research to say the very least. Dorftrottel (harass) 18:15, February 26, 2008

The "harassment" part is straight out of an Arbcom decision.[21].

1) AntiSocialMedia.net, a creation of the banned user WordBomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), is part of an extended campaign of harassment directed at several users. Passed 7-0 at 20:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Judd Bagley has openly acknowledged that he runs ASM, and that he is WordBomb. Bagley is director of communications of Overstock.com.

But seriously, if you feel this is a BLP issue, please make that case. We will then need to be sure to revisit all of the numerous, blatant BLP violations spread over at least five and maybe more pages.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Relax. I'm just arguing toning it down a bit in the interest of decorum. Why join in on the bad language? Dorftrottel (complain) 18:28, February 26, 2008
That finding was a reduced version of your own proposal, before the evidence in this case was presented. Mackan79 (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know if it is a BLP violation, because if I read it right the reason why MM and SH, or the other alleged socks, edited in non-interweaving blocks at the same time of day - using the same abbreviations, word forms, etc. on a series of related articles - is because of the off-Wiki campaign by a third individual. This must be some sort of incredibly resourceful guy who is capable of making other different editors behave like sockpuppets... I mean, MM's evidence is all about rebutting the statistics and interpretations that have been used in proposing that MM has abused alternative accounts, and offering different comparisons and analysis, rather than simply attempting to smear the process by association (with the individual against whom it is alleged that he misused alternative accounts to counter in articles on Wikipedia).</pedantically ironic mode "off"> LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of the section is to state the obvious, which is that this case originated from an official of Overstock.com and is part of a sustained and well publicized smear campaign against critics, and which encompasses Wikipedia. I think this is a factor that Arbcom needs to take into consideration, though I assume much of that is well known to Arbcom anyway. No Less, I don't think the "snow em with numbers" avalanche of meaningless "statistics" deserves much in the way of response, or the constant bitching about alternative accounts that haven't been used in 15 months.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
And that's relevant why? This case is about your behavior, not that of any others who may allegedly be operating a "harassment campaign" against you or others. It's a clear case of attempted misdirection, like a magician trying to distract the audience's attention to something else while he causes the objects of his trick to "appear" or "disappear". *Dan T.* (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there's a lot of misdirection in this case, but that this is on point. Remember that an Arbcom case looks at the behavior of all parties concerned, and in this case there is a sizable component of off-wiki stalking, very openly originating at Overstock. Heck the CEO himself posted here.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
returning to the real world, Mantanmoreland, this is about a campaign of harrassment directed at Overstock and its executives (that means me), and any attempt on our part to expose what is going on is met with this nonsensical charge. I believe your claim is all blue-smoke-and-mirrors, which is why you fight to fight to keep it from being examined by neutral Wikipedians. PatrickByrne (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crum375 edit warring again in violation of AC decision

[22]. Lawrence § t/e 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Per at least one arb, ArbCom is aware of this evidence, and therefore there is no overriding need to violate our own BLP policy. Crum375 (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
He said that when the link was in place, and also said that editors should not edit others' evidence sections, even for BLP. I'd suggest not proceeding further without a discussion. Seeing that Crum repeated the removal, I suggest that Crum's account be blocked considering this is the second time it has started this disruption of the case. Mackan79 (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
He said ArbCom is aware of this information, therefore there is no need to violate WP:BLP. Crum375 (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I am officially asking an admin to block you for a combination of WP:POINT, WP:3RR, and WP:DISRUPTION if you do this again. You were previously warned. Lawrence § t/e 21:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I think I have to agree with Lawrence. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have already notified Rlesve and the clerk's noticeboard about the resumption of edit warring. Let the clerks handle it. GRBerry 21:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
My turn to be confused. He's removing links that are about as blatant BLP violations as are imaginable. The title of the link says it all: "pscychopath." For that he is blocked?--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
He is editing other peoples evidence, which can only be done by Clerks/Arbs, and had been warned not to do so unilaterally just a few days ago. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You might be aware, incidentally, that portions of Weiss' site compare the other side of this to Nazi war criminals; such, unfortunately, is the state of the dialogue. At least from my perspective, it wouldn't help to say that we can't allow links to any of the off-Wikipedia material. Mackan79 (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have fully protected the page whilst waiting for a clerk to sort this out. Please do not edit the evidence page until a Clerk or Arb responds. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

All users were specifically told not to edit others sections and that if they had concerns to take it to myself, another clerk, or an arb. He didn't do that. He was also told today to cease by others and he didn't. I had no choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Page unprotected. I fully back Rlevse's actions in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I feel like I'm gettting confused

This started as an evaluation of mantanmoreland's alleged abuse of the community through the use of sockpuppets. A fair bit of onwiki circumstantial evidence (remember dna evidence is circumstantial also) has been produced. Has any sort of explaination of the appearant sockpuppetry and abuse of communitry trust been presented? I havn't seen it, but mantanmoreland seems to be argueing as if it has? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Has any explanation been advanced by me to excuse what I didn't do? No, I haven't offered one. Sorry for the confusion.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Then my suggestion to you would be to make such an explaination. In the absence of such, many folks are going to assume you are admitting guilt by silence. This is not the USA, where there is a presumption of innocence. There is only a presumption of "good faith" here. That is quite different. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Recheck the first sentence of his post - he says he didn't do anything he has been accused of... Whitstable 21:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Then he needs to explain some of these conincedences in some way. The assertion of innocence is just the first step, fortunately or unfortunately in this type proceeding it all has to be backed up with some kind of explaination. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The strength of the evidence here ranges from conservative to midrange to speculative. On the conservative side, for instance, Fred Bauder warned Mantanmoreland for checkuser-confirmed sockpuppeting on the Lastexit account. Mantanmoreland has acknowledged the warning but has not ever stated whether the warning was merited or not. If not, then a specific statement of some kind ought to be forthcoming. Occasionally two different editors visit each other and use the same computer, but positive checkuser results are presumptively accurate unless a good explanation follows. On the other hand, if Mantanmoreland did sock on that occasion and learned his lesson, then that might be an adequate explanation also...if he would only say so, which he hasn't. Instead his response has been that this is ancient history and we shouldn't be asking about it. Well, whether or not Mantanmoreland in particular ran any sockpuppets at all, I don't accept the premise behind that response because sooner or later Wikipedia is bound to run across some actual sockpuppeteer who got caught early on, then wised up and figured out how to run a sock account successfully for a year. Policy violation doesn't legitimize itself over time. If Mantanmoreland cares about stable precedents and the overall functioning of the project, then he ought to be willing to answer at least the conservative questions such as that one. He doesn't even offer a plausible explanation. Instead he raises a straw man argument about proving a negative. That is not at issue; good faith already gives him an advantage. Yet he refuses to avail himself of it. DurovaCharge! 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Path not taken

An enormous number of words have been printed here. BUT: If MM is not GW, all MM needs to do is email ArbCom with evidence of his real life identity. If Samiharris is not MM, all he has to do is email ArbCom with evidence of his identity. These two emails would resolve the issue instantly. The fact that neither of these two things have happened would seem to be very significant, aside from the cumulative significance of the other evidence which has been amassed. BCST2001 (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, silence sometimes screams very loudly. Mantanmoreland has been asked very pointedly on his TALK page what he was doing in Oct 2006 when his timezone editing shifted around the world at the time GW was getting married in India. No answer. And then of course MM writing on Wikipedia, and Weiss writing in other medium, both mention the dinky town of Varkala, India. Too much coincidence! BUT, I think that They Who Rule have more or less admited that GW = MM, but consider that this is permitted since GW doesn't edit under his own name, and everybody has to have an anon. user-name if they don't use their own. SlimVirgin, in another forum, has all but confirmed the relationship when she said publically that she e-mailed MM and asked him not to edit the GW bio. The real problem is not that, but that MM STARTED the GW bio! Admitedly, you can't expect anybody to sit by while their bio, which they didn't start, is marked up with inaccuracies by others, and if you don't edit under your own name, you probably have no choice but to fix it any way you can (alternatively, this is one of the few times I can think of that it might be permissable to create a single purpose account under your own name, so you can openly fix your own bio-- what a mess allowing BLP for semi-notables is). BUT in this case, since GW appears to have STARTED his own bio under a Wiki-penname, he appears to have been asking for trouble, and found it. As for Samiharris and other socks, that's another can of worms and I'm going to hold comment. SBHarris 23:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is conceded. Mantanmoreland continues to deny it. That said, editing outside of their suspicious gaze is one plausible motive for starting a sockpuppet. The timing is sensible too. SlimVirgin reported sending the email to Mantanmoreland in November 2006, Samiharris was set up in January 2007, and Mantanmoreland phased out of those articles over the year—especially in mid-September, when it's known that Jimbo sent a listserve email about his suspicions. Cool Hand Luke 23:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not mandate that its participants share their real-life identity under any circumstances except those involving access to sensitive data. Proposals endorsing such a mandate have had no support whatsoever in the community. Further, there is no meaningful evidence of real identity that MM (or any other user) could email to Arbcom that could not easily be spoofed. If MM and Sami both emailed scans of their purported driver's license to arbcom, I doubt that either the arbcom or the community would consider it the end of the matter. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
With respect, you're wrong about the spoofing. The modern Western financial world would crumble to dust if identifies could not be confirmed remotely. Anybody can fax a statement which is signed and notarized, and notaries are bonded and licensed, and must confirm identities (and know how to). You get the driver license PLUS the word of somebody who has checked it personally AND is an agent of the State. A bank wire transaction of $1 would also required a walk-in and identity check. My brokerage house hasn't met me, but they know my identity. These problems have been SOLVED. I'm tired of people on Wikipedia pretending they haven't. SBHarris 23:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There is way for us to guarantee that the person who sends us a signed and notarized statement is in fact the editor we seek. It could be someone's roommate, for all we know, or a destitute person who they paid $100 to for the service. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not a question of "mandating" that they share their real-life identity. But given the amount of words and effort that have gone into this, it cannot but be significant that the simplest, quickest and clearest solution has been assiduously avoided. Especially since doing so would not mean revealing their identity to anyone other than the ArbCom. I find it very hard to believe that there is no way for a user to verify their identity to ArbCom, if that is what they want to do. If the connections between MM, SH, and GW do not exist, it is certainly remarkable that this very simple approach to solving the problem has been neglected. BCST2001 (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, you may have divined from the Doran and the Essjay fiascos that Wikipedia has a sort of don't ask and don't tell policy about real world credentials. They are anticredentialists, and proud of it. But at the same time, they allow their people to run amok, sometimes. One of the HighWikis told an Overstock editor to "fuck off" and blocked an entire IP range without checking what it was, while Jimbo's uncaring comment was "shoot on sight." And this wasn't in regard to some bunch of vandals blanking pages and writing POOP, where "shoot on sight" is actually appropriate. No, THOSE people are endlessly coddled and coddled. This was about a (fairly) adult disagreement between some highly intelligent people about a pretty arcane subject in finance. Reading the various anti-wikipedia blog sites, I'm rather amazed at how many high-class enemies WP is managing to generate for itself, and for reasons that are completely unnecessary. The people criticizing wikipedia are not evil people out to make problems because they didn't think of Wikipedia first (which I think is the party line at WikiMedia). Neither do POOP-writing vandalizers write erudite blog analysis. No, these folks doing the damage to Wikipedia's reputation in circles that count on the internet right now, are mostly people of good faith who've been genuinely mistreated on Wikipedia in some way, and are really, really angry about it. And now some of these people are on the outside of the tent, peeing in. When instead, with decent past oversight of administrative power-abuse, and some fixing of policy regarding BLP, most would otherwise still be inside the tent, peeing out. What a lost chance. SBHarris 04:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I mostly agree with sbharris in this thread. A little more thought on this issue years ago and we don't all have to know more about naked investors without shorts than we want to. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Not entirely in agreement here. Most of the bans that have been done on Wikipedia are done correctly, and I have found the exercise of digging into "erudite blog analysis" written by sitebanned editors to be a low batting average activity. Wikipedia and its volunteers don't always get it right, but what human activity is ever perfect? It's necessary to examine each potential case on its own merits, based upon the stengths and weaknesses of its own evidence. People who style themselves as critics help neither themselves nor the causes they espouse when they paint with too broad a brush. DurovaCharge! 04:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The {{fact}} tag probably applies to statements that "most of the bans that have been done on Wikipedia are done correctly". *Dan T.* (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Sbharris, my point is that, regardless of whether there is a "don't ask/don't tell" type policy, those who want to reveal themselves to the ArbCom surely can, and surely can without revealing their identity to the rest of the community. If MM or SH wanted to prove to the ArbCom's satisfaction that they are not GW, and that they are different people, they surely could do that without anybody in the general community needing to know who they in fact are. The fact that this easy and effective option has not been exercised by these two users, I find telling. BCST2001 (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Today's edit war and block

As can be seen by Evidence page history of the last several minutes, User:Crum375 started editing other's sections and came very close to 3RR. Everyone was warned about this and I warned him specifically on his talk page too. I have blocked him for 31 hours. I hope no more blocks will be needed nor any more page protections. I hope no valid edits were lost when I restored the page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone else beat me to the restoration ;-). — Rlevse • Talk • 21:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Page protection, Thatcher protected the page, DO NOT unprotect it without arbcom direction. I agree totally with Thatcher the page no longer serves its purpose. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not fair or necessary. I have not finished presenting evidence, including diffs. I agree about protecting the Workshop, but disagree about Evidence.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You can present evidence here, and request the Clerk to include it on the main page - following the conclusion per Thatchers comments below. As the case revolves around you I see no reason why the evidence would not be included. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I will Ask Arbcom to review the situation, and they may agree with you, or you can post your evidence to a personal subpage and the clerks will post it for you. Note (to all) that the top of the evidence page it says "Argument is not evidence." Thatcher 21:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. I think on balance you were right to protect the page and end the anarchy. I do not think the block was warranted.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
If doing something the Committee explicitly said not to do, despite also being warned by nearly a dozen users on top of that not to do it, isn't grounds for blocking if you do it 10+ times over 72 hours, what is? Lawrence § t/e 22:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This is absolutely ridiculous. I had to protect the page twice already this week, for the same editor and the same reason. I certainly endorse this block - Alison ❤ 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse block. Unfortunate but necessary. DurovaCharge! 22:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Jesus he did it a third time? I thought two reverts and a warning would have got the message across. Block endorsed fully. ViridaeTalk 22:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with block wholeheartedly, I warned Crum375 about insulting us editors and the Arbitrators, but they went ahead anyway, how disrespectful is that. Crum375 should have been blocked not for 31 hours, but for 31 years. Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 02:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
31 years? That's excessive. DurovaCharge! 02:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

The evidence page is protected for 24 hours pending a review by Arbcom. Further discussion consolidated on the workshop talk page, please. Thatcher 21:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is the evidence protected? This particular disruption comes from a single user, who is now blocked. Cool Hand Luke 22:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Pls see above threads. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I see them. Seems to be a one-user problem though. Please add my section below:
I don't see the need for protection while the problematic editor is blocked, either. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
FT2 is reviewing the edits to the evidence and workshop pages prior to making a decision on protection. There are more issues here than the argument over a single link, including (but not limited to) various claims that evidence and workshop comments violate BLP with respect to one individual or the other. Thatcher 01:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cool Hand Luke, trying to use page for intended purpose

Please add this section:

Y Done

May I edit here? Cool Hand Luke 23:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the talk page is not protected or restricted-standard rules apply to the talk pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, I would prefer if Mantanmoreland's reply go into his section, not mine. I asked if I could edit because I wanted to be courteous, if he wanted his snark added to evidence. My reply would have been that I have no "W vendetta" whatsoever, shown in part from how I consistently use the abbreviation "W". I really would like to be discrete as practicable. Cool Hand Luke 10:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see that. Fixed. Thatcher 11:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] review

Note to clerks. I am looking at this dispute that has led to admin tools being needed. Please leave protection on, pending fuller comment. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Crum - A careful look has suggested that the concerns others have expressed are not misplaced. When the block expires, I would ask you heed the clerks' and others' view on this. (Apologies for the rush note, will comment on the BLP issue upon my return.) FT2 (Talk | email) 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Important correction

Please see this important correction to my vector space evidence. As many have commented on the influence of the previous results on their perceptions of this case, I urge everyone to take a look in case the new results alter conclusions that people have drawn. Apologies to all for the error. alanyst /talk/ 00:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't know that it changes any minds. I'm glad he's kept at the data and evaluation, though. It is important to not be static with these things. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Very honorable of you to point out and correct your error. I hope people do pay good attention to the revised evidence, to avoid the taint of prejudgement and confirmation bias based on conclusions previously reached based on the incorrect evidence. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DanT, It does behove folks to re-review the evidence and explainations based on analyst's work. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Gets back to what I thought all along, which at worst, would be that SamiHarris is a meatpuppet of Mantanmoreland and more likely that SH and MM are just editing buddies.--MONGO 01:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this important correction. DurovaCharge! 01:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Editing buddies who edit at the same times, but never at the same time? That's not plausible. Cool Hand Luke 10:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Are they supposed to edit at the exact same minute?--MONGO 10:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It's unlikely they would have not. Of the accounts with most similar editing times, only one of the best matches had no same-minute edits, and this account, User:Anthon01, just started editing in late October, when Mantanmoreland's edits were minimal, and has had collisions since 2007. It's incredible that these wouldn't have more than 5 interleaved edits during their whole time here. Moreover, I think you dismiss the revised evidence too quickly. Mantanmoreland is still the best match for Samiharris. Cool Hand Luke 10:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Luke here. The lack of overlap would be understandable if these two accounts were active during different times of day, but their average time stamp is only 10 minutes apart. These are both fairly prolific accounts. Over that many edits two random accounts from the same time zone will show both overlap and interleaving. Common sense suggests that two different people who edit the same articles and communicate offsite would be even more likely to overlap, since they'll have some phone conversations or Internet chats about their common interests. Unless, of course, they either shared the same computer or were really one person. This has been used before on other investigations and when it correlates with other evidence (such as the Varkala shift) it's significant. Mantanmoreland has had ample opportunity to provide an alternate explanation and has offered none. I suggested applying this here on exactly the same basis as previous investigations. If interleaving had been present, then the whole business could have ended quickly. DurovaCharge! 19:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I might change my mind iff SH returns and gives his personal account of how things went down from his perspective. Dorftrottel (warn) 02:54, February 27, 2008

Just a point here: If I were trying to disguise my identity in order to distance myself from my main account, I would try to be as bland as possible. I would thus use as few distinctive words or phrases or tricks with punctuation as possible. This restraint would not apply to my main account, which would continue to use whatever phrases etc. it always did. This would produce a pattern of correlations similar to what is observed in Analyst's revised evidence. (I had thought that the Piper down edit summary similarity might be due to using the same words, but the obvious "section header" thing escaped me as well. Silly.) Relata refero (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A question about OR, NPOV

I was of the inderstanding that Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view were article standards which certainly apply in mainspace, on the articles. However, I do not see, as Mantanmoreland is now claiming and repeating, that these article standards apply in Wikipediaspace, or on talk pages as written.

Certainly, Verifiability probably applies to the extent that an ubsubstantiated claim may need to be corrected, and Neutral point of view is probably a good ides for any participant in any debate, but I do not think the policy is written in such a way to enforce NPOV in WPspace, as Mantanmoreland tries to claim.

And as for OR, which again is an article(s) policy, there is nothing I find to prohibit ORIGINAL RESEARCH ON A TALK PAGE, OR WIKIPEDIASPACE. Original research goes on all the time on the talk pages, as editors speculate as to where evidence might lie, and what it might reveal, etc. The only restriction which seems valid to me (other than the vexed BLP issue, about which the only thing i am sure of is that Crum375 (talk · contribs) is a crumb) is that the posts to a talk page are meant to be relevant to that page's project page. So, posting a screed of utter ORIGINAL RESEARCH about say, the usage of "Ignore all rules" to the talk -page for Bad Boy Records say, would be wrong, but posting such a screed of OR to the talk page for Wikipedia:Ignore all rules would be fine, and it happens all the time.

So, not only does Mantanmoreland utterly fail, as Crum375 does, to understand WP's policies, but as well, Mantanmoreland continues to express his view of policy as if it is gospel, handed down to him on a tablet of stone by Jimbo himself. And Mantanmoreland continues to dodge answering direct questions, and raise utterly spurious objections to the Verkala evidence, which is the most damning evidence against him, even taking into accout the above Important Correction. Actually, that new valuation of the evidence appears to strengthen the case against Mantanmoreland and SamiHarris. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I cannot support Mantanmoreland's interpretation of WP:NOR. Sockpuppet and conflict of interest investigations almost always involve independent research on the part of Wikipedians. What is the alternative? Take these matters to the press so that they can then be referred to reliably? The purpose of WP:COIN and to some extent WP:SSP is for this website to keep its own house in order so that public embarrassment need not happen. Even checkuser would be affected by MM's line of reasoning, since checkuser requests must be based upon something. If not research then what? Rumor and innuendo? DurovaCharge! 03:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see an awful lot of sense in trying to apply No original research and Neutral point of view to the evidence or workshop (which is meant to be public analysis and comment on evidence) pages of an arbitration case. The key behavioral principle that applies here is No personal attacks -- which in its simplest form means it is ok to say, "I disagree with Thatcher's interpretation of the evidence" but it's not ok to say "Thatcher is a raving loon." A secondary principle in this case is the Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) principle, but this does not mean "Say only nice things about people." It means, "Say things which are supported by sources." Thus, "Smith has engaged in a campaign of harassment against Jones" is fine if it is supported by evidence (and in this case is googleable even) but "Smith is an obsessed nutcase" is not. On the other side of the coin, "Jones was editing in bad faith long before Smith ever joined Wikipedia" is a statement of opinion of the strength of a particular set of evidence and seems to me to be entirely permissable as long as it does not deteriorate into "Jones was a bigger jerk than Smith." (Generally, I can not think of a less helpful argument in an arbitration case than for two groups to line up and shout "Yes you did!" "No I didn't!" "Yes you did!" "Well, he started it first!" at each other.
As far as the potential identity of Mantanmoreland and Samiharris to any particular living person is concerned, I expect Arbcom will bypass it completely. I think you should expect to see a finding of fact along the lines of "Mantanmoreland and Samiharris are either Gary Weiss himself, or someone closely associated with him professionally and personally" and leave it at that. It was never a focus of this case to prove that the one equals the other. If his edits are fair and his behavior reasonable, then it does not matter if he is Weiss; if his edits are biased in favor of Weiss and against Weiss' off-wiki enemies and his behavior questionable, then it is not necessary to prove he actually is Weiss in order to take action. Thatcher 03:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:List of policies does a pretty good job of giving a broad taxonomy to all the various policies. I'll echo Thatcher's good point above that while our content policies don't apply to things that aren't content, it's still important in any arbitration to make sure that your comments are supported by evidence. --bainer (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed that it's important to support opinionss with evidence (and pretty much all of Thatcher's comments). I was writing with reference to a particular assertion by Mantanmoreland that would have dismissed commentary based upon evidence as a violation of WP:NOR. Taken to its logical conclusion, that line of reasoning would practically shut down the evidence and workshop pages of any arbitration case. DurovaCharge! 04:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, lots going on here while I took a brief break from this afternoon's flurry of activity. Durova and Thatcher make some very good points and I agree with pretty much all of it. I'll be off for the night soon and hope to find things calm in the morning. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thatcher "...Thus, "Smith has engaged in a campaign of harassment against Jones" is fine if it is supported by evidence (and in this case is googleable even)"--I googled both bagley harassment weiss and byrne harassment weiss because I believed this is what you were getting at but for some reason did not state so clearly. I come across this blog a lot, and similar niche places, but nothing caught my eye as a reliable source.
MM entered evidence today called "harassment campaign by executives of Overstock.com, including its CEO". This statement was not backed by reliable sources. This statement, by MM's admission, is sourced by Arbcom![23] Many have fallen into the trap of repeating things they've heard over and over from "respected editors", mailing lists and pronouncements by arbcom, without questioning it or its interpretation. It is part of the reason this case is here. That is why I believe this statement should be questioned. I understand others may have already accepted this as truth, since many are very familiar with the issue, so excuse me; I am not as familiar with this issue.
What makes this statement different is that it is not a charge against an editor for some violated Wikipedia policy, it is a charge against a host of people, a charge which is a crime! Sockpuppeting or POV pushing on Wikipedia is not a crime--harassment is in many places. Do you see the difference? You must not confuse Wikipedia language and "crimes" with real world language and crimes.
Now I understand that a lot of people here think the overstock folk are odious and all that, but at least consider the distinction presented here for future arbcoms. After all, it may be one of us at the bad end of one of these cases one day, and I'd sure appreciate if that line was drawn. I bet you would too.
Is it a <insert policy name> vio? I don't know. Is it a statement that is alleging impropriety, perhaps even a criminal action? Sure. What is BLP anyway?  ;-) daveh4h 06:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
First, I stand corrected on the google comment. I was thinking of "harassment campaign by executives of Overstock.com, including its CEO", which produces blogs on both sides and a CNN story, but upon reading the story it is actually about another company. Still, we have to make a distinction between article space and project space. To say that evidence, and negative conclusions drawn from that evidence, about real people, is barred from arbitration, would be to invalidate the entire process. This process exists to evaluate the conduct of editors, all of whom are real people, all of whose identities are either known or potentially discoverable. You might want to review a number of past Arbitration cases, including Rachel Marsden, Warren Kinsella, Durova, Derek Smart, Bluemarine and IRC, all of which concern the on-wiki behavior of people whose real names are known. We need to be sensitive to Bagley, Byrne and Weiss but we need not hamstring the process by requiring the same standards of sourcing and instant removal that we do for article space. It is a reasonable interpretation of certain off-wiki events to state that Overstock.com has engaged in a campaign of harassment against certain journalists (although obviously not everyone will share that interpretation), and Mantamoreland can say so if he feels it defends or mitigates his own conduct. Likewise it is a reasonable view (although not one shared by all) that journalist Weiss has defended a particular stock selling practice that others dispute and that is the subject of multiple lawsuits, and editors are free to cite that as part of the evidence suggesting that Mantanmoreland has edited with a conflict of interest. What is required is that editors treat each other with a reasonable degree of respect and courtesy and that they avoid excess rhetoric, name-calling and pissing contests. Thatcher 12:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection ending

After conferring with the arbs, protection of the page will end in a few minutes. Further disuption will result in initial blocks of 24 hours - 1 week. Repeat offenders will be blocked 48 hours - 2 weeks. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Per email and on-wiki comments from Arbcom (and pending any corrections) editors who make what are considered to be personal attacks on other editors or real people may be asked to refactor or remove the comments, but the comments (as long as they are signed and attributed) should not be removed by other editors. Edit warring and other disruptive behavior shall be grounds for brief blocks. The Arbitrators will consider such comments (and the editors who made them) as part of their overall evaluation of the case. Thatcher 21:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Strictly enforced, I've noticed.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
What? Thatcher 12:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
"Chewbacca defense," G-Dett's latest attack. I can't say two words without being attacked.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Your saying "two words" is a violation of our No Personal Attacks policy. I suggest you refactor. You have been warned. In extreme cases we have been known to put disparaging templates on people's user pages. Be afraid. Be very afraid. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a problem discriminating sarcasm from seriousness today, I think. I think that Dan's entire "Chewbacca Defense" post reflects poorly on him as an editor, and his apparent point (that Mantanmoreland's defense has not addressed the evidence in a substantive way) could have been made much less dramatically. It would be nice if he removed it and made his point some other way. Thatcher 14:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
My point was simply that trolling like this [24] was more the rule than the exception, that this entire case has come to resemble a subsection of Wikipedia Review.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Well said, Thatcher. DurovaCharge! 14:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that wasn't a particularly useful way (for Dan, not G-Dett) to make that valid point. GRBerry 14:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me for trying to make my point in a clever, entertaining way instead of dull and dry. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
A less biting wit would go over better. DurovaCharge! 16:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SlimVirgin's evidence

I was wondering if someone could explain why, if SlimVirgin asked Mantanmoreland to stop in November 2006, he clearly didn't stop until September 2007—or in the case of naked short selling (counting that also as a COI), December 2007. Moreover, does this evidence not suggest a motive for creating a Samiharris sockpuppet account—to avoid suspicious scrutiny, as I've previously argued? Cool Hand Luke 22:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Plausible, but prone to confirmation bias. DurovaCharge! 22:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that.
About the general thrust of SV's evidence re MM, it seems she's just putting it all out there and its up to us to work out what happened.
I definitely don't think that her description of the proceedings leading up to her indefblock quite gels, given what's been discussed on Wikback, but someone else can handle that. Relata refero (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
What doesn't gel? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree; I think this is her fair account.
Durova: I'm just stating that insofar that Mantanmoreland might have believed people were watching his edits for potential COI, he would have known that respected users were watching him by November 2006. If he wanted to continue editing in this area, he would have a clear motive to create a sock. I'm not presenting it as evidence—there's tons of that—just as motive. Cool Hand Luke 23:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. DurovaCharge! 23:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have two questions, if I may: First, could SV or someone else clarify that WordBomb readded his allegation to the GW article at 21:49 on July 7, 2006? I had surmised that was not the case, since WordBomb conceded not to post further at 20:28.[25] Second, was it actually a specific IP that matched between Samiharris and the IP thought to be WordBomb? On this, I am not sure there is a very strong indication either of these were WordBomb,[26][27] but the statement that they matched IPs also seems to go beyond what Thatcher said. I wonder if either point could be clarified. Mackan79 (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Those two IPs are proxify.com proxies as of today, simply go to http://70.85.195.230 or http://67.15.76.116 to see for yourself. It is assumed those edits were made by Wordbomb, and Judd admitted in an email to me to having experimented with Proxify.com to see how it worked. Those IPs were also used more than a year later by Samiharris. It seems obvious that those two IPs are long-term stable proxies, and there is certainly no technical method to determine anything about those edits one way or another. Given Bagley's apparent impatience with this matter (such as sending out emails containing tracking links only two weeks after being initially banned), I personally find it hard to envision him having the patience to maintain the Samiharris account for more than a year before springing the trap. Thatcher 23:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Adding to other comments about possible JB = SH, there's a much lower likelihood that JB would successfully imitate a different prose style. People who aren't trained as writers who try that tactic generally attempt a dumbed-down straw man approach. And that scenario doesn't account for the Varkala time shift. In fairness to SlimVirgin, this scenario does have some plausible points: I wouldn't put it past someone who's known to have attached tracking software to e-mail to try such a scheme, and it would dovetail nicely with a throwaway sock asking for checkuser and with the SH account suddenly going quiet when the result came back. It's something I weighed during the early days of this investigation, actually, but there are too many other unaccounted aspects so I discarded it quickly. DurovaCharge! 00:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the explanation. I simply noticed that the IP appears to have been used by a non-native speaker of English in September '06, which suggests a recent edit from that proxy would no longer connect to a previous user.[28] (I'm not sure the original assumption that this would necessarily be Bagley is safe in any case). I just want to clarify in any case I'm reading "those IPs" to mean the specific IP's and not simply proxify IPs generally. If so, that simply leaves my question of whether Bagley replaced the allegation to GW at 21:49. (I apologize for nitpicking, but these are points I've wanted to settle). Mackan79 (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
      • (ec) As well as 67.15.76.116 and 70.85.195.230, they also shared 67.15.76.111. See this and this. Note: I'm not saying I think this is or isn't significant. I'm not in a position to judge. I've asked two admins who are familiar with how anonymizers and open proxies work. One thought it wasn't surprising; the other one thought it was. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I notice all three feature the same Norwegian editor, which along with other factors seems to throw a kink in the theory (or indeed suggest that Proxify uses a very small number of IPs). Either way, would you address my second question about the edit at 21:49? This is what I tried to clarify earlier. Mackan79 (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Slim, like you I'm no expert in anonymizers and open proxies, but I do think a layperson such as myself, even if not able to evaluate what you're suggesting, should at least be able to understand it. Why would it be significant at all that two different people have used the same open proxy? I thought an open proxy was by definition shared. This only seems "unlikely" in the sense that I am about to roll double sixes is unlikely. Unlikely things happen; only when they arrange themselves into a pattern do they become significant. Here, there is no surrounding pattern; two editors who appear to hate each other both rolled double sixes, on different dates. Also, if User:Samiharris were a shill created by Wordbomb to implicate Mantan, why wouldn't Wordbomb do the obvious thing and have Sami edit a Mantanmoreland post? This after all is precisely how Mantan got caught with his previous puppets. You write that your second admin-expert "said that the two being assigned the same IP addresses so far apart was so unlikely as to be almost unbelievable." I'm trying to understand this statement. Why the emphasis on "so far apart"? If we're talking about a stable proxy IP, why should it be surprising that it would remain stable over time? Finally, and I'm sorry about the implications of asking this, but is your second admin Crum?--G-Dett (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It obviously depends on the nature of the proxy. Some Tor nodes come and go quickly, others are very stable. A misconfigured server with an open http port could disappear at any time. These are clearly long-term stable proxies, so that needs to be factored into consideration. Thatcher 12:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
But you're also talking about edits that WB supposedly made in 2006, compared to much more recent edits by Samiharris, while the contrib lists are clear that multiple editors have used them in that time. I don't believe the initial edits were WordBomb either, but unless MM is pursuing this theory don't see the need to get into it. Mackan79 (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
WordBomb accuses me of doing things he does himself. Thus he engages in multiple sockpuppets, so he accuses me of that. One thing he did was accuse me of being User:Tommytoyz, who took a far different view of naked short selling than myself. It is possible that he was engaged in the same activity with Samiharris, that is creating a sock with opposing views than his own, but I think that is a long shot.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Mantan, you have sockpuppeted extensively and abusively. When I asked you politely about it last year, you lied, brazenly and categorically, and accused me of "harassment" – a word you tend to push like a panic button. Your relationship with Samiharris is at the heart of this arbcom case, but your relevant history of deception is not some projection of Wordbomb's; please stop insulting everyone's intelligence.--G-Dett (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You're point about Sami not editing my contributions is well taken. You've convinced me: he is not WordBomb. Thanks for that.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence from SV

Are you really trying to suggest that Wordbomb followed around MM using the sock SH and actually managed to get 0 edit collissions? I would have to say that is fairly close to impossible and would have been extremely time consuming. ViridaeTalk 22:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I don't have the time, energy or willpower to try to hunt the diff down, I'll just C&P my thoughts above on that train of thought:
BTW, may I just say I found the suggestion that WordBomb and Samiharris to be linked because they both used proxify to be.. humorous. It is one thing to suggest that WordBomb has used tactics that could be considered distasteful (I myself said that very thing to him.).
But to suggest that someone would spend over a year posting in the same general hours, agreeing with someone he so obviously dislikes with a passion, working with him on a whole class of articles to make it reflect the near-complete opposite of what he believes, and doing this while posting similar conversational tics and never crossing over with this editor? That requires a Guiness Book of World Records level leap of faith.
I suggest looking at the evidence, the timeshifts when combined with real world trips, the common written tics, etcetera, and then apply Occam's Razor liberally, as to what the situation here is. SirFozzie (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
She was giving a neutral report of two different technical opinions she didn't have the expertise to evaluate. This whole thing has taken so many strange twists and turns that I don't hold it against her for inquiring. For the reasons above and several others it doesn't seem to hold up, but it's one of the possibilities that might come to mind. DurovaCharge! 22:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
SlimVirgin suggests, without quite saying it directly, the possibility that Samiharris may be a sockpuppet of WordBomb. If this is somehow conceivable, it seems extraordinarily unlikely, given the history of their interactions. From my understanding, after MM warned WB that his revisions of the article on GW may result in a block, SH, who began editing the GW article very shortly after MM agreed to cease editing that article, chimed in to reiterate MM's warning. The notion that this was a clever ploy on WB's part is very difficult to swallow. The notion that SH was backing up MM because they together had a vested interest, because SH was in fact MM, and because SH was introduced precisely to evade MM's undisclosed conflict of interest in relation to the GW article, does seem much easier to believe. BCST2001 (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

After having been in front of ArbCom as a presenting party (never a sanctioned party, thank goodness!) four times, I begin to see a pattern. We're now in what I call the Barenaked Ladies portion of the ArbCom. No.. I'm not calling the ArbCom's twists and turns pornographic, by any stretch of the imagination. By that I mean, the title of one of their more popular songs. "It's All Been Done Before". (Imagine my surprise that that was a red link!)

We're all tired of discussing this case. Arguing small details that we consider vital, but makes not much difference in the long run. Over the past few days, there hasn't been much evidence on the evidence page, or working on the workshop page. There's been a lot of reverting, and arguing, and hurt feelings. Not really useful to the ArbCom folks in putting together a decision, is it?

I think at this point, all the evidence is out there. All the possible permutations have been presented and argued, ad infinitum. The odds of there being new, credible, accurate information that would truly affect this ArbCom case, well, I think we need an Infinite Improbability Device to calculate that level! So unless we have shocking proof that changes the base nature of this case (like Space Aliens are controlling all of our thoughts, or more likely, SirFozzie's recently got into his pain medication!).. The best thing to do is to wait on the ArbCom to do their thing. SirFozzie (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well said! — Rlevse • Talk • 22:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, I think its extremely unlikely that everyone in ArbCom will read all the way down...
Which would be a shame in the workshop pages, since GRBerry has made some well worded proposals - admittedly nothing spectacularly new, but at least one was a big improvement to a point I tried making. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That being said, the Workshop page isn't as messy as some I've seen. Relata refero (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Many if not most of us feel that we have an obligation to read through case pages in their entirety. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You have my commiserations... at least everyone's grammar in this case is reasonably OK :) Relata refero (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chewbacca defense

To help Mantanmoreland improve his defense, I'm providing, generously at no charge, this variant of the famous Chewbacca defense. It can't do any worse than what he's using now!

“

Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed ArbCom, the complainants would certainly want you to believe that I have been engaging in abusive sockpuppetry, with the protection of a clique of high-level administrators. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity for myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed ArbCom, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca works for Overstock.com, and is engaged in a corporate smear campaign aimed at the person I'm accused of being. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to work for Overstock, with a bunch of dot-com geeks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm accused of abusive sockpuppetry on Wikipedia, and I'm talkin' about corporate smear campaigns! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're on that ArbCom list deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed ArbCom, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca works for Overstock, you must acquit! The defense rests.

 ”

*Dan T.* (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was suspiciously like something Phil Hartman would have done, but it was pretty good. SBHarris 02:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that committee members are expected to read case pages in their entirety. Many, perhaps all, of us find the Chewbacca defense to be tedious. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Now wait just a cottonpicking minute before we close this down

On July 7, 2006, newbie WordBomb had the bad idea to create an account on Wikipedia and edit Overstock-related articles, including the Gary Weiss bio, created by Mantanmoreland. He was immediately pounced on by Mantanmoreland, who reverted him and threatened him with a block (as though an administrator). Followed by (guess who?) sock Lastexit chiming in on Wordbomb's TALK page, saying "you'd better listen to what Mantanmoreland says". LOL. That page is here, it's short, and it's worth reading in the entire, since it's not long. [29]. It's a pretty classic case of a newbie being bitten. Then, right after Wordbomb actually manages to submit the case for arbitration, which he tells everyone he is doing, [30] he's indef blocked by SlimVirgin, friend of Mantanmoreland, for trying to "out" an editor. Hmmm. Seems he was warned and replied (somehow) by repeating the crime on his talk page. But exactly WHAT he put on his talk page (maybe that LE=MM=GW and have COIs?) cannot be seen because apparently SlimVirgin OVERSITED it into neverneverland. Thus, the primary evidence for whether or not a newbie had been bitten, is unavailable TO US. Perhaps Slim will de-OVERSITE it for the ArbCom. We have only Slim's word for it, which we've just seen posted in evidence. And would a virgin lie? J)

Aside from that, let's cut though some bull. For a newbie, we make some allowances, as per WP:BITE. One of them would have been to caution that BLP material which is too negative, if too unsourced, cannot even go on TALK pages. A newbie might very not know this. This was not done, AFAIK. Second, a block might have been issued that was only long enough to explain such things, not an indefinite one. THAT was not done.

And it gets worse. The case started by WordBomb was a legitimate one (in fact, it was pretty much THIS one), and the rules for evidence in such a case are a little loser (in fact it would shock me if what Wordbomb got banned for writing in his talk page, isn't something fully already discussed to death in our evidence page). But THAT wasn't considered. Finally, the long standing precedent that even blocked users have a right to make their case in an Arbcom proceding was not followed here. Instead, anybody who showed up to suggest that the issues be looked at anyway, was shot on sight as a sock, and the case was closed. [31]. And here we are. A month later, Judd Bagley started antisocialmedia.net. When you bomb Iraq on bad information, you create new terrorists you never knew existed. They have dead family members in destroyed homes, you know. And that same principle operated here. The mess is larger now, and that much harder to clean up (sort of like Iraq). But I suggest everybody get at it. This was abuse of administrative power, and procedure, and it involved considerable hypocrisy (nobody looked too hard at who was doing what to the Byrne article). It was paranoia about editors being "outed" run amok, and of course it resulted in several editors being outed in ways they never would have, had they not been so triggerhappy (irony). SlimVirgin as much as any. But the lesson seems not to have been learned.

Again I want to remind all that I have no horse in this race. I'm just a guy from California who knows none of these people on either side. But as a newbie here two years ago, I got indef-blocked by Essjay-the-little-poseur, and from that moment on I realized there was something rotten in WikiDenmark. And I still see no evidence that it's being corrected. SBHarris 02:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Several ArbCom members have oversight access. And SlimVirgin, for that matter, does not. Moreover, on further investigation the material in question appears to only be ordinarily deleted (unless there was more that I'm not aware of), so any administrator can see it. —Random832 03:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, you mean you admins can delete stuff so that the rest of us peons can't see it? And how does that help anybody being "outed"? Only 1500 people see it rather than a billion? I suppose it's relative. But thanks for the info. If you can see it, perhaps you can post it here, and enlighten those of us without the tools, who are curious as to how dirty the mop really is. SBHarris 03:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
If that one deleted edit is all he said on the talk page to make SlimVirgin think there was no point in further communication, then I'm quite disappointed in SV; her behavior was not up to snuff. WP:BITE should apply to editors in their first 18.5 hours of editing. I have no access to the oversight logs to tell if something else has been oversighted. (If you look at posts 2977 and 2980 here you can see that WorldBomb quotes the deleted edit in full and SV doesn't dispute his quote.) GRBerry 04:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that SlimVirgin and several other admins handled this issue incredibly ineptly from the beginning and made things worse by trying to cover the whole thing up under layers of vitriol, censorship (BADSITES), retaliation (my RfA), and blocks (Piperdown). But, the facts need to be presented correctly. SlimVirgin isn't an oversight administrator. If someone oversighted material from WordBomb's talk page and other, related pages like Gary Weiss, I hope the arbitration committee will review it and reveal who it actually was. Cla68 (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Dmcdevit has apparently acknowledged (on the workshop) being the oversight user who removed material from the GW article. I don't think there is any indication that he did not act in good faith. —Random832 14:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You mean, as opposed to acting with evil intent, all the while chuckling maniacally? Most of the evil things in the world are not done by evil people. Or even average people with evil intent. They happen as unintended consequences of lack of information, lack of intelligence (Hanlon's law), lack of imagination (see empathy), or just out of normal self-centeredness and lack of time. What counts is how they're handled afterwards. If I run over your cat/dog/kid on the road outside your house because I wasn't paying attention (or enough attention) for my responsibilties, my good-faith is surely partly exculpatory. But not entirely. Because, on the other hand, we can't continue to let this kind of thing happen. So what do we intend to do about it? Say "shit happens"? That's what people who run roughshod over other people ALWAYS say. SBHarris 17:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the oversight log. No edits were removed from the edit history of User talk:WordBomb. There is, as noted by others, one edit deleted via the usual means that is still visible to administrators. Please note that oversight is routinely used to remove edits that identify or purport to identify anonymous or pseudonymous individuals, per policy, see Wikipedia:Revision hiding. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Would some admin like to post this smoking TALK page edit, now deleted, which got a newbie indef-blocked within 24 hours of arrival? You can redact or acronym-ize any particularly personal words. I want to see how it compares with the stuff on the evidence page NOW. Come on. If it's bad enough to ban somebody, it's going to have to bad indeed, compared with what we're doing. SBHarris 20:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with SBHarris. It's frustrating to not have all the details, especially when they can be easily made harmless by (as he said) redaction or "acronym-izing." Dr. Extreme (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I point to the parenthetical sentence in my earlier post to this thread. The post quoted there was made after WB was blocked, but it was the reason SV stopped listening to WB. The block was due to the oversighted edits to the article on GW. GRBerry 21:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This looks straightforward. From Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Protection: disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate). Under those circumstances deletion or oversight is normal, to protect the editor's privacy, and the editor who disclosed the information may be blocked indefinitely. There are nuances based upon circumstance, and some people will be understandably unhappy about this: the bottom line appears to be that these actions were within the bounds of policy and precedent and just easier to identify and enforce. DurovaCharge! 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully on this point. What I would like to verify is simply whether WordBomb indeed readded the allegation at 21:49 to Gary Weiss, as SlimVirgin states in her evidence. I would think that this would be simple enough for SlimVirgin or someone with oversight to confirm. Mackan79 (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Where does she state that in her evidence? She says he reposted the allegations to his TALK page:

I left a note on his talk page explaining that posting another user's personal details, accurate or not, was a blockable offense, and that I'd unblock if he gave an assurance that he wouldn't repost them. [32] He responded by reposting them on his talk page, [33] so I deleted the edit, protected the page, and let the block stand.

And this is true. I now have that second diff that you can't see above unless an admin. And it's pretty much the same stuff that's on OUR Talk page here: "Hey world: GW=MM=Lastexit." As a newbie, which Wordbomb certainly was (no socks at that point, really new to Wikipedia) he probably thought everybody would be delighted to uncover anon and sock editing of one's own bio, and sock-screwing around with other people's bios (Byrne's) and their company profiles and lawsuits. But Wordbomb was wrong. When informed that his evidence was itself blockable to present (ironic given all that we've just re-done on OUR evidence page), he agreed to wait for Arbcom but complained about the socks on his TALK page, which a newbie is not supposed to know "counts" in the same way as mainspace encyclopedia articles, insofar as "outing." Well, so what? A newbie can't be expected to know this if nobody has told him (And there is considerable precident for TALK not being the same as mainspace articles, so it's understandable, even for a non-newbie to get confused; after reading this case, with one admin getting blocked for REMOVING BLP, even *I'm* confused). But instead of merely deleting the TALK allegations again, and explaining this LAST detail about TALK space, SV renewed the indef-block, and then (even worse) proceeded to let the ArbCom case about MM's socks come very unfairly apart, because everybody presenting evidence on one side, had been blocked. And now were blocked again and again. Case dismissed. Appellate didn't show because muzzled. Classic Wiki-screwup. Which SHE ought to know was not fair. SBHarris 04:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
She states his editing times on the article here, so I am asking if this is correct. I'm unclear why she or others haven't responded. Mackan79 (talk) 05:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Because there's nothing to say when you've flubbed. A less than 24 hour old newbie was blocked for posting bio material on his TALK page, after being blocked for posting it in a WikiBio, and told that. Rather than informed that even putting it in his TALK page was illegal also (which again is funny, since it's in OUR pages here, both talk and evidence). His (WordBomb's) last edit to the GW article was 21:49, as SV says, but she didn't block him and warn him for the first time till 22:09. Obviously he made no more GW edits after that, since he'd been blocked! What he did do was post a protest to his block on his TALK page, which caused SV to decide his block should be indefinite. Want to see what that double secret protest was? I've put redacted parts in [ ], and here it is: Wordbomb:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I will concede that, based on what I've since read, referring to [...redacted] as MantanMoreland was not appropriate for this venue; However, I assumed it was common knowledge that [...] posts here under that name. What I didn't know is that he also posts as lastexit, but that's neither here nor there and it won't happen again. I must, however, insist that the facts relating to the portion of my contribuition to the [GW] aticle relating to the libel suit be weighed before action is taken. Mantanmoreland and later lastexit acted totally out of line when erasing my edits in their entirety. A billion-dollar suit against a major publication is not a sidenote worthy of dismissing. Please refer to this article[34], paying special attention to the Editor's Note at the end. If I am guilty of libel then so is Business Week Magazine.

Pretty tame compared with this entire proceeding, no? But it got him blocked permanently, no appeal possible. And his ArbCom case destroyed too, since he couldn't post to that, and when he used new accounts to do so, he merely compounded newbie offenses. How do we expect newbies to know they can be blocked, and that trying to speak by other means in self-defence makes their blocking even worse? In fact, we've since corrected some of the procedural problems in that, which is why we're hearing from Byrne in this case. But nobody has gone back to apologize to newbie Wordbomb for a wiki-war that Wordbomb really didn't start. SBHarris 04:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I wonder if you know that he even repeated his comment on the article at that time. His edits to the article were apparently all oversighted. I asked SV about this the other day and she didn't respond, which is why I was surprised to see her list an edit at 21:49 in evidence but then not verify what he added. The question is whether he even repeated the allegation after he conceded to wait until mediation. In addition to your points, I find the fact that SV can make this statement but nobody will verify it troubling. Mackan79 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
WordBomb has emailed me to say that he actually agreed at 17:00 not to post further,[35] and that he does not believe he posted the allegation to the article after that time. This was five hours before SlimVirgin blocked him. He says that he does recall adding a template referring to mediation. Based on the lack of response, it would seem likely then that SlimVirgin's statement is inaccurate, and worse, that the arbitrators refusing to address this are aware of it. I think this is unacceptable, particularly as members of ArbCom are advising us not to speak confidently on issues where they are inexplicably withholding relevant information. Mackan79 (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
You know what this reminds me of? The gem of McCarthyism, the J. Robert Oppenheimer security trial. "Oppie's" lawyers weren't allowed to see the transcripts of decade-old secret-mike recorded interviews that the prosecution used to surprise the defense and Oppie with, on the stand, because these were classified "secret," and the defence lawyers didn't have security clearance. Nor was the prosecution about to help them get it in time. I think we're in the same pickle potentially here. SBHarris 23:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Curious

Over at the proposed decision page it's been noted that Mantanmoreland has made only 500 article space contributions in the past year and a half. There's a conflict of interest question at stake. Would someone like to crunch the numbers? If we work from the assumption that Mantanmoreland has a conflict of interest with regard to a certain financial writer whose initials are GW, how many of the account's article space contributions are free from conflict of interest issues? What percentage of the account's total edits are COI-free mainspace work? DurovaCharge! 02:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Including the claimed COIs identified at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-19-07/s71907-354.htm ? WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It might be good to run two estimates. Base one on a conservative interpretation of the guideline and another on an aggressive interpretation. Basically high and low. DurovaCharge! 02:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I was the one that posted the links at first. Mantanmoreland's last 500 article edits took from 13 September 2006 to 3 February 2008. Samiharris's last 500 article edits took from 5 February 2007 to 31 January 2008. The focus of content is fairly obvious from both these links. Lawrence § t/e 02:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Mantanmoreland Top 10:
  • 114 Naked short selling
  • 85 Martin Luther
  • 73 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
  • 44 On the Jews and their Lies
  • 39 John M. Oesterreicher
  • 37 Louis Farrakhan
  • 28 World Trade Center (film)
  • 27 Patrick M. Byrne
  • 26 Gary Weiss
  • 23 On the Waterfront
  • 23 Paul Burke (actor)
  • 23 Henry Ford
  • 22 National Crime Syndicate
  • 20 Dave Karnes
  • 19 John M. Corridan
Samiharris Top 10:
  • 91 Naked short selling
  • 70 Hedge fund
  • 61 Patrick M. Byrne
  • 52 Overstock.com
  • 20 George Soros
  • 18 Gary Weiss
  • 17 ImClone stock trading case
  • 17 Leo Melamed
  • 13 Martha Stewart
  • 13 Pump and dump
  • 11 Short (finance)
  • 11 Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation
  • 10 Richard F. Syron
  • 8 Joe Klein
  • 8 Chop stock
I leave any conclusions statistically to others. Lawrence § t/e 02:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sent to oversight-l

Please confirm whether or not there was an edit by User:WordBomb to the article Gary Weiss at 21:49, July 7, 2006 (or at any time after 17:00), repeating his allegations that the subject of that article is User:Mantanmoreland. A user has claimed there was, but nobody with oversight permission has confirmed whether it is accurate or not. If this cannot be disclosed, then User:SlimVirgin, who made that claim, should not be making unverifiable claims about oversighted edits, especially where it is an accusation about the conduct of Judd Bagley, a living person.

—Random832 14:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is not confirmed by an oversight user to be true, the community's only option (per WP:BLP) is to conclusively presume that it is not for purposes of deciding whether WordBomb's block was appropriate. However, since both the alleged content and the alleged timestamp of the alleged edit have already publicized, there seems to be no reason for the oversight users not to answer this. —Random832 14:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and would also like verification of this point. Mackan79 (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have received no response. —Random832 01:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Random832, would you explain your reasoning here? You say:

If this is not confirmed by an oversight user to be true, the community's only option (per WP:BLP) is to conclusively presume that it is not for purposes of deciding whether WordBomb's block was appropriate.

Do you mean that if no oversighter gives a response you feel that the community's reasoning powers must be constrained in some way by some appeal the the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy?

If that is your reasoning, could you elaborate? How does this process work? I thought the BLP was about what to include in articles about living people. In what way does it apply to the process of human reasoning?

If that isn't your reasoning, maybe I've misread your comment completely. Well I'm sorry if that's the case, but would you mind elaborating? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A justification for a block has been presented; if nobody can verify the justification then it should be presumed to be false. This is silly since there doesn't appear to be any harm in clarifying, but I think that's the point. It would be much better if someone could clarify. Mackan79 (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a justification for the block in the block log. Moreover we know what WordBomb was doing and why he abused the site. He admits it. He's even proud of importing his petty war to Wikipedia. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 05:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

My reasoning is that we can only look at what we KNOW about what he did in deciding whether WordBomb's actions merited a block - It is absolutely unreasonable to allow unsupported accusations to confuse the process. My mention of WP:BLP is to point out that furthermore, we should not be publishing those unsupported accusations at all. —Random832 14:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony, you seem to be saying that his actions are bad enough otherwise that we don't need to consider whether the allegation of a 21:49 edit is true or not. While this is perhaps a reasonable position to hold, I can't see any basis in it for protesting my statement that we must presume that it is not true. —Random832 14:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about what I'm saying--but I'd go further. WordBomb's admitted actions merited an administrative block and oversighting of personal information, WordBomb remains under a community ban by community consensus, precise examination of every administrative action taken in this case isn't required for its resolution, and moreover there are no credible allegations of abusive action by any administrator or oversighter in this case.
In arguing otherwise you have appealed to a very novel application of the biographies of living persons policy, apparently believing that it constrains how we're allowed to reason about the affair in the absence of a response from the oversighters. From this you argue that we must regard SlimVirgin's action as unjustified. This line of reasoning does not hold on the face of it and you have ignored my request that you justify it beyond the assertion that "if nobody can verify the justification then it should be presumed to be false".
This is a red herring and you, sir, are on a fishing expedition. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Not a fishing expedition, TS, (and I could join user:Risker who somewhere at talk:/Proposed decision in suggesting you are baiting or somesuch a while ago, now, but i wont. Seriously, though)
It has not been stated that that particular edit or post by user:WordBomb of 21:49 on 7 July 2006 was to Gary Weiss. If a post was made, was it made to any other page, or discussion page or a user:talk page, or if that is what is said to have occurred I cannot tell from reading user:SlimVirgin's evidence. --Newbyguesses - Talk 18:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
If SlimVirgin's evidence is obscure, you or the arbitration committee can ask her to clarify it. I've no idea what you mean by "baiting". --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I give the link, FWIW, I am sure you read it, but it was some while ago. NFa. --Newbyguesses - Talk 18:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)It's been shown that WordBomb agreed to hold his claims for mediation at 17:00 and again another time before he was blocked. After being asked about this but not directly answering, SV presented evidence to suggest that he did add the allegation after that time. Upon further questioning she has now said she doesn't actually know; she only asked someone with oversight when he edited the article, despite having then presented it to suggest that he continued inserting the same allegation over and over even after saying he wouldn't. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that several people asking for a comment to be confirmed by a third party under these circumstances are on a fishing expedition. I've received another email from WordBomb saying he thinks it was an unrelated quote he added at 21:49, which appears consistent with the concurrent edits and I'm therefore assuming to be true. It would still be nice to know, for the reasons mentioned. Mackan79 (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You are continuing to misunderstand me. I am NOT applying BLP to our reasoning. The fact that we should not allow unsupported accusations to influence our reasoning is simply common sense. I only mentioned BLP in so far as it also means we ought not even be publishing such unsupported accusations at all. —Random832 18:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am also NOT saying we "must" regard SV's actions as unjustified - it has been called into question by others, and will probably be analyzed in due course, but all I am saying is that the claim that he reinserted the allegations _after_ having been warned not to and after having agreed not to should not be given any weight in evaluating that. If his ban can stand without that, then let it stand by all means. —Random832 18:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


We know what WordBomb did, he openly admits why he came here. If you think the ban is wrong, put the case to the community. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he admits why he came here. He came here with a specific concern - a legitimate concern, even if the way he expressed it was problematic. Who are we to say he would not have later become a well-rounded contributor? This is why we do not bite the newbies. Now - at least from my point of view, and this is what people don't seem to be getting... this is not to say he should not still be banned - merely that we need to acknowledge the role certain members of our community have had in making it impossible for him to contribute as a user in good standing. —Random832 19:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes I'm aware of your criticism of how we (as a community and an encyclopedia) handled the situation. We don't, generally, assume that people who come here to attack others are here for any legitimate purpose. There's no evidence of intent on WordBomb's part to do anything in this case except to attack journalist Gary Weiss, something he apparently has a history of doing on a website he runs. And you say you think we handled that badly? Remember we're just a website that writes an encyclopedia. We don't care about WordBomb's silly campaigns against Gary Weiss, and as operator of such a site, and to this day an active and vociferous attacker of Weiss, in wikis, forums and blogs, he would not be welcome here under any circumstances. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You seem a bit fuzzy on matters of timeline, if you're claiming he had a history (you're not, directly, but it seems implied in the way you're phrasing things). The earliest post on "a website he runs" is dated 9 September 2006; his edits on wikipedia under the name WordBomb were circa early July 2006. —Random832 19:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yet Weiss is the same as regards Wordbomb, and these views are reflected darkly in articles relating to Weiss/Byrne/Bagley by an editor for whom some have amassed considerable data that indicates that they have used sockpuppetry and other violations of Wikipedia Policy to maintain that bias. Ant, it isn't about WordBomb - its about Mantanmorelnad. Look at the ArbCom title. Stop trying to distract and obstruct. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Random832, my use of "has" instead of "had" is deliberate and correct, but just for you I'll outline the chronology. His actions on Wikipedia in mid-2006 showed his malicious intent and he was banned. His actions since then confirm it in spades. He is not welcome, he remains banned.
LessHeard VanU, this discussion is about WordBomb. Specifically it began on March 7 with an edit about WordBomb's block by Random832. By all means try to change the subject, but do not give the game away by pretending that I am changing the subject, or as you put it "trying to distract and obstruct", in talking about WordBomb.
It's good that you bring up the subject of Gary Weiss and WordBomb. Nobody has come to this wiki to spread smears about WordBomb. Nobody. Not Mantanmoreland and his socks, not Samiharris, not one of our thousands of users has done this. It follows from this that Gary Weiss has not abused Wikipedia to defame WordBomb even if he does have a user account at Wikipedia. It's good that you brought that up. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to say that WordBomb has not been smeared but that WordBomb came to Wikipedia specifically to smear another named individual and has spent the past eighteen months obsessively smearing and defaming him. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 10:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not sure you've really heard both sides of the dispute, Tony. WordBomb has accused GW of using socks in various places on the internet to bash Byrne and Overstock before arriving on WP. I think it'a also recognized that GW is generally up for a fight, at least according to some of Tomstoner's early edits.[36] So, I'm not sure if WB was onto the Wikipedia socking issue at that point or not, but it appears two or possibly three times (I think two) he inserted that Weiss was editing his own biography. I'd guess to most people whether or not that's defaming him would probably depend whether this was true or not. After WordBomb did this, the campaign on Wikipedia has been entirely one sided, with allegations of everything from harassing teenagers on the internet to apparently getting some reporter in Florida fired from her job.
To the extent you're talking about off-wikipedia commentary, I also don't think you've read GW's blog if you think the commentary has been only from Bagley. You're simply focusing on who came here first, but you must know that's at best arbitrary, and at worst the sort of the wagon-circling that has perpetuated all of this. The point being, it should still matter why someone was blocked, even if we'd decide that the block is still justified for other reasons. Mackan79 (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
WordBomb maintains to this day that Gary Weiss is Mantanmoreland and has abused Wikipedia resources to smear Overstock.com's CEO. That is defamation of Weiss by WordBomb. What Weiss puts on his blog is none of our business because it is not part of Wikipedia. If Weiss defamed anyone on his blog then the logical thing to do would be to take action concerning the blog. There are no edits on Wikipedia defaming Bagley or any employee or officer of the company he works for (if any are found that do they must be removed immediately). Nothing Weiss has done on his blog or on other forums can remotely justify WordBomb's abuse of Wikipedia to attack him. Wikipedia is not a battleground. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
There are no edits on Wikipedia defaming Bagley - There is absolutely no excuse for believing this if you claim to have read the pages of this arbcom case. None at all. —Random832 15:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to find meaning here and also coming up a bit short. I think most people in the arbitration have maintained what you're attributing to WordBomb. Are you assuming that MM is not GW, or suggesting that it's defamatory regardless? Then you're saying GW's blog doesn't matter, but at the same time you must be talking about WB's comments from off site, since he is, after all, still banned... In terms of comments re Bagley, etc., you can see a list here. Mackan79 (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Tony says: There are no edits on Wikipedia defaming Bagley or any employee or officer of the company he works for (if any are found that do they must be removed immediately)...There are comments that are not nice about Bagley on Wikipedia and the wikien-l mailing list. I avoid the word defamation because I am not an attorney. There is a blog post I am going to email to Tony. I will not link it here because I do not want to cause hysterics; unfortunately, merely seeing the link would probably upset some people, so I'll be sensitive to that. daveh4h 16:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right that there are comments that are not nice about Bagley on Wikipedia and elsewhere. You're correct to avoid using the word defamation where a comment is merely a "not nice" opinion on his conduct. I expect I could say a few "not nice" things about his behavior myself, were I minded to do so, but the atmosphere has been inflamed enough without that. What WordBomb said about Weiss strayed well beyond an expression of opinion. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess that's your opinion that it strayed beyond a matter of opinion. I appreciate your level of defamation and opinion expertise and withdraw from this conversation with my tail tucked between my legs. You obviously already know everything about this case, I'm not sure why I bothered. daveh4h 21:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record:

  • This person has gotten a lot of publicity, and recently had the charming distinction of harassing a teenager that he didn't like. He did that right here on Wikipedia. The teenager operates an AOL blog that criticized his company. --Mantanmoreland 4:28, 25 August 2007[37]
  • And by the way, you'll be interested to know that he just said you're his favorite Wikipedian. When he was working in Florida for the director of licensing in the Jeb Bush administration, he engaged in a smear campaign that ruined the career of a reporter for the Tampa Tribune. Would you have cheerfully followed his dictates then, if he was working Wikipedia at the time? --Mantanmoreland 15:10, 25 August 2007[38]
  • Yes there are potentially severe PR repercussions from Wikipedia acting as a friendly habitat for stalkers, nuts, misogynists, and corporate flacks pushing smears like Judd Bagley. --Samiharris 16:41, 21 September 2007 [39]

I'd say it's a little more than unfriendly. Mackan79 (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Specifically it began on March 7 with an edit about WordBomb's block by Random832. Do you SEE why people think you're clueless? My post was prompted by discussion that was already ongoing on the proposed decision talk page; on this talk page; and the direction that the evidence being presented had taken. People had already been bugging UninvitedCompany for EXACTLY what I asked oversight-l for, for over a week, at the time I posted that. —Random832 15:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion is to stop engaging Tony's trolling on the history. It takes y'all away from the matter at hand, the worthwhile one of verifying the accuracy of SV's statement. I also think the incessant verbal ping-pong played with this account is having a more seriously deleterious effect. Namely, that insofar as he sets himself up as defending every aspect of the administrative handling of the Weiss-Bagley wars til now, and in doing so types up a good deal of balderdash, and insofar as we begin to sort of credit him with this representative role, we run the risk of deepening community divisions and mistrust over this decision.
Meanwhile, to be fair to Tony, he is doing needed work on the relevant articles.--G-Dett (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd normally agree with you, until I see an arbitrator citing Tony's analysis that proves...well a history tab exists. daveh4h 21:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I keep being misquoted here, to the point where it's become clear that there's little point in responding, because no one seems to be reading what I say.
On the offchance that anyone will read and remember this, I repeat: because WordBomb's edits were oversighted, I no longer know which edits he made at which time of day. All I can recall is that several times he added that Gary Weiss was editing as MM, and that Weiss had been making certain posts on offwiki discussion boards too. WordBomb restored the edits when he was reverted, so this was not a case of them being added once in error. Several days later, he e-mailed an admin to say he had done this on purpose to "test [Mantanmoreland's] defences." In other words, these were not good-faith edits. Repeat: WordBomb himself admitted that these were not good-faith edits.
In preparing my evidence for this case, I asked an oversighter for the times of WB's edits to the article that day, and those are the times I added to my evidence. Which edit was made at which time, I don't know, and I fail to see what difference it makes. WB continued to post the same claims, first to his talk page after he was blocked, and after he was asked for an assurance that he would stop doing it. This is a response administrators often see from disruptive editors. You ask them to stop posting something, and their response is: "Oh, do you mean that I should stop posting this — whoops!"
WordBomb continued to post the same claims on many other pages using a variety of names over a period of around 18 months. No one here seems able or willing to take that point, though if it were Mantanmoreland who had done the same thing, I have no doubt the point would not need to be repeated even once.
This is my last post about this particular issue, because I don't know anything else about it, so there's no point in asking me. I'm sorry if that comes across as abrupt or unhelpful, but there's only so much that can be squeezed out of this. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 09:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The issue is - even if some of his specific edits were disrupting things to make a point, that does not mean he did not have a good faith concern. —Random832 14:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I repeat: because WordBomb's edits were oversighted, I no longer know which edits he made at which time of day You may be repeating it now, but you made specific assertions about them and only retracted them when called on it. What else have you claimed that you don't actually know? (with the claim that your reason for forwarding the emails was that you knew at the time they contained spyware, this makes two) —Random832 14:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Slim, I believe what Mackan and others have been trying to ascertain is simply whether WordBomb posted Weiss' name again between the time that he promised not to do so and the time that you blocked him. After a lot of digressive back-and-forth, it appears you are conceding he did not.--G-Dett (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Basically yes, but more precisely, SV is saying that she doesn't know what WB did in any of the edits that she listed, and doesn't actually see why it matters. I don't find this particularly consistent with her having retrieved oversighted edits and then presented them inaccurately, particularly after having discussed the issue of whether he reposted after agreeing not to in detail, but it appears to be what we have. In any case, SV's comments do suggest any further clarification would need to come from someone with oversight, if they would be willing to clarify (a) how many times WB added identifying information, and (b) whether he did it after 17:00 or after 21:49, the two times he agreed to hold the issue for mediation. Mackan79 (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)