User talk:SirFozzie/Investigation/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Both sides have POV pushed, sockpuppeted, used Wikipedia as a battleground and should be banned for life 2 Disputes should be resolved through our dispute resolution mechanisms 3 Lipstick on the Pig 4 FWIW 5 Running total of how many believe what 5.1 Both sides have POV pushed, sockpuppeted, used Wikipedia as a battleground and should be banned for life 5.2 Active Socks of Users have been banned on less info 5.3 Whole page moot

[edit] Both sides have POV pushed, sockpuppeted, used Wikipedia as a battleground and should be banned for life

Who, exactly, is this phrase referring to? Mantanmoreland and Samiharris? Or Mantanmoreland/Samiharris and TomStoner/LastExit? I just need to know exactly what this means before I consider adding my name to that section. Cla68 (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps to everybody who has ever expressed an opinion on the whole issue, which would include you and me. And maybe it actually would make Wikipedia a better place to do such a clean sweep, but an open-ended Reign of Terror, French revolution style, wouldn't be my first choice of how to "clean up" this site. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I wrote that with the specific intent of only stating that there were two sides and both sides need to be banned and both sides have treated wikipedia like a battleground. The question of who the two sides represent is easy. We all know the real names of the two sides. The issue for wikipedia is not that though. Once we agree there are two sides and not just the one, the question becomes how much POV pushing does it take to match the duck test? And even if someone meets it do we give them a pass because they are warriors elsewhere; so they are not representing one side so much as turning wikipedia into a battlefield over everything. These questions are perhaps best left for arbcom. This statement only claims there are two sides that need banning for turning wikipedia into a battlefield. No more. No less. No naming real people or user-names. That would be for later. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue here on this page is whether or not Mantanmoreland was socking with Samiharris, LastExit, and TomStoner. I don't believe we're trying to prove what Mantanmoreland's real name is here. Of course, we can discuss that, but I think it should be in another forum, such as at the COI noticeboard, or creating a separate sandbox page. Cla68 (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think his real name is both obvious and irrelevant. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I also think who he is is obvious and also that it's unnecessary for this particular discussion on the probable sockpuppetry. Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputes should be resolved through our dispute resolution mechanisms

If there is no dispute, I see no point to any of this. "neutrality" is not a reason for doing anything, it is a guideline for how we do all things here. And clearing the air? What is this, the high school bathroom? It is an encyclopedia. Let's work on encyclopedia articles. If someone, in the course of working on an encyclopedia article, has entered into a conflict with either Sami Harris or Mantanmoreland, let them follow our established means of dealing with disputes. I see no point at all to any of this and am off to read a book. With luck, I may learn something and have something to add to a Wikipedia article. I thought that was what this is all about. I am not interested in any other crap. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

But some people, by virtue of being well-connected with the ruling clique here, have made themselves exempt from all normal dispute resolution, so that any attempt to bring them to any sort of accountability is shouted down and suppressed, with much handwaving about how they are being "harassed" by anybody who dares to bring up such a thing. This ensures that the disputes fester until they break out in overblown ways. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue at hand isn't just an ordinary "dispute"; it's that an established, respected user may have been votestacking and manipulating discussions - affecting our encyclopedic integrity. That's a big deal, and it's the very thing we have a sockpuppetry policy to prevent. krimpet✽ 20:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, sometimes the mechanisms for dispute resolution here suck. Anything that makes it more transparent, more efficient, more participatory, and less adversarial should be welcomed. Relata refero (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lipstick on the Pig

First of all, incredible catch.

I'd just like to point out that it isn't quite as conclusive as it might look. Here is a relevant search. Interestingly, over all websites, "lipstick on the pig" gets 14200 ghits. "Tarting up" - forgive me, that was the first equivalent colloquialism that came to mind - gets 28100. Relata refero (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember that quirky, distinctive phrases are like small steel balls in the giant pinball machine that is Google. "Tarting up" may mean the same thing but it's totally different, because it's not a jauntily coined metaphor but rather standard British idiom. It gets an entire entry in the OED: "Tart, v.² To dress up or adorn (a person), usu. in a showy or gaudy manner; to titivate; also refl. and intr. for refl. Freq. trans. and fig.," emphasis in original, followed by eight examples from the last seventy years. Incidentally, if you put the various permutations into Google – "tart up," "tarts up," "tarted up," "tarting up" – you get upwards of 200,000 hits.

More to the point, take a closer look at the list of Google results you provided from the English Wikipedia [1]. There appear to be 91, but the bulk of those pinball hits – DING DING DING – are generated by bumper crops like this one from San Juan, Ilocos Sur:

Many people speak English and most are kind and pleasant (with only a few obnoxious exceptions). For income, US$10 is big money: teen girls work harvesting onions or beans in blazing fields for about 50 pesos per day (or just over US$1) and a tube of lipstick for them is about 60 pesos. It's not easy to get in to the village. The buses roar through nearby San Juan fairly often but one needs a local 'tricyle' (motorbike+sidecar taxi) to go along the back dirt road out to the village - the fee is about 50 pesos but the driver will often ask for more (if you seem to be a gringo, they can ask for huge amounts without really expecting to get them). There's no inn or hotel and sleeping near the beach is not a good idea. We stayed in a local house with relatives and we were the celebrities of the place for the week we were there - they put on a fiesta with a roast pig and VERY GOOD local singers, dancers, and guitar players - and we gave about 1000 pesos to help with the cost - many other local families gave 500 pesos each - they really wanted us to settle there (where we would have been a huge boost to their economy and a huge source of prestige and entertainment).

That's hit #49 of 91. Of those 91 – yeah, I went through 'em all – there are 26 that in fact represent some form of the expression, versus 65 pages in which the words "pig" and "lipstick" happened to appear in different contexts on the same page. Of those 26, six are article-space instances where an RS uses it. The remaining 20 represent Wikipedians using the phrase. Of these 20, three are by User:68.239.79.82 (who is registered under his IP), and five more are by another user (an anon in the 72.75.__.__ range). The remaining twelve represent individual Wikipedians using the phrase, two of whom are Samiharris and Mantanmoreland.

In other words, there are fourteen Wikipedians total who have used some variant of the phrase "lipstick on the pig," and two of these are Sami and Mantan.--G-Dett (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You went through them all? Then I'm totally sorry to have brought it up.

You know, I think that's the best evidence either way I've seen so far. Relata refero (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, your point stands – the phrase has some, albeit limited, currency, so this isn't by itself conclusive. But it is very striking. Incidentally, Gary Weiss wrote this about Judd Bagley two weeks ago:

Before Bagley was exposed as its operator, antisocialmedia took great pains to conceal its ownership, including use of a "DomainsByProxy" registration. (See it here, before he changes it.).

But this effort to put lipstick on a pig is not going to work.

This corporate hatchet man's latest lie is that he gave me "multiple opportunities" to respond to his latest fantasies. (He doesn't even pretend to have contacted me before his previous smears.)

--G-Dett (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Not that uncommon for a blog, although it's worth noting that that particular blogger uses " -- " even though it sometimes quotes material using em-dashes. Still, I think that this is an impossible case to prove. Cool Hand Luke 02:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Its impossible to prove, but surely this last section will have been sufficiently indicative for most. Relata refero (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Not relevant to this particular inquiry, but that San Juan entry reads more like a blog entry than an encyclopedia article; it's a nice first-person travelogue, but not the sort of content we're supposed to have here. It needs rewriting and reliable sourcing. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FWIW

A Deutsche Telecomm IP blanked SirFozzie's post to Fred Bauder's user talk.[2] Durova^Charge! 20:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And another Deutsche Telecomm IP has been reverting SirFozzie's posts elsewhere.[3] Durova^Charge! 20:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's someone who I upset by semi-protecting ANI and a User's Talk page because of his blanking.. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Durova^Charge! 20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Running total of how many believe what

[edit] Both sides have POV pushed, sockpuppeted, used Wikipedia as a battleground and should be banned for life

1. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Demur; premature. This page is here to examine the edit history. Please initiate an RFC or a ban discussion elsewhere, if that is your intention. Durova^Charge! 00:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Durova: This is no court, kangaroo or otherwise. Do not be hasty. Be thorough. SirFozzie (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Also agreed. This is neither the time nor the place and is merely a forum for examining evidence - Alison ^❤ 04:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Concur. "This is not the end. This is not even the beginning of the end... but it is perhaps the end of the beginning." LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Durova, this is evaluation not time to discuss sanctions. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Active Socks of Users have been banned on less info

1. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

   Not that I don't believe you—in fact, I'm not familiar with many sock puppet cases—but can you name some? Cool Hand Luke 03:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

   one that jumped right to mind as I watched it happen is User:SevenOfDiamonds. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 07:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

2. I can't concur that this evidence (though extensive) is even remotely close to the evidence that I presented to arbcom which led to the banning of SevenOfDiamonds. My personal opinion is that nothing here will result in action unless you file an arbcom case and let them render a decision. Bear in mind that Diamonds was found to be a ban evader, was pretty egregiously harassing numerous editors, was engaged in wikistalking and a few other policy violations. Also remember that all named parties in an arbcom case can be investigated, and one thing they might look at is whether this ongoing type of thing is really beneficial to the project, or just a lot of disruptive drama. I was very much opposed to presenting my evidence at first to arbcom regarding Diamonds, and in fact, after asking for arbcom enforcement and being denied, I intended to drop the issue...I was basically forced to participate in the case. There is a big difference between my very reluctant participation and what some might be willing to define as a witch hunt. If indeed samiharris and Mantanmoreland are one and the same, I can't find a lot of sanctionable issues aside from a couple examples of vote stacking or OWN. The end result of all this might be only a banning of one account.--MONGO 07:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

   In Wikipedian terminology, "wikistalking" and "harassing" really mean "saying things that somebody doesn't want to hear". *Dan T.* (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Agree that Active Socks of Users have been banned on less info. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whole page moot

1. This is made moot by the departure of one of the examined users. Congratualtions! Given that, absent the return of the return of one of the examined users, the continued hunting for things that are equal in weight to ducks on this page serves nothing but to entertain perverse observers. It's over, you've won, the editor you disliked is gone, now quit. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

   But we're left with a user who has socked abusively several times in the past, with a history of abusive editing in certain articles. I think we'll be done if this user can admit to his behavior, identify all sock puppets he's used, and submit to a voluntary topic ban which will prevent abusive socking by this account in the future. Mantanmoreland's a great editor and should not be banned, but he should obey the community's rules. Cool Hand Luke 19:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

   A topic ban might not eliminate socking issues by multiple parties and arbcom would surely examine that issue. I'm thinking that some of the articles and bios related to this matter might need to be protected on a semi-permanent basis....that is, if neutrality can ever be established.--MONGO 19:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

   I agree with MONGO on some things, that protection for some of these articles may need to either have semi-permanent admin attention on them, to prevent future flareups (I'm sure on a personal basis especially, and pretty sure about everyone else, that we don't want to go through this EVER again.) My thoughts re the above are as follows: Wikipedia works via the consensus method, which means that it relies on many different views. That means that we have to be especially careful that the consensus is not artificially controlled or managed. Mantanmoreland HAS been a contributory editor, even I, who disagree with him personally, as well as having done this investigation, agree with that. However, if proven (and proven to a high level, none of this preponderance of the evidence), I can't see anything but a full siteban being applied for the following reason. Mantanmoreland has been warned previously to stop using multiple accounts in ways that contravene Wikipedia policy. IF (again, to a high standard) this is proven, then how can we trust an editor who has been caught basically red handed thumbing his nose at Wikipedia's goals, policies and guidelines, for over a year, and multiple infractions? We can't. Plain and simple. SirFozzie (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

   We trusted a sockpuppet of a banned user, after we knew he was a sockpuppet of a banned user, to start this whole process. We can't trust a good editor who may have used sockpuppets to edit articles that he's edited without valid complaint for years? PouponOnToast (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

   I take it then that you find the evidence persuasive? Cool Hand Luke 19:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

   You're so cool. No, I don't. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

1. SirFozzie: I think we have a slight difference of opinion. I think allowing one topic-banned account would be better prevention than outright banning (which, after all, is just an invitation to sign up yet again with even more skill at sockpuppeteering—this evidence page is virtually a how-to manual).

   But one thing that we agree on is that our conversation here will be moot unless Mantanmoreland and Samiharris are proved sockpuppets by community-convincing evidence. Cool Hand Luke 19:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

---

This is getting away from the core purpose of this page, which is to assemble the public disclosures made onsite by these two accounts and see where the evidence leads. Please open a user content RFC if you wish to discuss outcomes and remedies. Durova^Charge! 19:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)