Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3

Closing Statement: Requests for comment which review Arbcom, project bureaucracy/governance and use of private checkuser information are an important meta task that we undertake in public. Typically these meta RFCs attract a lot of participation and strong views. Unfortunately this one has only had input from ~50 contributors, including seven arbitrators, one functionary, and user:Philippe (WMF). This RFC was started at the end of January 2012, and has run for two months instead of the usual one month duration, in part because a lot of new proposals were added as the RFC began its second month.

The scope of this RFC was intended to be broad, including any actions taken by ArbCom, however the only incident which has been the focus of this RFC is the ScottyBerg block by ArbCom.

In this RFC are some proposals to continue discussion at the Village Pump, or initiate other RFCs. Most of these proposals saw both support and opposition, however the numbers in each camp are low, so those wanting to initiate new, more focused, discussions should persue that after considering the opposing views.

The one meta view which has some support, and little opposition, was

Arbcom should get out of the policing business and back in the court of last resort business.

As the vast majority of this RFC has been about ScottyBerg, and there is no strongly held views in this RFC regarding Arbcom, I am renaming this RFC to reflect that it is an RFC about the ScottyBerg block.

Thanks to all who participated. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Summary
This RfC is to discuss current and, potentially, past incidents involving the Arbitration Committee, where actions were taken against users, usually blocks, that involved a lack of information and transparency and often oblique, extremely generalized statements to both the accused and to other community members.

The specific incident that this RfC is in response to is the recent block of User:ScottyBerg as a sockpuppet of User:Mantanmoreland.

A number of users were and are concerned about the block, as ScottyBerg has been a positive contibutor to the community and the encyclopedia. Concerns were raised on the talk page about a number of inconsistencies in regards to the block, the perceived reason for it, and the response from Arbitration Committee members.

With User:Reyk's permission, following is a numbered summary made by Reyk of some of those concerns:
 * Secret trials based on secret evidence are abhorrent to nearly everyone.
 * ArbCom are sure enough of guilt that we should unquestioningly accept their assertion that it was a slam-dunk decision, but not sure enough to actually allow the accused access to the evidence against them. This is not fair play.
 * ArbCom have now made it clear there is a way back for the accused if they're guilty but no possibility of return if they're innocent. Also not fair play.
 * Ditching due process to go after the "bad guy" seems unnecessary since nobody has claimed ScottyBerg was disrupting anything.
 * We feel we have not got satisfactory answers to our questions.
 * In the event that we are accused of something, we feel we're less likely to get a fair hearing than we did before this whole ScottyBerg mess.
 * This business of hanging on to CU info for a long time doesn't sit well with a lot of people.

In addition to these points, another point raised by User:Ken Arromdee was that the block seemed to have precipitated from the comments of a blocked sockpuppetteer on Wikipedia Review, a discussion that ScottyBerg's blocking admin, User:Alison, was involved in.

These concerns, and possibly more, have serverely marred a number of users' views on how the Arbitration Committee conducts itself and has raised fears that this process of "secret trials" could be conducted on any user without the possibility of rebuttal. This RfC is meant to raise, discuss, and express these concerns with the Arbitration Committee and to bring about some sort of change in how these processes are done.

Users certifying the basis for this RfC

 * 1)  Silver  seren C 23:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2)  Reyk  YO!  00:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Gigs (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Silver seren
I am an individual who was heavily involved in the discussions on ScottyBerg's talk page. I was also in email contact with him throughout, in an attempt to help rectify the situation. Unfortunately, he has been extremely disillusioned with Wikipedia over this incident and has stated he will never be involved in Wikipedia again, even if proven to be innocent. Furthermore, he gave me his side of the emails he sent to ArbCom. Actually, he gave me all sides, but considering there was only ever one response from Arbcom, the one initially sent to him saying that they were looking at his case, it's really just one side.

He sent around ten further emails after that initial response, with info and questions, but received no further replies whatsoever.

As stated above in the summary, what very likely started this mess was those comments on Wikipedia Review. It has also been stated that Scotty's edits on Gary Weiss are one factor, but as thoroughly explained by him and others on his talk page and in emails to Arbcom, all of those were routine Huggle edits or the reversion of undue weight material to the article.

Furthermore, it was originally unclear where the CU information came from. The last Mantanmoreland sock blocked was a significant time ago, enough for it to have been already stale when Scotty was brought to an SPI back in September, where it was thrown out for plain ridiculousness. Arbitrator AGK then said to me that certain CU infor is kept on the CU Wiki for a temporary period of time, but I don't believe a year and a half fits into anything that could be considered temporary.

Are Arbitrators and Checkuser's essentially keeping CU info indefinitely on their Wiki? There are ethical issues for such a thing and, in my opinion, leaves the possibility for such info to be abused.

But what this all boils down to is that Arbcom is doing the same thing it has been doing before and pledged to stop, being obscure with their information, having a complete lack of transparency, and serving as judge, jury, and executioner without even allowing the defendant to present their case.

Something needs to change. Silver seren C 23:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment from the WMF about the Checkuser wiki
The Wikimedia Foundation provides a wiki to users with the checkuser privilege for the express purpose of storing data on long-term abusers (of which Mantanmoreland was certainly one). This raises no ethical or legal questions, contrary to the statement above: this process was approved by the General Counsel, and is covered in the Retention of Private Data policy. The specific sections are:

It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, or through other non-publicly-available methods, may be released by Wikimedia volunteers or staff, in any of the following situations:  So, without prejudice to the rest of this discussion, I did want to be very clear that there are no ethical or legal issues in this one object. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Where the user has been vandalizing articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to a service provider, carrier, or other third-party entity to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers,
 * Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. 

Discussion
@Silver seren, you say: '' I find it hard to believe that there are no legal ramifications for hoarding personal information on people, but I give up the point. '' There's no need to give up the point. If you think there's a legal issue, why don't you write up what it is (referring specifically to the types of data that are stored on Checkuser wiki) and I'll pass it on to the General Counsel. I think your use of the word "hoarding" is extremely leading here, regardless. If you truly do concede that point, may I recommend that you strike through or otherwise modify your statement to impress upon people that you no longer believe that to be an issue? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the legal bit, but added to the sentence my concern regarding the possibility of abuse of it. Silver  seren C 18:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're um...saying that you accept what Phillipe says but you don't believe it? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? No, i'm saying that I believe him in regards to there being no legal issue with it (though I find that strange), but I do think there are ethical concerns, along with the possibility of abuse of such indefinitely kept information. Silver  seren C 21:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the hoarding of personal info: I think Silver Seren should be much more afraid of Google, Facebook, Apple, the FBI, the DHS, etc. etc. etc. than of Wikipedia. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Who says i'm not concerned about them too? :) Silver  seren C 06:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie
Silver seren has created a tempest in a teapot. He objects to every bit of the recent block of ScottyBerg as a reincarnation of a community banned user.

First: The way to come back from a community ban is not to create a new account in violation of the ban, and then to go on merrily editing, now matter how productive a user you intend on purportedly being.

Second: For some reason he intends to teach long term banned users on how to better evade CheckUser scruitiny, in defiance of the community's saying "no, the person behind this account is not welcome, Tracking behavioral evidence and similarities (as well as IP ranges) between accounts is somehow "secret witch trials".Instead, he demands we hand over evidence on how a user was caught sockpuppetting so they can better avoid being blocked next time.

Third: Alison contacted the Committee to alert us she was on the verge of blocking the user, and carefully and congently explained why she was about to do so. We told her that we had no problem with the initial block, but would carefully consider any appeal from ScottyBerg. When that appeal was made, Nearly a dozen checkusers and arbitrators carefully scruitinized the evidence linking the two accounts. A couple of this number provided background information only, but recused from any formal decision as they were involved in the original case that ended up sanctioning the user that ScottyBerg was linked with. However, every arbitrator and check user who reviewed this case concurred with the finding linking the two accounts.

Fourth: Going back to the second point, Silver complains that we have left a path back for ScottyBerg if he IS the community banned user but not one if he isn't. This point is now moot as the determination has been made (again unanimously) that yes, ScottyBerg IS a reincarnation of a community banned user.

Fifth: Silverseren demands we show evidence that ScottyBerg was disruptive. Again, his opinion is that an editor who the Community has told "You are not welcome here" is allowed to edit, as long as he is superficially not causing issues. This again, is not the case. Editors who are community banned have a way to get back in to editing, this was not the way. Also, ScottyBerg violated an Arbitration Committee violated the remedy from the original Arbitration Committee case that stated he is not to edit articles related to those brought up in that case.

Sixth: Silverseren, brings up, as a side show to this issue, that checkusers keep details on persistently sockpuppeting editor in an effort to better recognize and neutralize further attempts to disrupt Wikipedia in concurrence with their mandate from the rights granted through the Committee (and the WMF). This is not the place to discuss such things. There is already a place to bring complaints about use of advanced permissions, the Audit Subcommittee, and failing that, the WMF itself. However, he knows he will get short shrift from either, because he is again wrong on the facts and the issues. (Note: When I wrote this up, I had not yet seen Phillippe's statement. However, the point still stands, and is confirmed by the office's post. )

In short, Silver seren is either mistaken or deliberately wrong in all major facts of this issue, and this RFC is not a legitimate attempt to solve a dispute, but instead an attempt to cause drama and trouble. This is not the first time that Silver seren has attempted to stir up action against the Committee, In his past attempt (involving a user who was blocked and their administrator tools removed for misues (including suicide threats), he was again proven wrong on all points, but that has not stopped him from charging in, Don Quixote style, tilting at windmills yet again. If he has concerns about the way the Arbitration Committee runs within its mandate and rules, he can always run for a seat on the Committee at the end of the year.

Note for the record: Silver seren violated WP:CANVASS by attempting to "stack the deck" in commenting to all the people who spoke in the decision on ScottyBerg's talk page, but not the purported targets of this RFC. SirFozzie (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
@SirFozzie: The personal attacks aren't needed here and you should realize that the list of points and other information was taken from other people, like Reyk, and isn't just me. So your continued use of negative terms (complains, demands, ect.) and my name is both rude and wrong. Anyways, your points in order:


 * 1) A number of us disagree that Scotty is Mantanmoreland. The point we're trying to make is that if Scotty is innocent, you've given him no steps to take to come back. He would have to falsely say he's guilty and use the standard offer, as that's the only option for him, even if he's not Mantanmoreland.
 * 2) I have never once stated that Arbcom should give up specialized behavioral information that influenced their decision. What I have said is that it is entirely possible for a generalized explanation to be made that explains why the block was made, such as "Due to the editing made on such and such articles and through CU data, we have determined that so and so is a sock of so and so". Something like that doesn't give anything away, but explains where the decision came from.
 * 3) The issue that a number of us have is that it appears what instigated Alison to this is a comment by a blocked sockpuppeteer on Wikipedia Review.
 * 4) This, this is exactly the type of mindset that has upset so many people. You absolutely refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of being wrong and, likely because of this, have offered no alternatives for the accused if you are wrong.
 * 5) See #1.
 * 6) I have read Philippe's response. I find it hard to believe that there are no legal ramifications for hoarding personal information on people, but I give up the point. The CU issue is minor compared to other stuff.

And it's funny that all you guys have to bring up is always Rodhullandemu. That's the only thing you ever have and the issue there was the same issue as here, lack of any information given to the community whatsoever. At least in that case you replied to his emails, unlike what you've given to Scotty here.

And I discussed this on Scotty's talk page beforehand and other people were in support of me making this RfC. That's why I did it, your insults aside. Silver seren C 02:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Your note: I hadn't even been done in getting it set up yet or added to any RfC places. You can't blame me for not notifying you when I hadn't even officially started the RfC yet. I notified all of those people to have them come certify this if they were interested, then I would have opened it and gone and notified you guys. This RfC is still not even listed anywhere, as I wasn't ready to do that before. Silver  seren C 02:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You had multiple hours between contacting Reyk, Mongo, etcetera so I find your comments less then accurate. Also: You may disagree, but you are not in possession of the IP and behavioral evidence that Checkusers are qualified to handle per the privacy policy. It's not that you disagree with it, it's that you can't see it, and you are acting like a gossip monger, demanding to know things only because you have a burning need to be "in the know". If you want to have access to private info, then put your name forward for advanced permissions, although I would have to state for the record that I, for at least one would not trust you with sensitive, private information, based on your past history.


 * It seems you are unaware of the history, in fact the issue that started the whole Mantanmoreland issue is that a checkuser requested by someone who ALSO turned out to be a sockpuppet of a banned user. However, what that checkuser found (that Mantanmoreland and Samiharris could not be authoratively linked, because one account (Samiharris) exclusively edited using open proxies. Despite this fact, the only hue and cry to sweep the CU results under the rug were amongst Mantanmoreland's greatest defenders, and as it turns out, they as well were proven wrong.


 * And to respond to your repeated talking pointthat "You've given ScottyBerg no way back if he is truly innocent.. again, he is not innocent. A dozen arbitrators and check users have signed off on this, that the two accounts are the same. In short, your reply to my response is no more credible then your original statement. SirFozzie (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * First off, can you please stop the insults? They're not making your argument stronger or you look better with your argument. In regards to the notifying, I was doing all of that at work. I notified them around three hours ago, in between setting this up, and then got off work and went to have dinner. And, again, this RfC isn't even technically open yet.


 * Anyways, I don't want to see the evidence, because that's not the issue here. The issue is how Arbcom acted throughout all of this. Scotty being innocent or not isn't important at this point.


 * The main problem isn't even just about this single case. It's with the fact that you, and presumably Arbcom, refuse to acknowledge the possibility of being wrong. If this is a mindset that all of you use for every case, therein lies the problem, because there's no way for you to be right 100% of the time. You have to allow the possibility of being wrong or you aren't the right person for the responsibilities handed to you. This is why I always felt that having just Arbcom is a problem. In a sense of a court case, since Arbcom is always compared to being a court, when you appeal a decision, you don't appeal it to the same judge and jury that made the decision, because having people review their own decisions is pointless. Who's really going to willingly change their own judgement without outside influence?


 * Not to mention that your last paragraph is a complete circular argument. "You shouldn't believe we made a mistake because we didn't make a mistake". It doesn't matter how many people in the group you had review it, not allowing the idea of having been mistaken or having overlooked something is a major problem. This is not a mindset that Arbcom should have, because they cannot properly represent the community with it. Silver  seren C 03:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, the cogent part of the argument is "CheckUsers and Arbitrators are qualified and authorized to handle private data per the authorization of the WMF. As for categorizing my comments refuting your "statement" insults does not make them any less true. The last time you went tilting at windmaills, against the Committee, it was demanding to see the contents of oversighted edits so you could determine for yourself whether the Committee had made the right decision to block the user". Oversighters, and even those who saw the edit before it was oversighted tried to assure you that the edits were indeed oversightable and the reason who got blocked. You refused, and only when the mass of the community told you to stop beating the dead horse and drop it, did you begrudgingly do so.


 * While we ARE fallible, one of the reasons why so many people reviewed the evidence for ScottyBerg's appeal is to make sure that we WEREN'T making a mistake. To suggest all these people were simultaneously wrong stretches the odds to a point that only "I really have a need to see for myself" can explain it. And considering one of your major points of your creating this RFC was that you thought Scotty had a secret trial and was innocent, to now claim that "Scotty being innocent or not isn't important at this point" proves my point, that you don't really have a case to be answered here in this RFC, you are just upset that you aren't "in the know" and want to force the release of private information to satisfy your own curiosity. SirFozzie (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The private data has little to nothing to do with this. It's about whether there's the possibility that the conclusion this data and those that read it is faulty. No matter how many people you had review the data, there is entirely the possibility that the conclusion it represented was incorrect. And this isn't about this case specifically, but any case. There needs to be a way for those accused to represent themselves and prove their innocence. At the very least, they deserve replies from Arbcom, rather than continual silence.


 * And, again, I don't want to see the data. What it says is irrelevant to this RfC. The issue is how this and many other blocks/bans are conducted by the Arbitration Committee, and these other blocks/bans are continually pointed out by users to be obtuse in how they are presented to the community. That is the point of this case, to have Arbcom actually follow the pledge of transparency that they made at one point in time. Silver  seren C 03:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, now I don't understand. You don't want to see the data, but you think everyone who has seen it is interpreting it wrongly. You don't believe Arbcom has communicated with ScottyBerg, even though it says that it has. I presume you don't want to see those emails, you just don't believe that they exist. So what do you want? What is the outcome you want from this process? Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that there are further replies from Arbcom beyond the one that states "The Arbitration Committee (or its Ban Appeals Subcommittee) will consider your appeal and inform you of our decision by e-mail or on your Wikipedia talk page. In the interim, I (personally) would encourage you to remain professional in any posts to your talk page - if indeed you find it necessary to make any at all."


 * You did "inform him on his talk page", I suppose, but just to say that it was denied. There were no replies to his other emails to the committee with evidence of his innocence, not even a little "We have received your email and will add the information to our consideration" or something like that. Silver  seren C 19:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And you know there's evidence of his innocence because...? I take your point that it's hard to prove a negative, but other people accused of socking have managed it often enough. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You already know the emails he sent to Arbcom, including what he said in them. And i'm not saying it proves his innocence, i'm saying that he deserved at least some sort of response to his statements and questions. Also, was semi-protection ever applied to his talk page as he asked, because of that disruptive IP? Silver  seren C 21:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alison semiprotected his talkpage for 24hrs on the 15th, and Newyorkbrad then semiprotected it until the 23rd. That's in the public page logs, so you can look that up for yourself. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jack Sebastian
As I've pointed out elsewhere, I don't actually like ScottyBerg; my few interactions with the user made me less likely to interact with him. So, it was with a bit of schadenfreude that I read about his being blocked. Unfortunately, I began to wonder if the basis of the block was a good one. There are too many crap users who become for all intents and purposes 'block-proof' (or at least extremely block resistant) because others inflated a charge at one point or another which never stuck, and I didn't want to see that happen here. I state this so as to make it clear I am not one of SB's defenders. I haven't seen the evidence against SB that substantiates the claim that he is Mantanmoreland. There is no public checkuser that connects the two. I am extremely disturbed that the sole reason for failing to present this evidence seems predicated upon WP:BEANS - specifically, that making the proof known would compromise Wikipedia security (this from User: Mongo). It seems to me that such an excuse is so ripe for abuse that some users have jumped on the bandwagon, sure that just such an abuse has taken place here as well as at previous times. ARBCOM's response to these concerns hasn't done much to calm people's fears, though AGK and another took the time to try and explain the matter, though I think they failed to appreciate the depth of these concerns. I think that the idea of a secret deliberation about someone's block is anathema to the core ideas of Wikipedia,a nd certainly contrary to where ARBCOM has sought to protray themselves as desiring more transparency. Clearly, this isn't happening. I understand (at least some of) the difficulties with aiming for complete transparency, and can clearly see the apparent problem here. I am not advocating we tear down ARBCOM and tar and feather the arbs before running them out of town on a rail; that is counter-productive. Also, I am guessing they wouldn't vote to do that to themselves. That said, I think a little more than lip service needs to be paid to the idea of transparency; they do answer to the community, after all - or am I wrong about this. If so, then the problem is ever so much larger: who watches the watchers? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
To be honest Jack, checking the user's IP address only really confirmed that he was located in the right part of the world. The reluctance to discuss is because all but the best poker players don't realise what their 'tells' are. Hence there is always a general reluctance by the checkusers to openly catalogue 'tells', because they feel it gives them an edge in identifying serial sockers. However, most of the rest of the evidence is on Wikipedia if you want to go ferret it out yourself - you can read all the discussions about Mantanmoreland and his socks, look at the editing patterns of all the socks, run whatever wikistalk/editor compare tools you like, and see if you agree with the dozen and more checkusers and experienced admins who are/were familiar with his editing. Silver seren can do the same. Any editor can do the same. What they don't have a right to, as it goes at the moment, is to have all the evidence laid out in simple sentences, because in this case they aren't the jury. If the community wants to insist that socks cannot be blocked unless there is a community discussion, then that needs to be proposed in the usual way.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, Elen, and I am not advocating a dulling of the perceived edge that CU's feel they have. By the same token, it is unreasonable to ask us to trust that checkusers are using the Force or whatever to do their job, and we should just trust that they are doing their job.
 * Before the aforementioned comment gets taken largely out of context, I will point out that questioning authority is not the same thing as damning it. I have no reason to believe that cu's are abusing their community-entrusted authority. Then again, I have no proof that ScottyBerg is Mantanmoreland, either. There is an issue of trust which ARBCOM isn't engendering by its perceived actions, and it is pretty much the source of the problem here here. I typically don't believe in large-style government cover-ups, but with the details of Echelon and Watergate, there exists good reason to scout for abuse by those in authority.
 * I don't believe that treating the rest of the users as if you have to "dumb down" the evidence for the community (suggested by the "have all the evidence laid out in simple sentences" statement) is fair. Likewise, suggesting that we can wade through the - if not mountain, than certainly a large-type hill of - evidence or IP search tools is not beneficial to the community's view of ARBCOM's openness. You are effectively asking us to listen for one harmony in the cacophony that is Wikipedia. Bluntly, if you've done the work, share it with us, and save us the time. If MM has been outed, then the privacy issue isn't on point. If ScottyBerg is indeed MM, then - being connected - he also has no expectation of privacy - especially since you are all unanimously convinced that they are connected. There has to be a better middle ground than what currently is in place. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you should trust that they are doing their job. If you do not trust that this was an appropriate block, there are dispute resolution processes in place: the Audit Subcommittee includes community representation, and the WMF Ombudsman Commission is an arms-length body that has absolutely no connection to English Wikipedia. Every arbitrator is elected by the community, and every checkuser appointed since 2009 has been vetted both by the Arbitration Committee and by community consultation; all of them must meet the WMF requirements for handling of private information. Thousands of blocks a year are made by checkusers using private information and the collective wisdom accumulated with respect to serial abusers of the project. That this one happens to involve a longterm contributor meant that there was lots of review prior to and following the block to reassess the opinion of the blocking checkuser; this has possibly been the most thoroughly vetted checkuser block in the past three years, and there has been no dissent at all about the link. Risker (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See, that comment didn't answer anything contained in Jack Sebastian's post. It's this defensive "you chose us, we all checked, we much be right" mentality that is irking people. Silver  seren C 18:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have pointed him to the appropriate dispute resolution processes. You can follow them too. Risker (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not helping. :/ Rather condescending, actually. Silver  seren C 18:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Jack, apologies. I didn't mean 'dumbed down' - I was thinking about the way evidence is laid out for a jury.  If the community was being asked to make a decision, then the evidence ought to be laid out in a way that the community can follow. But, there is not currently a mechanism by which the community makes decisions on whether someone is a sock or not, so there is not currently a requirement to lay out the evidence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, Elen; I am glad that I took your comment the wrong way, and that you took the time to point out the correct interpretation. You also point out the same problem that I do; namely, that there is no mechanism by which to verify that arbs are making the right decisions. I know that might ruffle some arb feathers - 'who says we need anyone to verify our work? We're arbs, after all' - but the bitter pill here is that the community is not meant to trust you implicitly.
 * We create this culture wherein we call on others to prove that which they wish to add to articles. We insist that matters in discussion pages and community areas be cited with relevant rules and/or guidelines. Proof is part of the wiki 'DNA'. Those who can't or won't get this eventually weed themselves out or get weeded out by others. The assumption of good faith does not extend into matters as serious as this.
 * So, asking us to simply trust you (and I'm also addressing Risker's comments here) is contrary to what we do as wiki editors and counter-productive as a request. I am saying that if you are wrong about ScottyBerg being Mantanmoreland (and if you are not willing to risk both your adminship and arbiter status to do so, then you cannot say it with certainty), you are giving the community no opportunity to discover that error. And I think that not allowing that is a grave mistake that only further isolates ARBCOM from the community and further hobbles with process.
 * Risker, you seem like a smart guy, and I've never known you to make a mistake, but then, my Pops would say that makes you ripe for one. If you were aware of the ScottyBerg page - and I find it very hard to believe that no one commenting here wasn't watching that page - you might have suggested "the appropriate dispute resolution process" then, instead of waiting until Silver seren took the time to file this RfC. That seems a little bit less than helpful. I am commenting here so that we can try to address a problem without having to move further up the pipeline. You don't have to take my comments seriously, but I intend them as such. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Jack says: Transparent processes have their advantages which is why we use them when we can; they also have limitations, especially in a setting as privacy-protective as Wikipedia. We try to resolve most disputes at the community level that is open to everyone, supposedly with transparency. When that doesn't work, plan B is to swap out some of the trust created by (supposed) transparency, for trust that's been vested in specific users (i.e. arbcom and CU) through community processes such as elections, thus making it possible to use private data and deliberations after open processes have failed. Per KWW, this is an encyclopedia after all, not an experiment in governance or judicial machinery. In reality the "community" processes of course aren't so transparent either, because of the amount of sockpuppets, undisclosed COI, etc. present among the community participants. While it's not inconceivable that such issues could affect arbcom/CU, the arb/CU members have at least gone through some scrutiny and (in the past) open election discussions. Now we have secret-ballot of elections, which I'd have considered a loss of transparency, Of course lots of good editors supported that (I personally didn't), but it's disturbing when someone associated with socking does it. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "There is no public checkuser that connects the two." - I thought checkuser info was never public.
 * "I think that the idea of a secret deliberation about someone's block is anathema to the core ideas of Wikipedia" - well no, if it was really like that, there would be no such thing as checkuser, and no private arbcom deliberations.

Statement by MONGO
I want to bring attention to a few issues here that need to be clarified...
 * Checkusers are generally regarded as being highly trusted members of the community. They are expected to ensure that when they are dealing with possible ban evaders that they take certain steps to seek out other highly trusted members of the community (such as the arbitration committee) if they have evidence that may lead to a re-ban of a ban evader. In the case in question, checkuser Alison did this.
 * The arbitration committee is generally regarded as being highly trusted members of the community...upon reviewing Alisons data, they apparently reached the same conclusion, namely that ScottyBerg = Mantanmoreland, who was banned from editing Wikipedia.
 * Checkusers and members of the arbitration committee are expected to maintain the rights of privacy of all, including ban evaders, yet also provide feedback as to the basics as to why a returning editor has been rebanned...in this case, this has been provided.
 * There are certain techniques, pieces of data, ques and other things I may not be aware of that allow for investigations of ban evaders to be possible...in other words, there is a lot more to such matters than just IP correlation. Some of this information must remain somewhat confidential so that the editor who is blocked as a ban evader, or those wishing to evade a ban or vote stack or similar isn't as easily able to dodge his/her ban. In previous comments on this matter, I alluded that reveiling some particulars of what is involved here could "compromise" Wikipedia...to clarify, I should have used the term "compromising"...but even with this adjustment, all I mean is that we don't want to aide and abet anyone using undisclosed sockpuppets...there are numerous reasons for this.
 * The arbitration committee generally enforces previous bans but does allow (after some time has elapsed) the opportunity for all but the most egregious of editors the chance to return to normal editing...in this case, the committee has explained what this avenue is and it seems from my perspective to be a fair one for the most part.
 * I believe that Alison and the arbitration committee here have acted in the best interests of Wikipedia in that the rules apply to all equally and a ban evader has no entitlement to editing this project unless they have sought out a modification of their ban via the arbitration committee....in such circumstances, the arbitration committee generally also seeks out comments by those who may have been involved in prior actions which led to a ban as well as community comments.
 * Those sanctioned under arbitration are expected to follow certain procedural steps to regain the right to openly edit here.

However, I have other points here that should be noted...
 * ScottyBerg amassed over 12,000 edits...aside from what a few have labelled as "promotional" to a certain bio, I can see no malice in any of ScottyBerg's contributions. Of course, I haven't reviewed every single edit made by ScottyBerg and may not be nuanced enough to know if he did or did not edit some articles in a completely neutral manner, but I know of almost no Wikipedian that doesn't have some bias...there are numerous editors on this website that edit purely from a biased position...their contributions surely appear far more detrimental to the project than ScottyBergs edits to a certain bio.
 * Aside from some edits to a certain bio, ScottyBerg appears to have stayed completely away from editing areas that were edited by Mantanmoreland...
 * ScottyBerg and I have had zero email communication that I can remember...he posted a few times to my talkpage and I remember giving him a barnstar for his positive contributions to a 9/11 related article and discussions there. Mantanmoreland and I did have email correspondance long ago...he never provided, nor did I inquire about his real life identity. My knowledge of ScottyBerg is solely based on his contributions to some of the same articles I have worked on. I never had any knowledge of or any reason to suspect that ScottyBerg may be a ban evader.
 * The discussion which led to this matter of ScottyBerg being ban evader Mantanmoreland appears to have commenced at the website Wikipedia Review. I have generally held an antagonistic viewpoint of this website, the motives of some of the contributers there as well as their welcoming of not only banned editors (note that I don't believe Mantanmoreland contributed there as he would not be welcome I don't believe...the mods there may be able to check that), but some former editors of Wikipedia that have been involved in real life stalking and real life harassment....and their at least previous active efforts to try and identify the real life identities of some of our contributors. There is concern on my part that an off-wiki website, of a somewhat (from my perspective) dubious standing, may be misused as a coordinating point for on wiki harassment...
 * I do not think that the contributions made by ScottyBerg are in any way detrimental to this website...if indeed he is Mantanmoreland, I believe that his contributions as ScottyBerg already demonstrate that he has "reformed".
 * I question the zeal that appears to have been shown here...I do not see any evidence that ScottyBerg was a threat to the content of this website. There may have been a better way to deal with this situation.--MONGO 17:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

In closing, I want to reemphasize that I believe that checkuser Alison and the arbitration committee have done the right thing here. It saddens me that an editor that has made apparently 12,000 plus contributions, virtually every single one of them positive, has been found to be a ban evader, but I AGF that all involved in this matter have enforced the letter of the law so to speak...for if we don't enforce the rules, all we are left with is anarchy.--MONGO 18:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
There are two different components here, and it might be as well to separate them, as otherwise I think it might become confused. The first is the question of whether the ScottyBerg account is operated by the same person who operated the Mantanmoreland account. The second is - if the first is true, should action have been taken. There's probably more discussion to be had about the second component, and as I said above to Jack, an argument that there should be community discussion in some cases might well receive support, because the community might not advocate continuing to block the individual if their sock has operated peaceably for years. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that the evidence that Alison and the arbitration committee examined is conclusive that they are the same editor. I also believe that ScottyBerg has a 99 percent positive contributions history, but I am willing to modify that if provided evidence aside from a few to a certain bio that demonstrate malice or COI.--MONGO 19:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think that this, and Quest's statement below, are worth further discussion. Even among the reviewers, while everyone thought he is Mantanmoreland, some people did question whether it was worth blocking him.  The question is - what do you do if you decide he can stay? Do you say he's a blocked user but you've decided to keep him on.  Do you fudge it - say there's not enough evidence that he is? How do you respond to the argument that it encourages socking? And what do you do when WR keeps up the pressure? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll be blunt here and say that Wikipedia Review can go to hell....so any "pressure" they apply to our website itself should be ignored. Now as far as pressure on ScottyBerg himself, that is a dfifferent matter and perhaps even if he avowed to never touch Mantanmorelands areas, the malicious editors there may have made his editing experiences here (by socking and attacking here) untenable. I don't support the return of an arbcom banned editor unless he/she goes through the proper channels and abides by set conditions...am I incorrect in my assumption that this was initiated at Wikipedia Review...and the checkuser was performed based on evidence or suspicions cast there? Where is the official request for checkuser on ScottyBerg? Was it requested by a neutral third party? Why is User:Vee8Njinn/SB still up?...this is an obvious bad party sock page. I suppose the subsequent edits to the certain bio is the reason that a previously dismissed Rfcu became more in focus. Its these sorts of things that makes a few of those commenting here come across as frustrated.--MONGO 19:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that really all the behavioral evidence there is? Wikistalk is pretty much useless, as there are a number of people that would have more of a match with Mantanmoreland and not be him. The other evidence is what..."rply" and "--"? The -- is useless, as two edits out of 12,000 doesn't mean anything. I'm sure i've used -- before myself. As for rply, i'm not seeing any comparison to Scotty listed there. Silver  seren C 20:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm under the impression that the information posted at the closed RFCu and at User:Vee8Njinn/SB constitutes the bulk of the behavioral evidence...subsequent "promotional" edits to Gary Weiss and closely correlating checkuser (IP) evidence is enough to determine that this is the same editor. I'm in a personal quagmire as to how to fully address this matter...anything that had it's birth at Wikipedia Review leaves a bad impression.--MONGO 20:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Second that sentiment. There is (to my mind) no reason why there couldn't be a proper community discussion as to an unblock that could cover off all these points. At least then it has been properly aired. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm better at asking the questions than figuring out the solutions. This is a relatively unique situation...a ban evader returns under a new username without arbcom agreement, makes almost universally good contributions, is found to be evading a ban and gets rebanned. The vast bulk of those banned return using short lived socks which are quickly found and blocked...who knows, we probably have other new accounts of previously banned/blocked editors that moved on to new horizons and have remained undetected.--MONGO 20:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just musing here and not really in support of such a thing overall, but I wonder if some sort of statute of limitations might be in order...in that an old arbcom case is best amended (though never nullified) so that an otherwise trustworthy editor can return in peace under set conditions....we know what those conditions would be in this case.--MONGO 21:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting thought. As you say, most socks just repeat the previous behaviour, get caught and blocked. I'm sure there are users out there editing under a new name that no-one has picked up - or someone has noticed but kept mum because the new incarnation appears harmless.  I don't have answers either, but it's an interesting thought to put into a discussion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Rootology is an interesting case...banned in the MONGO arbcom case, subsequently socked as User:XP and with other accounts...ventured to Wikipedia Commons where he was later made an admin...petitioned arbcom for his ban to be lifted on en.wiki...arbcom asked me and I said grudgingly okay after he promised to avoid me (lol)..and even became an admin here under his original username. The main difference here is that Rootology went through the proper channels for such an amendment...and conditions were established which allowed him to edit again, and as I mentioned, even be given admin tools. Sorry no links as I'm just reciting the events as I recollect them...--MONGO 21:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Rootology followed the prescribed route, which is fairly tortuous. At the other end of the scale, we have Count Iblis below, who seems to be suggesting that socks not be blocked at all while they are editing productively, which I would think it could be argued...rather invalidates the point of blocks.  Yes, you're blocked, but we won't block your socks until they are unproductive.  Or should we consider that? Some socks do edit productively for a while before running off the rails, which seems to be a strategy of some sockfarmers to cause more confusion and disruption. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is (or was) in fact something of a tradition that if a banned user returned quietly and edited productively, depending on the circumstances of the ban, other editors who noticed this would often choose to not say anything. This was always a collective IAR on the part of the editors who noticed (and it obviously had to be unanimous), rather than anything that the banned user was entitled to by any stretch of the imagination.  For example, the brouhaha over User:Law was (if I remember correctly) because Law became an administrator while other users/admins knew that Law was a new account of a banned user.  If Law hadn't run for admin, then the eventual disclosure probably wouldn't have caused noticable blowback towards other people who had kept their knowledge quiet.  As it was, it caused multiple resignations of admins and arbcom members.  I can think of a few other examples I won't go into.  So maybe the arbs/checkusers who discovered SB=MM could have just monitored the situation quietly or contacted SB privately, instead of blocking and announcing.  But I'd imagine that the "transparency" aficionados would have been even more bent out of shape if something like that later became known. Anyway, by another tradition, banned users normally can't get unbanned unless they themselves ask to be unbanned.  If ScottyBerg wants an unban, the obvious thing for him to do is contact BASC or ask someone to open an AN thread where the request could be discussed in the usual way. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just spent a few minutes looking over ScottyBerg's contribs. His mainspace editing is mostly reasonable, concentrating on New York City-related articles (geography, transit, etc). Of 12182 total edits he's made 4527 Huggle or Twinkle edits, mostly vandal reversions scattered all over mainspace (with some concentrations in specific articles he probably has watchlisted), suggesting he's been doing some RC patrol. Those are of course useful contributions per se, but at least in the old days, doing a lot of vandal reverting plus some uncontroversial mainspace editing was a standard route for returning editors to gain adminship without close scrutiny at RFA. So (forgive my cynicism), that pattern at least lifted my eyebrows about his possible intentions. I also notice some involvement of his in DR related to climate change and other areas inhabited by certain dramaboard/WR regulars, that I don't get a good vibe from. He says he has never heard of Mantanmorland.  He participated in several other SPI's, most extensively in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Nelsondenis248/Archive (where he did good work), showing interest and knowledge in this area. He removed mention of WR from an essay section discussing disgruntled former Wikipedians. Early edit history (bunch of transit-related edits, then shows up on Jimbo's talk page about climate change, etc.) also looks a bit "constructed" through the lens of the known history we're discussing. Plus there are the Gary Weiss edits and a few other issues I'll skip. Overall not much "smoking guns" but my heart is still nonetheless not exactly filled with AGF. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, ScottyBerg doesn't have the kind of contributions such as new pages or major article enhancement, but his edits still appear to be overwhelmingly constructive nevertheless and that is generally all we ask of any editor. We have a history of being overly tolerant of well known POV pushers, SPA's and similar contributors that are, in my opinion, more detrimental than ScottyBerg has ever been while editing under that username.--MONGO 05:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * True. I do wonder how many other socks he might be running.  One thing that really bugs me is when tendentious editors and sock operators start trying to influence site policies in ways that can weaken the encyclopedia's integrity.  That's an area where SB causes me some concern, though I'll agree that it certainly could be a lot worse.  67.119.12.141 (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any evidence as of yet that ScottyBerg had any sock accounts, only they he is a sock account of Mantanmoreland...I assume that User:Alison would have uncovered and also blocked any other socks during the checkuser investigation. Alison also protected the Gary Weiss article due to BLP enforcement.--MONGO 05:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I presume you mean other sock accounts and you've forgotten Bassettcat, plus the total insanity of the MM arb case itself. I haven't looked into the past WP and WR discussions enough to know how the SB-MM connection was uncovered in the first place.  I'd superficially guess that it was not easy to discern.  So I don't necessarily expect that other ones (if they exist) were likely to have been discovered.  67.119.12.141 (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't "forget" Bassettcat since I posted that same AN/I archived link here earlier...I meant that ScottyBerg isn't a sockmaster account...while we're here chatting about socks, how about you start editing here with your regular username...not to be rude, but why the coverup since you seem otherwise to be contributing without malice and quite neutrally and you're not a newbie.--MONGO 06:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't use a username. I think I edit more neutrally without one. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Have you edited under a named account before, anon67? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia. Everything else is secondary. ScottyBerg is a productive editor with 2 year's experience and 12,000 edits, and a clean record. Even if he is Mantanmoreland, whatever conduct issues they might have had in the past have obviously been corrected. Productive editors who aren't causing any problems should not be blocked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis
I agree with A Quest for Knowledge. For me, the issue isn't ScottyBerg being Mantanmoreland or not. User:Tisane was also blocked by ArbCom for a similar reason, despite that user being very productive here. Count Iblis (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I'm not sure how relevant that example is. Tisane only edited for five days. Even User:Pickbothmanlol can manage five days before going off at the deep end sometimes .--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC) My bad. For some reason earliest contribs came up for me with 6 August 2010. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see a lot more editing time than that here. Count Iblis (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tisane may have been "productive", but his editing was biased at best and alarming at worst. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My best ABF theory towards ScottyBerg's editing pattern is that he was after a sysop bit. Whether that strategy still works and he wanted to do with the bit once he got it, I don't know, but it can't have been good. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Kww
This is covered by one of the missing pieces of WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an experiment seeking a perfect online social justice system. It has a rough-and-ready system that is good enough for the task. A lot of people with checkuser privileges looked at the data and came to a conclusion. It may be the right one. If it is, they did the right thing, as socking is intolerable, no matter the productivity of the sock. They may have made a mistake, in which case .0000000000015% of the human race is unjustly blocked from editing a website. That's a problem of no consequence, and not worth any more effort than has already been put into the case.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I don't like the absolutism of "X is intolerable no matter what" per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY among other things, but I agree with the general sentiment about WP dispute resolution and its imperfections. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 06:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
I will just copy-paste the comment I left on the user talk page for Jimmy Wales:

Off-wiki coordination to use edits to a BLP article as a means to prove a point about a specific editor is problematic. Given that the admin who issued the block apparently frequents WR it raises serious questions about this case. I don't think disruptive editing should be overlooked even if it is supposedly done with good intentions.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
The Devils Advocate...there has been little doubt in my mind that the suspicion that ScottyBerg is Mantanmoreland was commenced at Wikipedia Review. The chief antagonist of Mantanmoreland is Wordbomb...supposedly, both their real life identities are known and they have real life disagreements that in the past spilled over into Wikipedia. For the record, Wikipedia Review has been more empathetic to WordBomb than to Mantanmoreland, but in terms of disruption of this website, my assessment is that WordBomb was far worse.--MONGO 04:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember, when WordBomb tried to bring it to WP's administration's attention that the person behind the Mantanmoreland account was attempting to use Wikipedia to promote Gary Weiss and Naked Short Selling, he was banned. WordBomb was then forced to publicize what was going on, including the administrative corruption supporting it, on WR, among other places.  As you know, Mantanmoreland was eventually community banned, vindicating WordBomb and exposing a rotten core of corruption in Wikipedia's administration, which included the use of mailing lists to coordinate content editing and controlling of WP's administrative processes, such as AfDs and RfAs.  Many of WP's newer editors appear to be unaware of the history behind the Mantanmoreland accounts and thus are understandably confused by what has happened recently. Cla68 (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Much of what you have descibed falls into the realm of conspiracy theories. I was an admin during part of that period and even though I was one of those supposedly misled by Mantanmoreland, I never once got a single email from another admin suggesting I participate in some campaign to control article content at any of Mantanmoreland's haunts...or to participate in a single Rfa or Afd. If anything, this sort of stuff is coordinated at WR, not the opposite.--MONGO 05:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * One thing to note is that one of the first instances where these accusations were prominently made on Wikipedia involved User:Verbal IED, who was apparently a sock of User:Editor XXV. The username was an admitted homage to WordBomb. What is particularly off is how Cla68 reacts to blatant harassment by those socks.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't assume that the Wikipedia Review thread (or related actions) was the significant factor in this action; it certainly would not have had any effect on the opinions of the majority of those who reviewed the blocking decision. Risker (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, it has only been alleged that WR was the source of the inquiry, not that it played a decisive role in it. However, from what I recall it was said by an admin (possibly the blocking admin) that the CU evidence was an ISP (Internet Service Provider) match with behavioral evidence being the crux of the case. Did the behaviorial evidence examined go well beyond what has been generated by WR?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It did. If the sum of the evidence had been correcting vandalism at the Weiss article and living in an area with a substantial population, we wouldn't be here now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty unimpressed with the WR crowd but I don't think the "weight loss" edit The Devil's Advocate takes issue with was especially egregious or disruptive. According to the citation, Weiss is very happy with the surgery and gives talks about how great it was as part of his public speaking career. Weight-loss surgery is (I think) not a formal medical term, but it's the term Weiss himself uses, so putting it in quotes seems like a reasonable attempt at dealing with that tension. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Screw "problematic", DA; if Cla68 did indeed recommend such a disruption, then a block is clearly in order, and a substantial one at that. This is behavior we absolutely need to apply a rolled up newspaper to the snout of. It is not only disruptive and pointy, its an utterly cynical use of Wikipedia to injure another. I find Cla68's behavior completely unacceptable. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like there was some on-wiki conflict between ScottyBerg and Cla68, so Cla68 played the banned-user card. I've looked at enough diffs by now to see that ScottyBerg's editing was quite good most of the time.  Instead of socking, he should have contacted arbcom and asked for an unblock/clean start and agreed to stay away from certain topics where he had problems.  He can still do that and I hope he does. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I understand the WR crowd like to mock the whole idea of Gary Weiss having weight-loss surgery and the edit I noted, with the edit summary, definitely has a tinge of mockery underlying it.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The edit is also something I would revert, for both because it seems completely irrelevant in the context it is presented in and because it is sourced to an, essentially, primary source. And Cookiehead is definitely a WR editor who is not here to improve things. You just have to read his user page to see that. Silver  seren C 20:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I had got my diffs confused-- it looks like ScottyBerg reverted that edit, but earlier he had made another edit that kept the info in the article, re-wording it and moving it from one section to another, implying he didn't have a problem with it. I didn't examine the surrounding edit history that closely, but I see Drmies later removed the info from the speaking section as self-promotion.  I think maybe your real beef is with the WR participants who forced the sock issue onto arbcom (which otherwise could perfectly well have been exercising discretion and deciding not to intervene), so maybe you should be addressing that side of things more. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, it looks like Cookiehead was actually edit warring over that thing (example). Not good.  67.119.12.141 (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which editor do you think may be the sockmaster of Cookiehead? I can give you a clue....--MONGO 03:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I had been thinking Cookiehead's editing reminded me of someone. You may be onto something but I don't have a scorecard handy and have lost track of the specifics.  I liked this though :). 67.119.12.141 (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Cough (edit summary) 67.119.12.141 (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Tora Bora Mora
People need to realise that on Wikipedia they are living in a world where the likes of User:Elen of the Roads will protect and enable users like User:Mo ainm to hide their previous account history in flagrant breach of WP:CLEANSTART, ironically on the say so of the infrequent visitor User:Alison. In a single post that she never bothered to substantiate or defend, Alison 'confirmed' that Mo ainm's past account cannot be revealed due to WP:OUTING concerns. Yet it's a matter of public record that he came up with this OUTING justification well after the event, having clearly misunderstood what CLEANSTART allowed, seizing on the fact he had simply included his very common first name in his original account name. This is not personally identifying information protected by WP:OUTING, yet this deception of the community still stands to this day. If it's true that Scotty has a clean record and is a constructive editor now, then whether he is MM or not, his enforced exile in this manner is morally inexcusable when compared to what the likes of serial gamers like Mo ainm have got away with, with the help of some of the exact same people. Tora Bora Mora (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And whose sock are you.....? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Another sock at User:ScottyBerg'sNextS0ck. I find it highly unlikely that either of these are Scotty, so someone else is trolling him. Probably someone from WR. Silver  seren C 02:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bongwarrior nailed that one's head to a coffee table. The first one I think is more likely one of the editors on the British side blocked over The Troubles.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Who'd have thought. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

One quick comment from HJ
I think most people will agree that I'm far from the biggest fan of the Arbitration Committee. However even I feel compelled to point out that its members are highly respected editors. I very much doubt that blocking an established contributor based on non-public evidence is something they do lightly and I'm certain that they are not conspiring to keep some hidden agenda from the community. If the evidence is private, it's private for a damn good reason—ie because somebody else's privacy is at stake, or because to reveal the evidence would reveal sensitive information on how to evade site security. That the community is not privy to the evidence does not mean that it is invalid or that it does not exist. Folks questioning ArbCom's judgement on matters like these should cast their minds back a few months. I'm sure several of you have read the leaked material regarding and —and that's just the stuff that's common knowledge. As painful as it may be, sometimes we have to trust ArbCom—after all, what do they gain from any of this? HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with HJ here--Guerillero &#124; My Talk  00:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a bigger worry is confirmation bias and groupthink. especially in matters which need a lot of human judgment. This doesn't take malice and even highly respected editors may fall victim to it. Ken Arromdee (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone who thinks ArbCom can fall to groupthink has no idea how painfully divergent our opinions tend to be on most things and how heated debate can get. I can tell you from three years' experience that any decision from ArbCom that ends up being unanimous (or nearly so) needed an extraordinarily compelling rationale.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, that isn't the point, Coren. ArbCom is asking us to trust its decisions based upon whaqt they call behavioral evidence and (what has since been determined to be severely outdated) checkuser info. There has to be more than that. This cannot be that Sydney Harris cartoon where the formula can only be solved by plugging in "then a miracle occurs". Secret meeting are just plain wrong. If there is no way around them, we need a parallel layer to oversight ArbCom's decisions. Of course ArbCom wouldn't like that - it harshes their buzz, effectively introducing the possibility of second-guessing their hashed-out decisions. Guess what? That's Wikipedia, my friends. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad
As a sitting arbitrator, though not one who was heavily involved in the ScottyBerg block review, I have carefully considered all the input on this page. My opinion is that the Arbitration Committee's activity in this matter was proper. Of course, that opinion may be discounted as self-interested by those who are so inclined.

I was going to contribute a much longer statement here, which I have now written, but it wound up veering far off-topic and I fear it will become a distraction if I post it here, so I'm going to post it on my talkpage instead. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Beetstra
I'm not well known with this specific case, but I was looking through this page, and I again get the same negative impression as I get over and over when looking at ArbCom decisions. I think it is known that I am not a fan of the Modus Operandi of the Arbitration Committee, at all. I feel, that part of the reason we are here is that the Arbitration Committee often completely fails in bringing up their collective reasoning, their collective interpretation of the evidence. And that is a recurring theme throughout their cases.

I agree with HJ Mitchell above that the members are highly respected members of the Wikipedia community, and that there is / may be information which can not be made public but which nonetheless is of significant severity as to allow for a ban - but communication of the basis of the evidence, and thoughts on how the individual members of the committee feel about that, and how they see that piece of evidence in a greater perspective, and how that influences the final decision is completely lacking.

I'll assume good faith, and assume that the decisions the ArbCom has made in the past are correct, but it worries me greatly. You're right, HJ Mitchell, sometimes we have to trust ArbCom - they do not have anything .. or a lot to gain from this. However, the community sometimes loses a lot from their decisions.

The lack of communication and lack of showing perspective allows questions of propriety - was the evidence evaluated in the total perspective, does that evidence support the remedies chosen, and was all that evaluated objectively. That that feeling exists is detrimental to the operation of the Arbitration Committee. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Nobody Ent
I have no doubt the intention of parties involved here is to do what is best for Wikipedia and the intensity of a discussion reflects the passion of the participants as opposed to any ill will.

ArbCom
Ya'll ran for Rfa, accepting the yoke of responsibility for being the last stop when consensus otherwise fails. As Otter said to Flounder: "You fucked up. You trusted us." You cannot expect to escape criticism, warranted and unwarranted.

ArbCom's communication on the Scotty Berg situation has been poor and incoherent. Elen's saying all the evidence is available onwiki, AGK's declination statement references "checkuser and behavioral evidence", and SilkTork's additional explanation references metaphorical elephants, discussion of which assist this and other elephants to evade future detection..

Being altruistic enough to volunteer and sociable enough to get elected naturally bias ArbCom's composition towards editors who wish to work well with and communicate well with the community. You really need to get over that -- your attempts to explain the unexplainable come off as evasive because they are evasive -- not due to a lack of character but due to the restraints privacy (and security?) concerns place upon you. Back when I was in the strategic deterrence business, we were trained with standard phrases to answer the unanswerable: I cannot confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons upon this vessel. While this degree of formality probably isn't needed for a not bureaucracy, when a case review involves privileged information you ought to just come up with a statement and stick to it.

Avoid falling into the trap of using legal terminology like "trial" and "guilt." ArbCom has neither the legal mandate, moral imperative, resources or training to determine "guilt." You're not determining guilt, you controlling access to a privately owned website that none of has a right to edit. That reads like a hair-splitting nit, but words have power. Wikipedia is just a website, our activities here are just a hobby.

Everyone else
Regardless of whether's it's Blackstone's formulation of better that ten miscreants go free instead of one innocent or Franklin's 1 in a 100, the continual assault on Wikipedia by vandals, trolls and POV pushers means we have to accept that from time to time someone is going to get a bum deal. Acknowledging that Wikipedia dispute resolution is fallible does not mean the fallibility can be corrected. It's simply not reasonable to demand to see the information that cannot be released per WMF's privacy policy. Nobody Ent 02:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

statement by uninvolved user:bwrs
I have found the behavioral aspects of sockpuppet investigation to be intriguing; how can you definitively determine, without resort to technical evidence, whether two accounts belong to the same person? With regard to User:scottyBerg, the arbitrators state that there is a combination of behavioral and technical evidence. Now, A member of the Arbitration Committee, [ in the discussion on the user's talk page, mentions an "elephant in the room"], but says that the nature of the "elephant" cannot be disclosed publicly (or even to the user in question?) because it is forbidden (presumably, by the privacy policy)– which would suggest that it is of a technical nature. But merely having the same ISP and being in the same city is not probative without behavioral evidence; therefore, I assume that the "elephant" refers to something behavioral. And since behavioral evidence usually consists of information publicly-available on-wiki, why can't it be disclosed at least to the accused person, so they can defend themselves? Although I recognize that Wikipedia is a private website, its contents tend to be very influential and (ironically) the primary check-and-balance against non-neutrality of content is the fact that anybody can edit it, so there should be some due process. Bwrs (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Technical evidence is, of course, protected by the Privacy Policy, and only general information can be disclosed. [ Here, a member of the Arbitration Committee says] that the only checkuser evidence is that the two usernames in question are in the same "large area" and have the same ISP.  Now, for any given ISP in a large area such as New York, there are probably thousands of users – if it is a large ISP such as Verizon, there may be over 2 million!  Clearly, that does not establish that they are the same person. (Now, if they were on the same IP subnet or were served from the same central office, that would narrow it down more; isn't that what checkuser is for?)  In either case, if user:ScottyBerg is innocent, then regardless of whether the arbitrators think he is guilty or innocent, they are not allowed to disclose further details, either to the public or to the accused person.
 * Behavioral evidence comprises things that are generally publicly available: characteristics of your edits to Wikipedia, for example.  Why didn't they provide the accused user with a basic description of the behavioral evidence so that he could at least defend himself?

discussion

 * As you rightly say, checkuser evidence is circumstantial. It can establish that user X edited from the same IP as user Y but not that users X and Y are the same person. In other words, it's evidence that supports a hypothesis rather than directly proves the hypothesis. Direct evidence could include an admission by the sockmaster or a sockpuppet that they had been socking; or a statement from someone who, say, was present when sockmaster John Doe logged into the User:John Doe and the User:JohnDoe 2 accounts and edited with them. Direct evidence is best but hardly ever available to us. This is why checkuser is always used in conjunction with behavioural evidence: edited the same articles; added the same text; have the same (unusual) idiolect. The usual on-wiki test of evidence is somewhere between "more likely balance of probability (ie more likely than not) and "clear and convincing". It is worth noting that the vast bulk of sock blocks are done by administrators, working entirely on their own initiative. Wikipedia doesn't really do due process in any of its processes. The full evidence is rarely disclosed to a sock as it is merely teaching him what to avoid and thus how to sock better next time round.  Roger Davies  talk 08:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, but where's the "elephant"? If it is technical in nature, then it's got to be more than just [ editing from same ISP in the same large area].  And if it's behavioral, then I assume it is publicly-visible, in which case, what exactly is meant by [ "we cannot point to the elephant as our rules forbid it"]?   Finally, if it's merely an accretion of small pieces of evidence, none of which are probative on their own, I wouldn't characterize it as an "elephant" at all.  Bwrs (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Bwrs, see the 'evidence' and analysis below. I have encountered some ants in the room, and maybe a cockroach, but no rodents, let alone an elephant.  Unless they are still hiding something from us, there is no elephant, we're just being stonewalled.  The more I look at the overlap they present, the more I see that this is nothing more than a normal, statistical overlap between the two (thank you for your work to Vasopressin.  I suggest you stop editing such pages, before someone thinks you are my sock.  After all, Vasopressin is a drug, and I obviously have an interest in editing drug pages).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Alessandra Napolitano
Many sockpuppet investigations fall prey to the prosecutor's fallacy. To explain the issue in simple terms, suppose that for a certain crime, we know the DNA of the perpetrator with certainty. A DNA match with the defendant is found, with a trait that only one in a million people share. Could we then conclude, on the basis of genetic information alone, that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, because the chances of his innocence are only one in a million? Hardly. If we know that the crime must have been committed by one person in a national population of 300 million, and that the only connections between the defendant and the crime are DNA evidence, and residence in the same country, then there are 299 other people who are equally likely to be guilty! The probability of the defendant being guilty is only 1/300. While Wikipedia sockpuppet investigations do not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it's generally accepted that we should only block an account if it's more likely than not that an editor is a sock. So, to the arbitrators who are really, really sure that ScottyBerg is probably a sockpuppet of Mantanmoreland, I would ask: How many people reside in the same general area as Mantanmoreland, and use his very popular ISP? Above, I've heard figures in the millions. Of that population, how many edit Wikipedia regularly? Within that large pool of editors, what is the probability that at least one person who is not Mantanmoreland nonetheless bears every behavioral resemblance to him contained in the secret evidence, purely through chance? If ScottyBerg were causing Mantanmoreland-style disruption, such considerations would be far less salient. We could simply say that, regardless of whether the banned user or his doppelgänger is sitting at the keyboard, he's causing trouble, so good riddance. For instance, we need not distinguish between actual Scibaby sockpuppets and equivalently disruptive climate change POV pushers; we don't have time to council and warn them all before imposing sanctions, as would be necessary for obviously new users. For ScottyBerg, who was making useful, productive edits, and causing no trouble at all, we had better be damn sure he's at least probably Mantanmoreland before blocking him. What I see reflected in this RFC is a lack of confidence that the arbitrators, tasked with reviewing the secret evidence, have or even can adequately discharge their duties in this respect. Therefore, I propose the following procedures. Disruptive socks should continue to be blocked on site. For the exceptional rare cases of apparently constructive editors who are believed to be socks on the basis of behavioral evidence that cannot be disclosed to the community, for fear of educating the sockmasters in means by which to elude future detection, we should refrain from immediate administrative action. Their names should be added to a (secret) "sockpuppet watchlist", to ensure that they receive close scrutiny. By assumption, banned editors will try to cause trouble, since anticipation of future disruption is the only tenable basis for maintaining bans. Therefore, any of the watchlisted accounts that are really banned users will be blocked as soon as they step out of line, without the benefit of usual dispute resolution. This won't work for pathological cases, obviously. We have no way of being sure that an editor who is suspected of being an Rlevse sock isn't creating copyright violations. But, in the vast majority of situations, extremely controversial blocks of productive editors who many members of the community believe to be innocent will be avoided. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC) WP:BLPs need to be written with due care and respect for the interests of the subjects, and should not be degraded by use as sticks with which to poke them. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me add that I find the following comment by Cla68 on Wikipedia Review utterly deplorable"Once the article is unprotected, an easy way to smoke out Mantan's new accounts is to add the Register articles by Cade Metz about WP and naked short selling as references at the end of the line, "He criticized Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne and his campaign against naked short selling" without changing any of the text. Mantan will not be able to abide even having any of those articles linked to in his WP promotional page, and will remove them quickly if no one else does."

discussion
Some comments: I agree with your assessment that we should not block editors who may be a sock of a banned editor, we should be sure. There is a plethora of evidence presented - all circumstantial, and much of it statistically so unsound that it is practically inadmissible. There certainly is a chance that ScottyBerg is Mantanmoreland, but I have not seen enough circumstantial evidence to believe that it is an absolute match. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been disclosed in this RfC, that they expect to have 3000-4000 editors in the New York area, and it was disclosed that Mantanmoreland and ScottyBerg use the same internet provider (i.e., not the same IP range).
 * You use in your example 'a certain crime' - there is no evidence (presented) that ScottyBerg was committing a crime, there is no evidence (presented) of on-wiki disruption, there is no evidence (presented) of abuse of process, there is no evidence (presented) of off-wiki disruption of on-wiki processes, nothing (note: there may be secret evidence, but there is no disclosure of whether there is secret evidence, which suggests that there is no secret evidence). There is evidence that Mantanmoreland was socking in the past, there is no evidence that Mantanmoreland was still socking.

Statement by Calathan
I have no experience with ScottyBerg and Mantanmoreland, and know nothing about their edits other than what has been presented here. I also have never had any interactions with the Arbitration Committee. I found this discussion because it is linked from the daily AFD log pages, which I look at regularly. While much of what I am posting here is a discussion of how I think the Arbitration Committee may have erred in handling the ScottyBerg case, I want to stress at the outset that I am not specifically asking that the block be overturned, but instead want to suggest how I think the Arbitration Committee should act differently if a similar case arises in the future (also I'm sorry that this ended up rather long . . . I'm not very good at expressing my opinions concisely).

As I read this discussion, I became concerned about a few aspects of the Arbitration Committee's decision that ScottyBerg was a sock puppet of Mantanmoreland. First, I'm concerned that the Committee may have been mistaken on the statistical likelihood of two editors sharing similar interests, location, and mannerisms. Second, it seems to me that the circumstances of this case may have been different than a typical sock puppet investigation, but that the Arbitration Committee may have overlooked those differences. Finally, it is unclear to me whether the Arbitration Committee made a strong attempt to gather exculpatory evidence in addition to inculpatory evidence, and whether they gave what exculpatory evidence there was proper weight in their decision-making process.

I would guess that there are enough Wikipedia editors that there would be some pairs of unrelated people who share interests, edit from the same ISP in the same region, and have similar mannerisms. However, I have no idea if such pairs would be rare or common. For all I know, there could be many thousands of such pairs of similar users, or there could be only a handful. In this instance, it seems to me that people went looking for potential sock puppets of Mantanmoreland, and found someone with similar interests, the same ISP, and similar mannerisms. However, I personally have no idea what the relative likelihood is of someone found in such a search being a sock puppet versus them being a coincidentally similar user. It seems to me that no one really knows this, but that the Arbitration Committee has assumed such a person is overwhelmingly more likely to be a sock puppet than to be a coincidentally similar user. I don't see any valid basis for that conclusion.

My thought is that part of the Arbitration Committee's reasoning in this case was that having similar interests, the same ISP, and similar mannerisms are things commonly considered in sock puppet investigations. However, I believe that most sock puppet investigations arise from some sort of noticeable bad or suspicious behavior (e.g. someone making similar disruptive edits to those that a banned user previously made). I get the impression that the Arbitration Committee overlooked that the lack of suspicious behavior made this case very different than the typical sock puppet investigation. When someone is making disruptive edits similar to a banned user and also is similar in interests/ISP/mannerisms to the banned user, that is two good pieces of evidence that they are the same person. Together, I would think that those pieces of evidence are enough that most Wikipedia editors would be satisfied that sock puppeting is going on. However, without one piece or the other, there is less evidence of sock puppeting, and I am not sure that most Wikipedia editors would consider only one or the other type of evidence enough to say someone is a sock puppet. In a typical sock puppet investigation, I think the person initiating the case would be doing so because they have noticed suspicious behavior. Because suspicious behavior would already have been presented at the outset, people investigating a typical sock puppet report may only need to look for other things to confirm the suspicions. I think that in this case, the Arbitration Committee may have proceeded to gather the sort of evidence that is normally gathered in a sock puppet investigation, without really realizing that such information is only one part of what typically leads to someone being declared a sock puppet. To me, it seems the lack of similar behavior weakens the likelihood that sock puppeting occurred in this case compared to a typical sock puppet case, and that the Arbitration Committee has overlooked that.

About my last concern, nothing in this discussion has really led me to believe that there was a strong attempt to find exculpatory evidence that would suggest ScottyBerg wasn't a sock puppet. It seems to me that a large list of similarities between ScottyBerg and Mantanmoreland was gathered, but it is unclear to me if anyone made an attempt to gather a similar list of differences between them. I can't tell from this discussion whether anyone on the Arbitration Committee really looked to see if ScottyBerg and Mantanmoreland had some non-shared interested, or had some peculiarities in their posts that were different from one another. It seems to me that in order to accurately judge whether two users are the same, it is necessary it consider both their similarities and differences. Maybe the Arbitration Committee did a good job of that, but from what has been presented here I really can't tell. This is especially concerning to me because I would think one user being disruptive enough to be banned and the potential sock puppet apparently not being at all disruptive indicates a major difference in behavior. Did the Arbitration Committee really consider this significant difference when coming to a decision in this case?

Anyway, here is what I personally think should be done differently if a similar case to this one comes along in the future. First, in cases where one user was banned for bad behavior, and another user has not been similarly behaving badly, I think that the Arbitration Committee should not even bother looking into whether those users are the same person, even when presented with some evidence that they are similar (beyond perhaps checking if their IPs match exactly). Other than something like an exact IP match, I don't think any amount of evidence on similarity is enough to outweigh the large differences in behavior between a disruptive editor and a productive one. While I do not think users should be allowed to reform and come back in secret, I don't think having a few reformed formerly banned users sneak by is a major threat to Wikipedia. It doesn't seem to me that in cases like this there is enough to be gained to risk possibly banning a productive user. Since I think there is no reason to believe that statistically cases like this are more likely to lead to sock puppets being blocked than good users being blocked, I think cases like this should not be presued in the future. Second, I think the Arbitration Committee needs to make sure that someone defends people accused of wrongdoing. Ideally, accusations of wrongdoing would happen in a public forum, and a person accused of wrongdoing could defend themselves. If possible I would like to see all people the Arbitration Committee considers sanctioning get a chance to defend themselves. However, if the Arbitration Committee feels that discussions need to happen in secret, then I think that someone on the Arbitration Committee should be appointed as a "devil's advocate" to present the side of the person accused of wrongdoing. While I generally trust that the Arbitration Committee does a good job, I feel that having assurances that everyone accused of wrongdoing at least has someone trying to present exculpatory evidence on their behalf would help assure people that the Committee's decisions are fair. Calathan (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Short remark, will parse this in full later. If you go through /Evidence pages of cases, the exculpatory evidence is generally strongly underrepresented.  Most editors interested in the case are the ones who .. have evidence to present that shows 'guilt' of the editor in question.  Worse is that there are size limits on the evidence - if one has 20.000 edits, the exculpatory evidence NEVER fits in there (except for a Special:Contributions link, which no Arbitrator will ever go through.  Here, there is some sekret evidence presented, and exculpatory evidence could not even be presented - the defendant was found guilty and locked away before any form of defense was allowed - and largely ignored since ArbCom already made up their mind already - this victim must be guilty - no other explanation is entertained.  This is similar to the conformation bias that is mentioned elsewhere.  It is indeed another point where ArbCom should reform.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Other note: I mentioned some differences here in my examination of some 'evidence' - which were explained as that the user obviously moved on and got other interests .... --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Questions and Discussion

 * As an overall comment, i don't think any of us would be opposed to a permanent topic ban on Scotty from the known Mantanmoreland-related articles. Scotty himself even indicated on his talk page his full willingness to be under such a topic ban. Though again, this doesn't matter all that much, since I don't think he's going to come back regardless. Silver  seren C 19:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I see no reason why there shouldn't be a community unblock discussion, with those kinds of terms being considered, if it's what folks want. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We received many e-mails from ScottyBerg, in all of which he claimed he was not Mantanmoreland. I would give serious consideration to a ban appeal that gave an accurate account of his past accounts, but the community would not allow us to unban MM if he did not admit he was ScottyBerg, so to offer an unblock with topic-ban is a non-starter. We were put in a difficult position by the lack of such an admission, and I do not see what else we could have done (nor, therefore, what this discussion hopes to achieve as it relates to our handling of the specific case at hand). AGK   [• ]  21:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which does rather make Silver's point that if he isn't Mantanmoreland, he's caught in a catch-22. By maintaining his innocence, he confirms his guilt. I do understand Silver's concern here, and it is an issue in many judicial systems, where prisoners cannot be considered for parole until they address their crime - a reasonable position, but one which leaves the genuine victim of a miscarriage of justice with two equally unpalatable options, stay in jail, or confess to a crime they did not commit. There genuinely isn't an easy way out of this.  Everyone who looks at the evidence thinks they are the same person, and one could not countenance an unblock unless a genuine sock 'fessed up, but there is still an uneasiness in straight out saying "confess to being Mantanmore or stay blocked.' Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Some jurisdictions use a device called an Alford plea in situations like this.  Roger Davies  talk 23:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, since we're talking jurisprudence, the majority view in English law is that plea-bargaining is an invidious process, and although there are situations where a convicted criminal may receive a lesser sentence if he pleads guilty, they are always looked on by a section of the interested with great suspicion. However, in the lesser court of Wikipedia, plea bargaining seems to be used quite a lot. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is probably due to our nature, which overall is benevolent.--MONGO 04:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Given Elen's quite correct summary of expert opinion regarding plea bargaining it more strongly implies that this is due to our nature, which overall is invidious. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that this block was thought through to its logical conclusion. If Scotty really is a sock, then all he has to do is create another account. He knows what got him caught last time, so he can more easily evade detection the next time. IOW, blocking him accomplished absolutely nothing. But if Scotty isn't a sock, then the block only hurts Wikipedia. This block was a complete lose-lose move. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, if one takes that argument to its logical extreme, one simply hands the keys of the pedia over to Grawp, Bambifan101, Pickbothmanlol and so forth. It's never worth blocking them if one's intention is to stop them coming back the next time.  Because they never do.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think what AQFK meant is that blocking them when they've only been positively contributing to Wikipedia is a detriment. If they are doing negative things, then yeah, a block is justified as it would be in any other case. Silver  seren C 22:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's actually the reason why it is so important to undo everything the sock did, without regard for quality. It's tedious and slow, but if you carefully insure that everything they do is undone, they eventually get the point.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * But in this case, we're talking about a productive editor. Can anyone point to anything positive that this accomplished? I'm at a loss to think of something.  Enforcing rules for the sake of enforcing rules seems a bit WP:LAME to me.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's between a rock and a hard place. If we *failed* to take action, and six months from now someone else figured it out, we'd be condemned for not acting immediately, and having ignored the return of a community-banned user. Risker (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I can certainly understand that. How often does a situation like this one happen? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Usually a couple of times a year we're blamed for not acting on something or other, or alternately blamed for acting too precipitously or harshly on something or other. As I write this, we're being blamed for both harshness and ignoring things at the same time. Kind of goes with the territory, unfortunately. Risker (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it would be beneficial to modify policy to handle situations like this, to give you guys an out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a policy issue. I think it is a behavioural issue on the part of certain segments within the community. There is this ongoing expectation that arbitrators are supposed to render perfect decisions (for various definitions of perfect), always be available, always respond appropriately and in a timely manner, meet all deadlines without fail, and write a few featured articles in our spare time. The one thing I can say Arbcom does very consistently is fail to meet the expectations of all segments of the community all of the time. :-)  Risker (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pretty crappy deal huh? All work and no play....and worse of all, NO PAY. Thank goodness there are a few like yourself willing to stick your necks out...--MONGO 03:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If we're required to do any particular thing in response to a banned user's activities, that means the banned user controls our editing rather than the other way around. That obviously isn't good.  Regarding KWW's "revert everything" theory: I don't think an out-of-process deletion or AfD of History of logic (written by socks of a different banned user, see FAC discussion) would go over very well, and undoing ScottyBerg's 4500+ vandalism reversions doesn't seem like a great idea either.  As with anything else on WP, clear thinking and good judgment addressing a particular situation (especially an unusual one) is preferable to knee-jerk, "one size fits all" responses.  Do what's best for the project, which per our principles involves adaptability. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Something I'd like to see (or at least have a discussion about it) is a change in policy that gives ArbCom the option (as opposed to a requirement) to block an sock in situations like this one. IOW, let ArbCom use their best judgement. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would object strongly. Banned is banned. If a banned editor comes in through the front door (i.e., the Ban Appeal Subcommittee), that's one thing. Simply socking until you are caught is another. As for the problem of proclaimed innocence, that's a problem in real life where there are real consequences. Ever heard of anyone being released on parole without showing repentance? That's extremely rare, and for anyone to show repentance they have to admit guilt, even if they are actually innocent. Don't hold a website to a higher standard than every other justice system in the world.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The real world doesn't have the same rules as Wikipedia. If it did, you could murder someone and not sent to prison if you promised not to do it again.  My concern is of practicality.  Can you point to one positive thing that this block accomplished?  I asked the question yesterday and no one could come up with anything.  Maybe you missed that part of the discussion.  Can you please read through it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It prevented a banned editor from contributing through an illicit account. That's a benefit in and of itself. Whether you believe that or not, acknowledge that many of us do. I read that section, and even replied to it. It doesn't matter whether ScottyBerg was constructive. He was sockpuppeting.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But if Scott really is MM, then he's just going to create another account. The same situation that existed before the block exists after the block: a banned editor is still contributing through an illicit account.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And that account will be blocked, hopefully faster this time. This can go on for a while. See, for example. If someone actually manages to go completely undetected, that will come under WP:FRESHSTART, but that's really just an acknowledgment that some never get caught.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, let's say that you're right. They productively edit Wikipedia using an illicit account and in less than 2 year's time, they are blocked.  So, they use another illicit account to productively edit Wikipedia.  Rinse, rather, repeat.  So what has been accomplished if the situation remains unchanged?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are missing the stage where, instead of yelling at arbcom for blocking the sock, people go through the edits and remove them. That's what I do with any sock that I block: go through their entire contribution history and remove everything that doesn't result in restoring vandalism or copyright violations. The only reason I'm not doing it here is that I can foresee several editors crying out "But they were productive edits!" and undoing what would be a lot of hard work. The only way to discourage a sockpuppeteer is to eradicate the results of their work. Do that for a while, and all but the pathologically ill ones go away.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about all socks. I'm talking about those rare occassions such as this one.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it's not particularly rare for editors to become concerned with whether a sock has been productive and use that to attempt to justify the original block evasion.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And based on Elen's comments, I am becoming ever more doubtful that Scotty is MM. Silver  seren C 00:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not following this closely, but Kww is right about how to handle banned users. They aren't banned unless they make good edits, they're just banned. There aren't special categories, where some users are really and truly banned, but basically decent guys who make good edits are merely pro forma banned, but really it's okay if they edit. It's a fact of life that there won't be consensus to undo all their work and delete the revisions, and that consensus must be respected, but that is what should happen - nothing the banned user does should stick; nothing they say should get any response, except for explicitly allowed communication with the mailing lists, arbcom, or the foundation. Tom Harrison Talk 15:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And in a case where the ban is incorrect, but some users have jumped on the "revert everything the person did" train? So, if the user is then unbanned later because it was incorrectly applied, they now found that a lot of their edits, and probably a lot of the articles they made, have been deleted. Do you not see the issue with this? Silver  seren C 17:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The time I became aware of a problem like that, I took the time to redo everything I had undone. Mistakes will happen in both directions.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

@Tom: Kww is correct for about 99% of socks. However, this is one of those rare cases where the situation is different. Scotty was a productive editor with 2 years of experience and 13,000 edits, and managed to do this with a clean record. Now if ArbCom is correct and Scotty is a mastermind sockpuppeting genius, then they've already created another account and are happily editing on some corner of Wikipedia. In fact, if he's such a mastermind, he already has dozens of sleeper accounts ready and waiting. IOW, the block accomplished nothing. But if ArbCom is wrong, then an innocent person has been blocked. Either way, it is a lose-lose situation.

But it gets even worse. ArbCom could have reasonably expected that the block was going to be controversial. The block disrupted Wikipedia and sparked a 3 week's (and counting) discussion beginning at ANI, then Jimbo's talk page and now this RfC. Dozens of editors have weighed in on the discussion and who knows when it's going to end. This is time and effort that could have been spent improving the encyclopedia. All of this could have been avoided. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It certainly could have been. You could have accepted the block, not participated in this struggle, and edited the encyclopedia instead.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Tom and Kww, "Wikipedia does not have firm rules" is one of WP's five pillars and as such, the only possible answer to any pontification like "we must handle every incident of type X by doing Y no matter what" is "sorry, you're wrong". That's obvious from both a WP:ENC point of view (we're here to write an encyclopedia, and all the interaction policies and for that matter the community's very existence are to serve that goal), and from the nature of conflict. If the other guy can adapt his tactics to yours but you can't adapt yours to his, he's going to beat you. Most incidents fit the same pattern and there's well-developed procedures for them, but it's perfectly fine to make tactical exceptions when something doesn't fit the pattern. AQFK: If ScottyBerg has dozens more socks and we get 13,000 more good edits from each one before blocking them, we're doing great. The last thing we want to do is block them too quickly (assuming we detect them early). We get much more pwnage against them doing what we did here, even if it wasn't intentional this time. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

). Still many occurances of 'permissable'.
 * 1) AND the World Trade Center ScottyBerg: World Trade Center &bull; Mantanmoreland: World Trade Center (film)
 * ScottyBerg: a revert (diff) and some image work (3diff) in World Trade Center (no more edits to this page) - Mantanmoreland: working on the prose of the movie, trivia (diff), controversy (multiplediff, and more (see history of page - no image work if I see it correctly). The former a very visible article of an 'object' in New York - they both live in the area.  I am sure a lot of New Yorkers have edited that article, and likely quite some the article of the movie (of the 3000-400 New Yorkers mentioned above).  I deem this generally very popular pages.  Not unlikely that they edit it.
 * Indeed, but not all of them. So this, along with the others, is a subset of a subset.  Roger Davies  talk 10:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 'but not all of them'?!?! So it is very likely that there are 100 of them that edited World Trade Center, and another 100 who have edited World Trade Center (film), and you will also be able to find 10 who edited both articles?  So because you can find 1000 New Yorkers who have not edited either of them, you say that it is likely that these two people are the same?  Thank you again for proving my point, Roger.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) AND the Holocaust/Anti-semitism ScottyBerg: Herberts Cukurs, Hashomer Hatzair, Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews. Mantanmoreland: List of Holocaust survivors, Jack Garfein, New anti-Semitism, On the Jews and their Lies, John M. Oesterreicher
 * ScottyBerg on these three articles: one with a significant expansion of Herberts Cukurs, on Hashomer Hatzair only some vandalism reverts, and participation in a deletion discussion (with 83 !votes and maybe more participants (not sure if the 'comments' were counted - note that neither Mantanmoreland nor ScottyBerg edited the deleted article). No direct article overlap.  Note that Mantanmoreland created two of the articles mentioned here, and worked on all of them.  Broad overlap, overlapping this as 'Holocaust/Anti-Semitism' is really broadly construed - political parties, people, broad widely edited subjects in the field.  Looking at Herberts Cukurs - the category Category:Holocaust perpetrators alone has 408 items (and many of these articles do not share categories.  Birthday Paradox again?
 * 'I'm also interested in history, though I haven't had much chance to contribute on that or any other subject recently.'
 * 1) AND journalism: ScottyBerg Shakaiba Sanga Amaj, Rick Sanchez, Sergei Dubov, 2011 Egyptian revolution &bull; Mantanmoreland: Muckraker, Malcolm Johnson (journalist), The Nation
 * Calling a subject that was covered by the news on a daily basis for a long time (2011 Egyptian revolution) proof of an interest in journalism is quite a leap. ScottyBerg removed a speedy from Shakaiba Sanga Amaj, further only categorisation/tagging (no content edit whatsoever), Rick Sanchez was not edited, just comments on the talkpage (first a BLP concern - in the time that there was an edit war resulting in a protection for BLP issues), Sergei Dubov again only tagging - in short, this is nothing more than just tagging, this is absolutely no proof of having an interest in journalism or likely editing those articles.  However, Mantanmoreland created Malcolm Johnson (journalist) (one journalist out of thousands of American journalists, not counting subcategories), did some vandalism revert and libel removal on The Nation ('the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States' - what is the chance that a New Yorker has read that?), and only two consequtive edits on Muckraker (adding two names to the examples).  It is even a leap to say that Mantanomreland had an interest in journalism.
 * No. You may be missing the point here, He made 16 edits to the article of which 14 were to the section on Foreign journalists. This is a much more specialist area than the article overall. (Diffs,, , , , , , , , , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Egyptian_revolution&diff=prev&oldid=411835381], , , .) Anyhow, here's a slightly more specific Mantanmoreland interest in the topic: .  Roger Davies  talk 10:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if we include that article as evidence of an interest in journalism, you presented one case where ScottyBerg was showing interest in journalism, no direct article overlap in journalism. And it still is (or was) a highly visible subject - ScottyBerg may have come there through normal RC patrol or from whatever source and seen a possible improvment.  We can see here whatever we want to see in it.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That diff by Mantanmoreland can also be read as an interest in history, or in Israel/Palestine related subjects. I don't see that as a definite proof of an interest in journalism, did Mantanmoreland say anywhere that he was interested in journalism.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding to this 'I'm also interested in history, though I haven't had much chance to contribute on that or any other subject recently.' - some journalists have a strong binding into history/historic facts - and the 2011 Egyptian revolution is certainly something that will make it into history books.
 * Adding more to this, Muckraker is linked from Gary Weiss, not unlikely that someone who edits that page heavily ends up there as well.
 * 1) AND 9/11: ScottyBerg: Closings and cancellations following the September 11 attacks, 102 Minutes That Changed America, September 11 attacks &bull;  Mantanmoreland: John McLoughlin (9/11 survivor), Dave Karnes, Dominick Pezzulo, Jason Thomas
 * Another subject that had a major impact on New York and its inhabitants. Not unlikely that two different New Yorkers have interest in the same subject here.
 * 'I'm also interested in history, though I haven't had much chance to contribute on that or any other subject recently.'
 * 1) AND criminals/mobsters: ScottyBerg: Albert Gallo, Raymond Márquez, Ferdinand Waldo Demara, 1913 in organized crime &bull; Mantanmoreland: Cornelius Willemse, National Crime Syndicate, The Commission (mafia), Meyer Lansky, Dutch Schultz, Eddie Egan, John M. Corridan.
 * 'I'm also interested in history, though I haven't had much chance to contribute on that or any other subject recently.'
 * Note that Gary Weiss wrote a book on 1950 organised crime, if Mantanmoreland had a strong interest in Gary Weiss, then that is not an unlikely point to end up. As I don't see that ScottyBerg had a strong interest in Gary Weiss (I know he edited Gary Weiss, but the first edit via Huggle, so it may have ended up on his watchlist, ScottyBerg's 'interest' in Gary Weiss certainly is not strong like for Mantanmoreland).
 * ScottyBerg edited Albert Gallo, Raymond Márquez, Ferdinand Waldo Demara significantly (2 are BLPs, both born in 1930). 1913 in organized crime is nothing but a wikilink repair, so that does not say anything.  Some of the pages mentioned here also fit in the 'Holocaust'-type grouping if we call that 'interest in Jewish history'.  Significant edits by Mantanmoreland (one article created).  Still no direct article overlaps, and noting that this may also come from snowballing from the book by Gary Weiss.
 * 1) AND financial BLPS: ScottyBerg: Michael Marcus (trader), Richard “Skip” Bronson,  Stacy Horn, Leonard N. Stern &bull; Mantanmoreland: Patrick M. Byrne, Mark Cuban
 * Reasonable overlap, some of these articles (not all!) are quite heavily edited by both editors. For Mantanmoreland, Patrick M. Byrne seems a major interest (this subject is related to Gary Weiss, not unlikely that Mantanmoreland is editing it hence), Mark Cuban does not seem to be heavily edited by Mantanmoreland.  I am not sure hence if 'financial BLPS' are the interest of Mantanmoreland.  And still, the group of 'financial BLPS' is quite big, and for them to have a proper interest in them it would be likely that they would have real article overlap, not some cross-section of categories.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) AND trading: ScottyBerg Journal of the Futures Markets, Angie's List &bull; Mantanmoreland: Naked short selling, Pump and dump, Hedge fund
 * 2) AND movies: ScottyBerg: The Caine Mutiny (film), The Circus (film), The Lost Weekend (film), They Call Me MISTER Tibbs!, Young Man with a Horn (film) &bull; Mantanmoreland: The Quiet Man, The River (1951 film), The Wanderers (1979 film), Big Love
 * overlaps with previous answer regarding classic films. 2 New Yorkers out of 3000-4000 with an interest in classic films (see Birthday paradox).
 * 1) AND actors: ScottyBerg: Al Pacino, Charlie Chaplin, Corey Carrier, Juano Hernández, &bull; Mantanmoreland: Paul Burke (actor), Ernest Borgnine, Charles Lane (actor), David Strathairn
 * overlaps with previous answer regarding classic films. 2 New Yorkers out of 3000-4000 with an interest in classic films (see Birthday paradox).
 * How many editors have edited the pages Al Pacino, Charlie Chaplin, Ernest Borgnine and David Strathairn - all four pretty well known, played in either well known movies or TV series, or are generally famous (who did not hear of Charlie Chaplin ..), no surprise that editors who go around edit those, that is just too likely an overlap. The other articles were all reasonably edited by the editors (Mantanmoreland created the article on Paul Burke).  As far as I can see, those 4 have never co-appeared in movies.  Note, we have 14,643 American film actors, and 12,228 American television actors (massive overlap between those two, but lets say 15.000 actors to stay on the save side?).  Again, what is the chance that 2 editors with thousands of edits hit an article out of these categories - any direct article overlap here?
 * Actual article overlap on Charlie Chaplin

End of list. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I freely concede that there are very likely reasonable explanations for some of them. In fact, there may even be reasonable explanations for ALL of them. But that's not the point here. The point is that the chance of two accounts sharing a long list of intersections (and that's without taking a ton of other stuff into account) and them being unconnected is remote. A sense of proportion here might help too. This is not a murder trial and, to be frank, the evidence above more far exceeds usual community standards. If you still have a problem (which is likely, because I doubt that anything will persuade you to change your mind), perhaps you should be focusing on changing community standards. In particular, your desire to set the bar at "beyond reasonable doubt" for socking and to turn a blind eye to returning socks is likely to attract very widespread resistance indeed.  Roger Davies  talk 07:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, is that not what a fair trial is all about? Beyond reasonable doubt - and I am sure that thát is what the community is asking of you, that your judgement is fair and beyond reasonable doubt. And I am surely not saying that we should turn a blind eye to returning socks (and the community is not saying that either), but I do think that it is inexcusable if ArbCom and/or CU is using questionable evidence to ban editors, block 'likely' socks, without a chance of appeal, basically a no-return road. If you are arguing here that it is fine to make a mistake in blocks for the sake of making sure that someone who may be (but for sure not surely is) a sock, a decision which is affecting a real life person, then I am sure that that will not be what the community is expecting of you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the thorny issue (again) of whether Wikipedia is a nation state or a website. WP:NOT makes it very clear where policy standands on the matter. In fact, come to think of think of it, there is no policy that requires transparency, nor evidence to be disclosed, nor that the burden of proof be "beyond reasonable doubt".  Roger Davies  talk 10:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words, Roger, I can now just block you as a perceived sock? I don't need to be transparent, I don't need to disclose evidence, I don't need my burden of proof be "beyond reasonable doubt".  A red herring, Roger.  I would be desysopped by the community.  And I hope that you have evidence beyond reasonable doubt, but I utterly, totally doubt that you have any reasonable evidence, because all this is just totally nothing.  Even the direct article overlaps boil down to one or two cases of an overlap in interests, the rest is totally unrelated coincidental overlap.  ScottyBerg is NOT a sock of Mantanmoreland.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Per that same policy: I did not know that we are here practicing an anarchy, Roger. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Note, I do think that finally seeing some of the evidence, something that you have been asked for a long time, evidence that is public, evidence that does not need any insight in private information, etc. etc., and which apparently needs an RfC, shows to see where the evidence is actually going. This was not necessarily about whether your decision was actually wrong. None of my complaints about ArbCom is about whether your decision was or is wrong. The problem is, did we really need an RfC to get a proper explanation when asking for that? Why did the ArbCom and/or CU have to be so evasive in their answers? See the opening statement: "This RfC is to discuss current and, potentially, past incidents involving the Arbitration Committee, where actions were taken against users, usually blocks, that involved a lack of information and transparency and often oblique, extremely generalized statements to both the accused and to other community members." Maybe it is time that we, again, discuss the merits of transparency here? Let me bring this into play:

This was a conviction without giving an opportunity to present a defense, this was not basic justice. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think one of the most useful things to do is not to find lots of ways how a "protect the innocent" system won't work, but to focus on the ways in which we can make one work.  It's all too easy to knock ideas out of the water, but requires more creativity and persistence to keep on thinking up more ideas, knowing that some time we will come up with something that does work.  We should never quit trying for something good / better just because of an "It'll never fly" mindset.  There will be a good solution out there somewhere, all we really have to do is keep looking for it.  Otherwise we're failing in our community duty of justice for the innocent.  The only time we can call someone a failure is when they've stopped trying.  Pesky  (talk ) 09:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A very important point which is being lost here is that about 250,000 blocks are placed a year. ArbCom is directly involved in perhaps 20 of them. Admins use the block button very robustly indeed against socks and vandals; any systemic changes need to start there. I can't see the requisite changes to the various applicable policies happening myself (as there is no groundswell to do so), and in any event ArbCom explicitly doesn't make policy.  Roger Davies  talk 10:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think any of the overlapping "subject areas" mean much if there isn't an actual article overlap. A lot of these seem to be very significant stretches, where you're trying to force a connection that really isn't there at all, the most glaring being the Egyptian stuff and calling it a journalism connection. There's nothing there at all, you're forcing yourself to see illusions. Going through an editor's article history who has as many edits as Scotty, you're going to find editing in practically all topic areas. Trying to form connections based on these isn't really giving evidence toward anything. Silver  seren C 18:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Silver seren. This is the subjectivity that I am complaining about regarding ArbCom decisions.  They call 1 or 2 edits in tens of thousands 'significant'.  And then, obviously, they do not determine what is being edited, or how.  If there is significant evidence, the ArbCom/CU is still keeping that away from us - here there is not proof of that, not even one or two example edits which are giving it away significantly.  If it stays with "they both use '--' and 'rply'" then that is utterly thin.  I repeat, this is not a textbook example of a fair trial, ArbCom.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think what you're talking about here is confirmation bias. With the best will and the best intentions in the world, confirmation bias is something that humans have naturally, so it's vital always to bear this in mind and write for the opponent really thoroughly before assessing reasonable doubt. Pesky  (talk ) 06:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Now funnily enough both MM and SB used precisely that expression - confirmation bias - in their denials.  Roger Davies  talk 10:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because that's what it is. It's not surprising if multiple people bring it up, because that is exactly the precise term for this. Silver  seren C 16:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not seriously suggesting, I hope, that Mantanmoreland has never socked.  Roger Davies  talk 16:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, and I hope you're not seriously suggesting that anyone that bring up confirmation bias is a sock of Mantanmoreland? I would have brought it up myself, but the name escaped me at the time. Silver  seren C 16:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra's comments on actual article overlaps
Moved, as is, from above. These are the actual editing overlaps between ScottyBerg and Mantanmoreland, prepared by Dirk Beetstra. This was tagged onto my 22-point list above, unfortunately, making it very confusing as to who was saying what. I've moved it to this new section for clarity. Roger Davies talk 10:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Brownsville, Brooklyn 2/2 [1, 2]
 * Both are from New York area
 * Mantanmoreland did one edit regarding Murder incorporated. Hence, overlap with the mobster point above.  ScottyBerg 2 sets of edits on two days in June 2011 (multiple diff on 17th (adding a see also, removing a sentence which seems trivial, remove a wikilink - the see also includes Murder Inc.), multiple diff on 26th (one reorganisation, adding an image)).  Heavily edited page of very well known area.  Maybe an overlap of interest
 * 1) Grand Concourse (Bronx) 2/2 [1, 2]
 * Overlapping with the 'thoroughfares in New York' point above.
 * 2 edits groups by ScottyBerg, group of edits, group of edits, significant expansions. Mantanmoreland similarly 2 edit groups, group of edits, group of edits.  Also expanding.  Maybe an overlap of interest
 * 1) Harry Maione 2/2 [1, 2]
 * Mobster (see above). Both only a vandalism revert (diff, diff), ScottyBerg used huggle on it (petty vandalism).  Mantanmoreland removes unsourced statement regarding Murder Inc./Brooklyn Inc..  No evidence of overlap of interest whatsoever.
 * 1) Henry Ford 2/2 [1, 2]
 * Another very well known person, highly edited.
 * ScottyBerg fixes a typo, Mantanmoreland is reverting petty vandalism. No evidence of overlap of interest whatsoever.
 * 1) The Pawnbroker (film) 2/2 [1, 2]
 * Movie of significant interest, important. Quoting the article: 'In 2008, The Pawnbroker was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant"' - 'Steiger received a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actor - Drama, the Silver Bear for Best Actor at the 14th Berlin International Film Festival, an Oscar nomination for Best Actor in a Leading Role, and received the British Film Academy award for best foreign actor in a leading role.' - certainly not unlikely that 2 editors saw the movie and read the Wikipedia article.
 * typofix by ScottyBerg, major interest by Stetsonharry (in a way created by Stetsonharry by splitting of from the novel that inspired the film). Holocaust related.  No evidence of overlap of interest whatsoever since ScottyBerg did only a typo fix.
 * 1) Andrew Johnson 2/2 [1, 2]
 * One of America's former presidents - highly edited page. Would not convey that they share interest based on that.
 * ScottyBerg Huggle-reverted one edit. Mantanmoreland also reverted one edit.  Did not go much further back, no evidence for a overlap in interest whatsoever.
 * 1) Bean 2/2 [1, 2]
 * Common subject, not even going to check whether they significantly had an interest in this. Feel free to do so if so inclined.
 * SB: revert, obviously not a subject of interest to ScottyBerg. Did not investigate further, no overlap of interest.
 * 1) Charles Dickens 2/2 [1, 2]
 * Highly visible page. May check later whether this is significant interest - feel free to beat me to it.
 * SB: revert, revert, revert, revert; Mantanmoreland: revert, revert - did not go further, no evidence of an overlap of interest
 * 1) Christopher Reeve 2/2 [1, 2]
 * Highly visible page. May check later whether this is significant interest - feel free to beat me to it.
 * SB: revert; Mantanmoreland: revert - did not look further, no evidence of an overlap in interest.
 * 1) Cracker 2/2 [1, 2]
 * Common subject, not even going to check whether they significantly had an interest in this. Feel free to do so if so inclined.
 * Disambig
 * SB: revert, no subject of interest for ScottyBerg. Did not investigate further - No overlap of interest.
 * 1) Donald A Wilson Secondary School 2/2 [1, 2]
 * School page, generally get a lot of vandalism or inappropriate edits (see the number of IP talkpages that link here Special:WhatLinksHere/Donald_A_Wilson_Secondary_School).
 * ScottyBerg has reverted a lot of vandalism here, Mantanmoreland on revert as well. This is a strange page where they both ended up.  It is not a school in New York.  To me this looks like plain coincidence due to RC patrol.  Don't see an obvious link towards this article in Special:WhatLinksHere/Donald_A_Wilson_Secondary_School, does not seem related to a well known subject or place related to their common subjects.
 * 1) Humour 2/2 [1, 2]
 * Common subject, not even going to check whether they significantly had an interest in this. Feel free to do so if so inclined.
 * SB: revert, revert - not a subject of interest to ScottyBerg - did not investigate further, no overlap of interest
 * 1) MDMA 2/2 [1, 2]
 * Highly visible page, highly edited.
 * vandalism revert by ScottyBerg - did not look for the Mantanmoreland socks, obviously not an subject of interest for ScottyBerg, more probably RC patrolling.
 * 1) Moo 2/2 [1, 2]
 * I was considering to throw this one out as a common subject as well. However, it is a disambiguation page, there is a chance they added subjects which were closely related.
 * revert of petty vandalism by ScottyBerg, revert of petty vandalism by Mantanmoreland. No shred of proof of an overlap in interest.  However, more proof of them both doing RC patrol (see also the edits to Donald A Wilson Secondary School).
 * 1) My Brother Sam Is Dead 2/2 [1, 2]
 * novel, appears to be a highly vandalised page, seen so many IP talkpages are pointing to it . Maybe linked to history of America - interest.
 * ScottyBerg vandalism revert, Mantanmoreland vandalism revert. Unlikely to have been an article of interest to either editors, more likely based on plain RC patrol encounter of vandalism.
 * 1) Recreation 2/2 [1, 2]
 * Common subject, not even going to check whether they significantly had an interest in this. Feel free to do so if so inclined while I am having a beer in the park.
 * 1) Uranium 2/2 [1, 2]
 * Highly visible page, lots of edits, lots of vandalism.
 * SB: revert, revert, revert - obviously not an subject of interest to ScottyBerg, did not investigate further for Mantanmoreland, no overlap of interest.
 * 1) The Lost Weekend (film) 2/2 [1, 2]
 * Classic movie, 7 Acadamy award nominations, likely many people have seen this.
 * Scottyberg did two consecutive edits to this page (adding an image, plot expansion); two consecutive edits by Mantanmoreland, expanding sentences (plot expansion, wikilink).
 * 1) Talk:Humphrey Bogart 2/2 [1, 2]
 * Well known subject, mainpage heavily edited.
 * SB: strange reassesment diff (top to low), Mantanmoreland jokes. Seems to have some interest to both.
 * 1) Reference desk/Humanities 2/2 [1, 2]
 * likely trivial (not familiar with this page, will check)
 * 1) Administrator intervention against vandalism 2/2 [1, 2]
 * likely trivial (unlikely they reported the same vandal)
 * 1) Administrators' noticeboard 2/2 [1, 2]
 * likely trivial (no chance they actually edited the same thread)
 * 1) Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring 2/2 [1, 2]
 * likely trivial (unlikely involving the same editors - will check)
 * 1) Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 2/2 [1, 2]
 * likely trivial (unlikely the same thread)
 * 1) Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard 2/2 [1, 2]
 * likely trivial (unlikely regarding the same BLP)
 * 1) Requests for page protection
 * likely trivial (unlikely regarding the same page)
 * 1) Conflict of interest/Noticeboard 2/2 [1, 2]
 * likely trivial (unlikely regarding the same case - will check)
 * 1) Huggle/Users 2/2 [1, 2]
 * likely trivial
 * 1) Huggle/Whitelist 2/2 [1, 2]
 * very likely trivial
 * 1) Neutral point of view/Noticeboard 2/2 [1, 2]
 * likely trivial, unlikely regarding the same case
 * 1) Reliable sources/Noticeboard 2/2 [1, 2]
 * likely trivial, unlikely talking about the same source
 * 1) WikiProject New York
 * Both are from New York area
 * 1) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film 2/2 [1, 2]
 * 2) Template talk:Did you know 2/2 [1, 2]
 * likely trivial, unlikely to be related DYKs (will check)
 * 1) User talk:Alansohn 2/2 [1, 2]
 * 2) User talk:Anthony Bradbury 2/2 [1, 2]
 * 3) User talk:Christofurio 2/2 [1, 2]
 * 4) User talk:Jimbo Wales 2/2 [1, 2]
 * 5) User talk:Little Joe Shots 2/2 [1, 2]
 * 6) User talk:MONGO 2/2 [1, 2]
 * 7) User talk:William M. Connolley 2/2 [1, 2]
 * 8) User talk:Cla68 2/2 [1, 2]
 * 9) User talk:DGG 2/2 [1, 2]
 * 10) User talk:Dougweller 2/2 [1, 2]
 * 11) User talk:Fetchcomms 2/2 [1, 2]
 * 12) User talk:HJ Mitchell 2/2 [1, 2]
 * 13) User talk:HelloAnnyong 2/2 [1, 2]
 * 14) User talk:Lar 2/2 [1, 2]
 * 15) User talk:NuclearWarfare 2/2 [1, 2]
 * 16) They both do RC patrol.
 * Seen the edits to Moo, Donald A Wilson Secondary School, My Brother Sam Is Dead.
 * Would give a higher chance of accidental overlap on subjects in stead of them being proof of an overlap in interest or even being proof of them being the same person.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetstra (talk • contribs) 09:01, 27 March 2012‎ (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra's perceived differences
Making this as a list, feel free to rebut me here.


 * 1) I have in the above articles encountered several occasions where ScottyBerg is actually adding images, I have not seen Mantanmoreland doing that at all
 * 2) I have in the above articles encountered several occasions where Mantanmoreland is actually creating the articles (which clearly shows a Mantanmoreland interest in that subject(-group)), I have not seen any occasions where ScottyBerg is creating the articles.

I concede that these points are weak, Mantanmoreland can likely be found adding images somewhere, and ScottyBerg likely created articles elsewhere, but it is something that now sticks out in the edits which have been presented as 'evidence' for socking. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * People move on, change interests. There was a significant time gap between MM and SB editing. What the 22-points above do is help create a profile of the editor. The more things in that profile, the lesser the change of misidentification.  Roger Davies  talk 10:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See section below. Should I continue until I find 22 area's of interest between the two of us, and 4-5 article overlaps?  What is needed to make you start consider that this evidence is maybe not showing what you think it is showing, Roger?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You can if you like :) I'll add an edit summary to this that will tie me in to MM et als. (Diffs: MM, SB, SB, JB).  Roger Davies  talk 11:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I already found article overlaps between you and ScottyBerg - but since ScottyBerg is obviously a sock of Bwilkins and of you, I did not bother. I know you are not a sock of me, Roger, so that excercise is more entertaining.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra's perceived overlaps between Roger Davies and Dirk Beetstra

 * 1) Sicily: RD: Salvo Montalbano, Andrea Camilleri - DB: San Vito lo Capo, Riserva naturale dello Zingaro.
 * 2) Love: RD: Love songs, Romeo and Juliet - DB: Love letter
 * 3) Germany: RD: East Prussian Offensive - CheMoBot/DB: Prussian blue
 * 4) Muslim subjects: RD: Baha ad-Din ibn Shaddad - DB: Hadith of the prediction in Sura al-Rum
 * 5) Cities, towns, and villages: RD: Tel Aviv - DB: San Vito lo Capo
 * 6) Electronics: RD: Electrical telegraph - DB: Molecular electronics
 * 7) Universities: RD: South Valley University - DB: KAUST (link from userpage)
 * 8) Italy: RD Italians - DB: Riserva naturale dello Zingaro
 * 9) War: RD Causes of World War I - DB: World war
 * 10) United Kingdom: RD History of rugby union matches between France and New Zealand, St Edward's Roman Catholic Church of England School  - DB (lived in Wales, UK), Jacksdale, Labour Party (UK)
 * 11) Chemistry: RD: Kevlar - DB: see userpage, Molecular electronics, Prussian blue
 * 12) Polymers: RD: Kevlar - DB: see userpage, Titanium(III) chloride, Cyclopentadiene, Methylaluminoxane
 * 13) Cnidaria: RD: Box jellyfish - DB: Jellyfish
 * 14) Wales: RD: Snowdonia - DB: lived in Wales per userpage

end of list --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose the point, which I doubt you'll concede, is that between you and I have a combined edit total of 160,000 edits, made over a combined twelve years. Overlaps are inevitable. In sharp contrast, MM and SB have only a combined total of a tenth of that, 16,000 edits.  Roger Davies  talk 11:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I know. But also for Mantanmoreland and ScottyBerg, overlaps are inevitable (do you want me to do this exercise on two accounts with ~10.000 edits each?).  Have you actually read Birthday paradox?  And do see, I have NOT listed any actual article overlaps, yet, and seen the list of 18 article overlaps between ScottyBerg and Mantanmoreland contains numerous which are not significantly edited by ScottyBerg and Mantanmoreland.  I have not gone into the excercise of overlapping our edits - do you think it is going to be more or less than 200?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, did not give you time to answer, it is below (67 out of almost 160.000 vs. 6 out of almost 19.000). I've taken the liberty to do a couple more: Betacommand - Jclemens: a whopping 298 out of some 120.000 edits; Beetstra - ScottyBerg: 166 out of a 140.000 edits; Mantanmoreland - Jclemens: 5 out of 40.000, Elen of the Roads - ScottyBerg: 9 out of 27.000.  Actually, having 6 overlapping articles in 20.000 looks a very normal overlap.  But I doubt that that is a point that you will concede.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, I never had you down as an old Sicilophile romantic :)  Roger Davies  talk 11:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I was surprised that you went through the whole Montalbano series .. did you read them in Italian or in English? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * English. The only language I regularly read in recreationally other than English is French (though I did read a children's version of Pinocchio in Italian once).  Roger Davies  talk 11:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I must confess - me too (though some are available in Dutch). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

User overlap between Roger Davies and Beetstra:
 * 1) Adam Mickiewicz	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 2) Afghanistan	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 3) Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 4) Arthur Koestler	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 5) Artillery	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 6) Birth control	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 7) Buchenwald concentration camp	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 8) Chemical warfare	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 9) Chinua Achebe	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 10) Chris Langham	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 11) Christian Dior	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 12) Commonwealth of Nations	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 13) DCO	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 14) Dachau concentration camp	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 15) Daft Punk	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 16) Eastern Front (World War II)	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 17) Emily Dickinson	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 18) Fighter aircraft	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 19) Forensic linguistics	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 20) French Foreign Legion	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 21) Frédéric Beigbeder	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 22) German cruiser Emden	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 23) Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 24) HMS Lord Nelson (1906)	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 25) Henri Cartier-Bresson	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 26) Hitler Youth	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 27) Invasion of Normandy	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 28) Jane Austen	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 29) Jean-Charles de Castelbajac	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 30) Jean-Paul Sartre	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 31) John Mortimer	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 32) John Tyndall (politician)	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 33) Kevlar	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 34) Khyber Medical College	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 35) La Complainte du Partisan	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 36) Madrid	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 37) Major scale	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 38) Manx language	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 39) Normandy	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 40) Omaha Beach	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 41) Organised crime in India	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 42) Particulates	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 43) Patrick Bruel	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 44) Petroleum	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 45) PlayStation 2	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 46) Poker	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 47) RMS Lusitania	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 48) Reverse osmosis	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 49) Rice	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 50) Robert Bresson	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 51) Robert W. Service	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 52) Rugby union	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 53) Siege of Leningrad	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 54) Snowdonia	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 55) Stelios Haji-Ioannou	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 56) Tangier	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 57) Tank	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 58) Tarte Tatin	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 59) Thomas and Friends	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 60) Tomb of the Unknowns	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 61) USS South Dakota (BB-57)	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 62) Universe	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 63) Varna	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 64) Vietnam Veterans Memorial	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 65) Xylyl bromide	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 66) Zimbabwe	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 67) Zinc	2/2 [1, 2]

67 out of ~160.000 (127929 & 29848)

vs.

User overlap between ScottyBerg and Mantanmoreland:
 * 1) 	Brownsville, Brooklyn	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 2) 	Gary Weiss	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 3) 	Grand Concourse (Bronx)	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 4) 	Harry Maione	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 5) 	Henry Ford	2/2 [1, 2]
 * 6) 	The Lost Weekend (film)	2/2 [1, 2]

6 out of ~19.000 (12730 & 5801).

We have a higher 'percentage' of overlap, Roger ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Confession: out of that list of 67, I would consider ~10 pages to be within my field of interest (chemistry, mainly). I do not have a specific interest in second world war or war-related pages, perfumes or fashion, politics, or other possible interests that you can find out of that list of 67.  However, it is declared (or at least, Roger Davies declared) that the overlap of those 6 pages constitutes an overlapping interest in Gary Weiss, Thoroughfares in New York, classic movies and Mobsters.  It seems that the overlapping interest in automobiles was not detected.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we do have a big overlap but that's caused by the large number of one-off reverts we've both done over the years. What is interesting is if you compare Mantanmore to a random bunch (arbitrators in this case), you get a much lower overlap than the Mantanmoreland / Scotty Berg one. Thus: AGK (1); Casliber (0); Courcelles (21); David Fuchs (0); Elen of the Roads (0); Hersfold (1); Jclemens (5); Kirill (1); Newyorkbrad (2); Phil Knight (5); Risker (3); Roger (2); SilkTork (2); SirFozzie (2); Xeno (4), resulting in an average overlap of just over 3 edits. Obviously, Courcelles inflated that considerably because of his gigantic edit count. If you take him out of the equation, the average drops to 2 edits. I started doing the same exercise comparing members of the New York Wikiproject with Mantanmoreland (but abandoned it after a dozen or so) with similar (overlap of 2-3) results. While this is great fun and so on, life is too short to spend much more time crunching figures. Roger Davies talk 13:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed. Absolutely, Roger Davies:


 * 1) Brownsville, Brooklyn 2/2 [1, 2]
 * Both are from New York area
 * Mantanmoreland did one edit regarding Murder incorporated. Hence, overlap with the mobster point above.  ScottyBerg 2 sets of edits on two days in June 2011 (multiple diff on 17th (adding a see also, removing a sentence which seems trivial, remove a wikilink - the see also includes Murder Inc.), multiple diff on 26th (one reorganisation, adding an image)).  Heavily edited page of very well known area.  Maybe an overlap of interest
 * 1) Grand Concourse (Bronx) 2/2 [1, 2]
 * Overlapping with the 'thoroughfares in New York' point above.
 * 2 edits groups by ScottyBerg, group of edits, group of edits, significant expansions. Mantanmoreland similarly 2 edit groups, group of edits, group of edits.  Also expanding.  Maybe an overlap of interest
 * 1) Harry Maione 2/2 [1, 2]
 * Mobster (see above). Both only a vandalism revert (diff, diff), ScottyBerg used huggle on it (petty vandalism).  Mantanmoreland removes unsourced statement regarding Murder Inc./Brooklyn Inc..  No evidence of overlap of interest whatsoever.
 * 1) Henry Ford 2/2 [1, 2]
 * Another very well known person, highly edited.
 * ScottyBerg fixes a typo, Mantanmoreland is reverting petty vandalism. No evidence of overlap of interest whatsoever.
 * 1) The Lost Weekend (film) 2/2 [1, 2]
 * Classic movie, 7 Acadamy award nominations, likely many people have seen this.
 * Scottyberg did two consecutive edits to this page (adding an image, plot expansion); two consecutive edits by Mantanmoreland, expanding sentences (plot expansion, wikilink).
 * 1) Gary Weiss
 * Both significant number of edits.


 * So, what were you saying about 'us having a large number of edits due to one-off reverts we've both done'? If we take out those we end up with 4 here, and unlike most of the Arbs you mention, both ScottyBerg and Mantanmoreland lived in New York.  Do note, we both lived most of our life in Europe, and see where we do have quite some overlap ... No, Roger, I still believe it is insignificant, all of this.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And AGK (20); Casliber (50); Courcelles (489); David Fuchs (6); Elen of the Roads (9); Hersfold (28); Jclemens (84); Kirill (30); Newyorkbrad (17); Phil Knight (165); Risker (17); Roger (10); SilkTork (60); SirFozzie (2); Xeno (52).
 * Doing the same excercise for Wikiproject New York members .. 12, 5, 69, 66, 9, 0, 11 ...


 * So, while there is no overlap between the current Arbs and Mantanmoreland, and while there is just a slightly higher overlap between Mantanmoreland and ScottyBerg, a massive overlap between the current Arbs and ScottyBerg exists (an average of 70 edits, close to our overlap, Roger Davies), and ScottyBerg also overlaps more with the New York WikiProject. Those 6 are just as insignificant as all the other overlaps that were found .. they mean absolutely nothing.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Lets get back to this point, Roger Davies. You see that ScottyBerg has a lot of overlap between himself and the majority of the Arbs.  On the other hand, Mantanmoreland has just marginally more overlap with ScottyBerg than with all the Arbs.  So what do these overlaps tell us?  I doubt that you will concede that the answer is 'nothing'.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)(adapted.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC))
 * ?? I entirely agree that overlaps by themselves mean little, particularly when comparing people with high edit counts. What they do though is provide paths for further enquiry even if the results have been distorted by one-off edits.  Roger Davies  talk 16:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that, going through the overlaps, there's still nothing that pops out, so we still don't understand what this irrefutable evidence is that so many checkusers apparently saw. Silver  seren C 17:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Roger Davies. And you have given us quite some of those paths above (the 22 points).  However, in many of those cases the overlap is so thin that the circumstantial evidence becomes practically inadmissible.  You have, per Silver seren, still not shown any irrefutable evidence.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Using myself as an example
I just wanted to use myself as an example of how creepily close some user's edits can be. Doing a comparison between myself and Bongwarrior (I hope he doesn't mind me bringing him up), you get this. As you can see, there's a lot of eerily specific overlaps in there that even I can't explain. Silver seren C 16:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced of the true effectiveness of Stalker, though maybe i am not using it correctly. (On a side note, what do the numbers after the articles - 2/2 [1, 2] - mean?) I've done this a few times, and notice sizable overlap with users I barely know - sometimes even more than the overlap with those edits of my Dad, who retired from editing over a year ago. Is there a better tool (or a better way of using this particular tool) to detect overlap? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's very good for indicating where to start looking but it it would be much improved with the ability to set a threshold for overlaps, ie 2 edits or more, 3 edits or more, and so on.  Roger Davies  talk 16:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The tool just shows which articles are edited by both. Unfortunately, you still have to dig for the actual diffs yourself.  It can be an indication, but as shown in my analysis, a lot of it is just totally unrelated - 2 random editors may have a massive overlap (see the numbers in one of these sections comparing ScottyBerg with the Arbs, 70 on average), while known socks have hardly any overlap (try Mantanmoreland with his known socks, the highest number is about 12, average is 6).  Based on the article overlap alone, almost all the arbs are likely socks of ScottyBerg, and ScottyBerg is unlikely a sock of Mantanmoreland.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but who relies on the raw data anyway? What it is useful for is pinning down where to start looking.   Roger Davies  talk 16:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And then you have to start looking at it. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 0. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

MajorStovall
Regarding this: Mantanmoreland and MajorStovall have 0 article overlaps. MajorStovall has only done one. Now, MajorStovall was active during the other Mantanmoreland socks, so I have a question here regarding the CheckUser data: did the CheckUser data here reveal that the two editors actually were overlapping in IP (using the same IP at some time close together), or is the IP-address evidence of the same type as between ScottyBerg-Mantanmoreland (they were using the same provider). I know the data is stale, but, in the spirit of transparency, could we know what type of evidence showed the definite evidence that this was a sock, was this direct overlap of IP, was this 'they use the same provider', or editing overlap? --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Question to ArbCom/CU initiated by the SirFozzie remark
SirFozzie stated (diff):

"Third: Alison contacted the Committee to alert us she was on the verge of blocking the user, and carefully and congently explained why she was about to do so. We told her that we had no problem with the initial block, but would carefully consider any appeal from ScottyBerg. When that appeal was made, Nearly a dozen checkusers and arbitrators carefully scruitinized the evidence linking the two accounts. A couple of this number provided background information only, but recused from any formal decision as they were involved in the original case that ended up sanctioning the user that ScottyBerg was linked with. However, every arbitrator and check user who reviewed this case concurred with the finding linking the two accounts."

I have bolded one sentence there that attracts the interest. That sentence suggests strongly that there is somewhere a copy of evidence information, a long list of overlaps, tell-tale edits, unusual idiolects, strange word use, common typos, overlapping articles, &c. &c. And that ArbCom and CheckUsers have gone through that long list, confirming that all those points were overlaps.

My question to ArbCom or involved CheckUsers:


 * Were all of the editors who scrutinised the evidence provided with said copy of the evidence that was collected by Alison, or were all those editors working on their own account trying to link the editors together without having seen any other evidence, collecting their own overlaps? How many editors did perform the analysis from scratch?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)