Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed decision/Archive1

Procedural question on recusal
I see that various users have called for Morven to recuse based on hostile comments he has made surrounding this issue on outside forums, such as Wikbak, and due to the fact he was subscribed to the underground Wikia.com mail list wpCyberstalking list along with Mantanmoreland. I don't have any opinion myself anymore, and have redacted my own agreement with the recall request on my original opening comment. I really don't feel like taking part in this epic mess since I'm frankly burned out on my current Waterboarding RFAR and need a break in general. This one technical point got me curious, however, as it's a related to the various heated arguments in the IRC case.

My question is, since the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales are only empowered by the goodwill of the community, does the community theoretically have the ability to enforce recusal, if enough established users called for an Arbiter to sit out a case? I understand there is no precedent for this, but I ask as the Committee only has any authority because the community lets them. Lawrence § t/e 00:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * See here. The decision to recuse is by policy left to the individual Arbitrator, and there is no other established method for requesting/enforcing a recusal (See WP:Arbitration policy). Avruch  T 00:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That is to say, the policy would need to be changed by consensus in order to create a new method for forcing recusal. Avruch  T 00:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well yes, I saw that, but I asked here afterwards as the community can change anything it wants to outside the Foundation level (but that can be changed as well, since the community can always scrub the entire Foundation Board with an election or two). The community controls everything and anything in the end. Lawrence § t/e 00:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not so. For a start, the english wikipedia community is not the sum of the wikimedia community, so watch how you use the word "community". Second, WMF has core purposes, which cannot be votes out of existence. Anyway, that's pretty irrelevant to the question of recusal. I'm sure that a consensus of arbs, or the intervention of Jimbo could compel a recusal if they wished to. However, in fact, I doubt they would.--Docg 00:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The clerk, Rlevse, has told me that the procedure for requesting recusal is to first ask the individual arbitrator, which I have done . If the arbitrator refuses, which Morven has done, then I'm supposed to take the request to another arbitrator, which I have done .  NewYorkBrad then replies that there is currently no way to force an arbitrator to recuse themselves. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify my statement. Sorry for the confusion. There is no set policy here. I advised Cla68 using standard wiki policies, ie, approach the person directly first and politely ask. Then use other means, which here would logically be ask another arb and/or send to the arb mail list. To me this makes sense and gives the requestor (Cla68 here) a means of "appeal" if the requestee (Morven here) does not respond or does not grant the request. It may be arbcom needs a formal policy on this, I'm not sure, but it'd probably be akin to what I outlined I expect if they did come up with one. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 02:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say that the question will probably come up again, so a formal process probabaly should be established. Yet another forum requiring the arbitrators to respond to. Cla68 (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I will state that should more than one other Arbitrator ask or advise or suggest that I reconsider and recuse, I will do so. This applies to all cases, not just this one.  However, there are no rules that compel this.  No arbitrator has yet made such a suggestion.


 * Note that I am at a convention from tomorrow through Monday night, and will not be editing Wikipedia nor reading my email during this time. Just FYI so nobody thinks I'm ignoring them. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment
First of all, my apologies if this consideration has been noted before.

One thing for arbitrators to consider when proposing remedies is how to avoid endorsing the methods Judd Bagley (WordBomb) has been utilizing. If the committee determines the Mantanmoreland and Samiharris accounts belong to the same individual (regardless of whether it is Gary Weiss or not), I think it should take care to make clear that the way Bagley has been pursuing the issue is, well, not the ideal way to expose sockpuppetry.

But that brings up another issue - what is the ideal way for this sort of allegation to be made? Would this case have even come about if Bagley hadn't been pursuing it from Wikipedia Review and his website? Would SirFozzie have compiled his evidence subpage and filed this request if he hadn't been reading Bagley's posts on that site? If not for the wealth of offsite evidence in addition to what WordBomb listed at the checkuser request, would checkusers have taken Requests for checkuser/Case/Samiharris seriously? It is disturbing to consider that this sockpuppetry could have continued for even longer if not for Bagley's tactics. I think we need a better way for people to make credible sockpuppetry allegations against established editors without fear of retribution (note the credible requirement). I doubt a proposed decision could address all of this, but it's something to keep in mind. Picaroon (t) 02:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree there are some very large challenges to the project to come out of this, but it starts by not ignoring the real abuses going on (by all sides of this and other disputes). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good thoughts from both of you. Getting to the root of any systemic corruption and exposing problematic editors is a good thing. Maybe the transparency found at other objective sources is a great thing, in the final analysis. Anonymous editing can lead to a kind of trouble that passes all understanding.  Like a Rainbow (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Heard a rumor...
The word is that you might start posting proposals in the next few hours. I really hope that's true. The talk pages seem to have jumped the shark (several times, in fact), and I doubt many people will read the whole workshop, now pushing 500k. I certainly haven't.

I just want to know if the arbitrators need any more evidence in particular, so I'm eagerly anticipating your findings of fact. Good night. Cool Hand Luke 06:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Waiting on an arbcom decision is similar to waiting for a US jury verdict. Since we can't see their deliberations, we can't tell how close they are to reaching a decision.  I expect that they'll start posting some findings soon. Cla68 (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the proposed decision
My approach to the proposed decision attempts to reflect a consensus of several arbitrators rather than solely my own views as the arbitrator posting the draft. And please see the second paragraph under United States v. One Book Entitled Ulysses by James Joyce#Appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * if there's nothing about the MM/GW/SH connection, the order of the day is apparently whitewash. brad, I have a LOT of respect for you, but if there's not going to be anything about the connection, then ArbCom has wasted a lot of people's time and lived up to the stereotype that others have placed on it. SirFozzie (talk) 03:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention ignoring the overwhelming consensus on the RfC and in the comments on the evidence that came to light in the arbitration case. Viridae Talk 03:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The majority of the arbcom' (ie, the ones who don't have blinkers on) believe that they are socks, but a two-time sockpuppeter (and let's not forget the double votes, and double participatiopn in previous arbcom cases) shouldn't get anything more then told if he edits that article any MORE that he has to establish his COI? This is nothing more than a whitewash, and gives the folks who trash us evidence that they are exactly what they say we are. SirFozzie (talk) 03:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to do my best to let the decision speak for itself, and allow time for the other arbitrators to comment, but commenters need to focus on the principles established and the remedies enacted (some of which are novel) in addition to a specific finding that some may find not strong enough and others may find too strong. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Judging by the case pages there is a handful of people who will find the proposed decision too strong. But the vast majority of those people involved in this case will find it an abhorent copout that does ntohing to address the core problems that brought this case to hand or even touch on the impressively strong suite of evidence that has been presented, notwithstanding the lack of solid CU results (and more impressive because of that). Viridae Talk 03:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm very surprised if ArbCom would turn the use of open proxies into such a defense. I assumed references to the narrow scope of ArbCom indicated that it would acknowledge the violations of policy as it would in any case, but that outside parties should not assume this was some sort of legal conviction. To say that two accounts assessed by the vast majority of commenters to be sockpuppets based on overwhelming evidence are nevertheless invincible because they use open proxies does not seem like a helpful development. In more normal circumstances, I don't think ArbCom would have any problem stating that significant evidence of sockpuppetry combined with the use of open proxies is blockable of itself. Mackan79 (talk) 04:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My initial thought is that I would be fine with the decision if WordBomb is unblocked and allowed to edit the articles on equal terms. This would suggest that the Committee has come to the conclusion that personalizing the dispute does not work. Otherwise, I can't see why the ArbCom would disregard the evidence, including the community consensus expressed in the RfC. Mackan79 (talk) 03:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

'''In this case a more cautious and conservative standard was needed, due to confounding issues discussed internally by the Committee. Although the evidence is respected and was extremely carefully reviewed, the most that can be said by consensus in this most bitter case is "suggestive but not confirmed".''', or in other words, that because this case is so divisive, we need a completely impossible standard of evidence (I mean, look at all the work that went into this, it's not enough???), apparently, to at least some members of the ArbCom, we'd need a video of person A logging into account's B and C right after each other.. oh wait.. that would be inadmissible because it was stalking, right? SirFozzie (talk) 04:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My greatest worry here is that the proposed decision adds up to a green light for vote stacking. For an experienced editor, creating hard-to-catch sockpuppets isn't all that difficult.  One of the things that keeps the regulars honest has been the knowledge that the abuse would be handled firmly when the day of reckoning came.  Yes, I'm thinking of Runcorn and a few other instances.  But if the only downside becomes a stern talking-to and instructions not to do it again, then what's to stop the problem from becoming widespread?  Durova  Charge! 04:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Durova. This is a green light to sensitive sockpuppet vote stacking by established users.  I'm very disappointed.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I too must voice my strong disappointment with a finding that uses "suggestive but not confirmed" wording. I acknowledge that nothing is 100% provable but the connection here is about as strong as it can be. The finding should be much more strongly worded, saying something like "extremely unlikely to be different users" rather than merely "suggestive". To do any less is to be dismissive of the massive effort the community, and particular hard working members, put into this, and to enable wikilawyering of the worst sort, as well as give ammunition to those that say that this case is a whitewash. I will have more to say later about the way too narrow scope of the findings and remedies I am sure but this is a starting point. Surely ArbCom can do better than this. We did not select you to be mealymouthed and prevaricative, we selected you to be bold and forceful and to make hard decisions and possibly unpopular findings and not let coverups be whitewashed. I hope much stronger and better language in a much broader scope is forthcoming. ++Lar: t/c 12:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with SirFozzie (04:11), Durova (4:32), Rocksandirt (5:28), and Lar (12:44), all just above. Lar goes beyond criticizing what's on the Proposed page so far to criticizing the committee, and if what's on the page now reflects the committee's final judgment, the criticism is justified. So far the Proposed page lacks an adequate recognition of the deliberate care put into this case by Wikipedians who wanted a decisive closing of this allegation circus. If that's the committee's decision, the Arbitration Committee has failed to show that it treated the evidence with the attention and fairness it deserves. This inadequate response harms the committee's own reputation among editors far beyond the usual critics, and it makes Wikipedia's most strident critics look better. If nothing else, the committee should be more explicit about its standards of evidence and why the evidence here failed to convince -- even as other bans have been effected with less proof. Private deliberations may be needed, but they need to be combined with much clearer, somewhat more detailed public explanations. The language now on the page invites similar abuse in the future and does not adequately protect the encyclopedia from harm. Listen carefully to the criticism: It's not just about the decision, some of it elsewhere on this page is about the way you're delivering it. Noroton (talk) 19:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Since this thread is the best place for this comment, I'll make it here. I appreciate, and think it a good move, to attempt writing the decision in the style adopted by the hand cousins. However, making a good decision is far, far more important and I suspect that the style goal has adversely affected the content of the decision. So my recommendation is to think again, reach a good decision, and then write it in a boring style. GRBerry 20:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am among the committee members who firmly believe that a sufficient standard of proof to be actionable has not been met. I do not believe that any further research or analysis is likely to meet such a standard, because the facts themselves are not sufficiently strong. Some things are unknowable. There are a number of problems at work. First of all, it is my experience having made a considerable number of checkuser runs that people engaged in sock puppetry make mistakes over time. It is rare for someone to make 100 edits with a sock without slipping up -- editing the wrong user page, signing the wrong name, having the proxy settings in their browser set up for the wrong identity, inadvertently outing themselves on an external site or by email. To make over a thousand edits from a sock, interleaved with contributions from a main account, without making a mistake would require consistent attention to detail heretofore unseen at Wikipedia.

Second of all, I do not find the statistical analysis to be rigorous or well controlled (though it does indeed raise suspicions). A well-controlled analysis would consider a function f(u1,u2) that could measure something thought to be correlated with probability of two users being socks. Without being preloaded with any data (such as word choices) specific to a user or pair of users, f could provide some measure correlated with the likelihood of socking. If such a function were tested on a large, representative sample of users and produced accurate results, it could be considered to be verified in a well-controlled experiment. In contrast, the analysis we have is informed by visible characteristics of the editors under study.

I do not believe that the decision is a cop out, but rather believe that it accurately reflects the very limited conclusions that can be drawn from the data available.

Wikipedia's policy on open proxies, WMF's privacy policy, and WP:SOCK reflect tradeoffs between privacy and accountability. All these policies can be changed. I would encourage interested Wikipedians who are frustrated with sock puppetry to join the dialog on changing them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "To make over a thousand edits from a sock, interleaved with contributions from a main account, without making a mistake would require consistent attention to detail heretofore unseen at Wikipedia." there is every chance it is unseen on wikipedia because they haven't screwed up yet? You cannot come to conclusions like that based on a lack of evidence! Viridae Talk 22:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As a practical matter, most people can't make it past 50. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In reality it is entirely possible to achieve quite easily. You can have ie and firefox logged into different accounts. have one of those browser forced to use and open proxy and bingo! The thing is, MM HAS achieved something like that before with lastexit and tomstoner, he screwed up (once) with tomstoner and thereby learnt his lesson. He is effectively a veteran at this sort of thing. He also had a lot to lose, should the MM = GW connecction ever be exposed - job, reputation, etc that provides a hell of a lot of incentive. Whats more, the edits, despite having a very very similar median time, only interleaved on a handfull of occasions. Viridae Talk 22:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Uninvited Company: I have 5 different laptops here at home, of various vintages, but all capable of running modern enough browsers and net connections to effectively edit WP... I also have access to 4 different ways to get to the internet. If I was bound and determined to sock, all I would have to do is set one of them up so it had saved setup info to use some browser, and some dialup connection, and then never ever use it for the other account. As long as you stay logged in, you're never going to sign as the wrong person, and if an IP slips out, big deal. As Viridae says, set it up to always go through a proxy server if that's an issue. (which, hello, one of these two socks did...) I just don't see your dubiousness as well founded, I'm sorry. As Lawrence Cohen says, if this were some other editor, this would be open and shut based on passing the DUCK test... long long ago. Being dubious this way... fuels the conspiracy theorists. Although I am sure you are acting in good faith, I think you are doing the community a vast disservice here, as the net result is that you are protecting these folk who are extremely likely to be sockers. Apparently bringing this to ArbCom was a waste of time, which is a disappointment. ++Lar: t/c 22:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * UninvitedCompany, if I had presented this information and replaced all of the usernames involved with other ones, and named a BLP of Lawrence Cohen, would that have been sufficient to declare a sock relationship? I've seen sockpuppeteers banned almost immediately based on 1/10th the level of evidence we see here. Why is so much extra leniency and courtesy being extended to Mantanmoreland, who has a proven and demonstrated history of abusing sockpuppet accounts, and to my knowledge has never answered why he did that? Lawrence § t/e 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, first off, thank you for being honest. now, please don your asbestos underwear, because the flames are going to come fast and furious, starting with me..... ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME? You are one of the members of the ArbCom who firmly believes that a sufficient standard of proof to be actionable has not been met. If this doesn't reach the status of being actionable, I don't know what will. It is asinine to expect that folks will even go to HALF the level of what was undertaken in this case. The only thing that came close to this was the SevenofDiamonds/NuclearUmpf case, which while a good job by user:MONGO, had nowhere near the level of community participation or consensus that this did. You are setting not only an unreasonably high level of circumstantial evidencce to reach, but an impossible to reach level of proof for any sockpuppet investigation ever. Unbelieveable. SirFozzie (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Follow up to my own statement. You don't see this as being a cop out. Well, sorry, to break it to you, UC.. but you're in a vast minority here on THAT opinion. ArbCom had a chance to resolve this issue, not only going forward, but resolve the vast history behind this. Instead, ArbCom has "Dropped back 10 yards and punted". It'll be up to the community to return this punt and take care of what ArbCom shied away from. SirFozzie (talk) 22:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that lucid explanation, UninvitedCompany, but what are your views on the "Varkala Question"? Whit  stable  22:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a word about Uninvited Co.'s claim about the analysis: Note the F(.,.) in question is the likelihood of overlapping edits, that has been amply checked against similar accounts. To claim that something so basic has not been rigorously tested before as a characteristic of socks is, frankly, head-scratchingly forehead-furrowingly lip-pursingly puzzling. Relata refero (talk) 23:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What Lar says is right. Using separate computers solves the problems. No slip ups, and it makes consistent proxy usage a lot easier. In Uninvited Co.'s experience, how many users have made over a thousand edits from proxies alone? Certainly this demonstrates some skill. I should remind everyone that the Runcorn accounts made in excess of 12,000 edits with no apparent slip ups.
 * At any rate, this case was set into motion because of an apparent slip-up. Remember?
 * Lastly, you claim that no evidence is likely to be convincing, then describe how the evidence should be&mdash;with no advanced observations. As it turns out, User:Alanyst ran just such a test to compare edit summaries. He selected no terms in advance, but Mantanmoreland was the best match for Samiharris. Cool Hand Luke 09:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, I went through thousands of Runcorn edits looking for the obvious goofs. It's possible to avoid them.  Via e-mail I've shown UninvitedCompany another example that had substantial interleaving and none of the usual slips, although the sock history had less than 1000 edits.  Durova  Charge! 10:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there is a substantial number of people in this discussion who want the arbitration committee to simplify things and say "oh yes, this is a clear case of socking." But Uninvited Company's points are persuasive here: setting up firefox on a laptop and internet explorer on the workstation isn't enough.  Sock puppeteers make slip-ups, they find it hard to maintain distinct identities, and they have quirks, of which they're unconscious and therefore do not bother to mask, that give them away.  If all we have here is "one of them always uses the same proxy and their edits don't overlap", then I'm at a loss as to why so many editors are so determined to say that the two users are sock puppets.  --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, do you honestly think the only evidence presented is that one editor uses a proxy and their edits don't overlap? If not, why the oversimplification?  And, what is the statistical margin of error for the statement "sock puppeteers make slip-ups"?  I'm sure that it has been ascertained from the well-controlled experiments that have led to the criterion's general acceptance as a test for sockpuppetry. alanyst /talk/ 20:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The, I don't think anyone here is "determined to say" anything; they've simply arrived at conclusions after carefully reviewing the evidence in its totality. This is an approach you might consider; if the only evidence you're aware of is the proxy editing and lack of interleaving edits, as seems to be the case, I can see why you'd find yourself at a loss in all this, or believe it's reasonable to imagine SH and MM are independent accounts.  When you've read through the evidence page, I think you'll find it plausible enough that a twice-caught  sock-puppeteer would be careful logging in and out of his third abusive account.--G-Dett (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

New evidence
Just want to mention that I posted new evidence after the Proposed Decision began to be released and voted upon. As it addresses one of the defenses that Mantanmoreland proffered (i.e., that Samiharris's similar style was a form of mimicry), I hope that the Arbcom will give it due consideration despite the lateness of its arrival. alanyst /talk/ 04:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Standard of evidence
Does this mean that we can never block any sock puppets without a positive CU result? Only the uninformed and the unindustrious get caught by CU. If this is not your intended result, please add a clarifying principle to the case to explain the extreme discrepancy between the sock puppetry evidence standard used here and the one that we normally use. The cleverest puppetmasters will cite this case to make our work difficult over at WP:SSP (which is heavily backlogged at the moment, please consider helping). Thanks. Jehochman Talk 04:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would think that one cannot block any established account for sockpuppeting without some kind of technical match, based on this. In fact, I think that perhaps many folks should be unbanned, such as SevenofDiamonds, Poetlister, and others whom the committee has previously decided were socks of users.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The lack of checkuser results has never stopped us-the-admins and us-the-community from blocking sockpuppets before, nor should it; just as checkuser cannot prove innocence, the absence of positive checkuser results proves nothing, and for the same reason. There's nothing at all special about this case in that regard; perhaps there's no reason to mention checkuser at all in the decision. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, what would it take to show "the duck test" for these two accounts MM & SH? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be very happy if the decision didn't mention checkuser. It also might be a good idea to say that the committee failed to achieve a consensus on whether sock puppetry occurred, and does not feel a determination is necessary given the remedies that have been agreed. You'd be surprised how well people react to candor. Jehochman  Talk 06:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I was trying to figure out how to express exactly that, and luckily we edit conflicted so I got to throw my attempt away. That really is quite exactly where we are. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 06:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's precisely why the words "a majority of the committee" appear in the draft, to reflect going in that there is known disagreement among the membership. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC) But "the committee has not reached a consensus on this issue" was an alternative formulation that was circulated and perhaps we should instead have used it. Jehochman's point is consistent with the proposed principles regarding how the committee sometimes relies primarily on forward-looking remedies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Forward looking rememdies are absolutely needed, but they only really deal with the content dispute part of this situation. The abuse of community through sockpuppetry, and what it takes to rectify this kind of abuse of the community have not been delt with yet, and that is at least as big a part of this as the content dispute part.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "the committee failed to achieve a consensus on whether sock puppetry occurred" ??? Surely that's a jest! How much more corroboration did you want? Is that actually the case that the committee failed this way?? Then things are possibly worse than I feared. Please put a finding in that states it plainly so it can be voted on, I'd like to see who on the committee actually thinks there wasn't sockpuppetry. ++Lar: t/c 12:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur with Lar. We need to "poll the jury" here. Cla68 (talk) 13:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur with Lar and Cla68 - with a request to those unconvinced for advice on what kind of evidence outside of checkuser would be sufficient. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Accountability often clarifies thinking. Jehochman Talk 15:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur. There should be a finding, with the dissents explaining how evidence is inadequate&mdash;there's still time to answer evidentiary objections. Cool Hand Luke 17:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur. In a controversial case standing by your decision on-record is helpful to let everyone understand why a thing happened. Beside that, any arbiter should be proud to stand by their choices in public, irregardless of potential repercussions. Lawrence § t/e 17:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. "Polling of the jury" may be discouraged in this case to do the conflicts of interest (perhaps only pereceived) that some of the arbitrators have, expressed in findings of fact here and here.  However, discouraging this transparency is a sneaky way to dodge the conflict of interest issue and looks more like an attempt to protect the bureaucracy that is arbcom, rather than seek solutions to problems.  Just because someone may have advised them not to comment about this case on wiki does not make their conflicts of interests disappear.  Arbitrators had the chance to ask their peers to step down and decided not to take a stand (I am seeing a theme develop, in this regard).  Moreover, this is a smaller part of a bigger issue though—the community is now going to have to take the responsibility that arbcom abdicated.  This is just one battle in the pursuit of righting a long standing (and quietly accepted) wrong.  For arbcom, however, it seems that "more of the same" is the solution.  daveh4h 17:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur. I should have thought this would be obvious, and am very disturbed that it is not. Please post a finding of fact that sock puppetry has occurred and then vote on it - if it fails so be it (for that matter you can/should post a finding that says the evidence is not persuasive and vote on that). In the context of this case it is quite ludicrous (and damaging to the reputation of the committee I think) to have the only FoF on the key issue be "there have been some allegations which are kinda persuasive, but we alls couldn't decide for sure one way or another." You folks need to do a 180 here by laying out your beliefs and conclusions point by point. The simple fact is that you owe that to the community.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with Lar. I'm so very disappointed, I'm going away now.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur with Lar. It's not just the decision that disappoints, but the committee. Noroton (talk) 19:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree here. I want to know which members of the current committee can't or won't see what is blatantly obvious.  When urging the committee to not take the case I said "Nor do I think that there is a point in having the ArbComm make a finding about whether or not Mantanmoreland is the particular BLP that many of us believe he is. Frankly, any finding that he isn't that is not based solely on public evidence won't be credited by many."  At the time I had an open mind on whether MM and SH were sockpuppets, pending explanation by MM.  He hasn't offered one.  After all the additional evidence that has come in that Samiharris is an abusive sockpuppet of Mantanmoreland, and has been used abusively as recently as January 2008, in the discussion of whether or not to unblock Piperdown, the same thought now applies to that basic item.  Any "confounding circumstances" need to be described publicly in order to be credible.  Every shred of relevant evidence Mantanmoreland has presented publicly in his defense has been easily refuted by others.  GRBerry 20:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I Agree with Lar and the many established editors expressing a request for Arbitration Committee transparency, herein. Like a Rainbow (talk) 22:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree. Transparency is desirable in most cases, and absolutely crucial in situations which go to the heart of an issue as does the question of sock puppetry here.  The community is entitled to know which ArbCom members have so little regard for overwhelming community consensus and an enormous quantity of evidence.  We also should know whose understanding of statistics is so poor that they view the evidence as "just some numbers, means nothing" to quote FT2.  We have seen evidence of ArbCom members declining to post motions they wupport for the sake of protecting ArbCom (notably in the recent MH case and the current EK appeal).  ArbCom members need to understand that concealling the divisions and protecting 'collegiality' is undermining community confidence in ArbCom.  As the situation stands presently, the community could have banned SH and MM as abusive sock puppets based on the evidence available, and avoided this case being brought - because it seems to me that this is the result that will follow within days if this case continues on its present course. Jay*Jay (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur, of course. The very least. Dorftrottel (taunt) 10:32, March 1, 2008
 * Endorse the request for a Recorded vote on the issue of sock puppetry, for the ample persuasive reasons already given above and since it's of vital interest in this case. Each arbitrator should state their view and give details on their reasons for that view in relation to the standard of proof in cases of abusive sock puppetry which have previously been sanctioned by the committee. -- luke (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur. And the arbitrators, collectively or individually, should state what the standard of proof is for all such cases.  Is the standard: "likelihood, and not legal certainty" (P 4.1), "a substantial weight of credible evidence" (P-4), or evidence sufficient for "a definitive conclusion" (FoF 2)?  Is the standard to be heightened if there are "confounding circumstances", or are those circumstances to be considered only in the context of whether a fixed standard has been met?  It appears here that the standard is malleable, which leads to result-based jurisprudence.  Kablammo (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur with the above. Let's see who believes that there's no such thing as a duck. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Most definitely, concur with call for transparency and accountability on the part of all committee members involved in rendering this decision. Ameriquedialectics 20:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course. Everyking (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, it would seem that we now know at least one of the arbitrators who favour soft language. (Uninvited Company). I would call again for the matter to be put to a public vote so we can see who else is on the soft list. Perhaps those who in their hearts favour stronger language but were going for compromise might be surprised to see their language carry the day after all. ++Lar: t/c 22:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur on who believes what. As it is, the entire Arbcom looks like it is listening to evidence with one thumb in its collective mouth, and the other up its collective rear. And presently, they plan maybe to trade thumbs, but that's it. However, that's the collective plan. Shine a little light on it, and we may find that some people wake up. S  B Harris 22:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

External disputes, definitions, and unattainable standards

 * It would be helpful if the arbitrators would be more clear on what they consider an "external dispute" in this case. While we all know the whole WR/Wordbomb/Gary Weiss blog stuff would clearly fit in, it is important to note that there is another external dispute happening which is being reported in the financial media on a fairly regular basis.  That dispute involves Patrick Byrne and others including Gary Weiss and relates to the entire concept of naked short selling.  Given the media attention on that particular dispute, it is very difficult to imagine that the articles identified in this decision can meet Wikipedia standards for completeness and accuracy without some mention of that dispute. Unfortunately, some of those same reliable sources have touched upon the other aspects that are, shall we say, more interpersonal.  I did ask a couple of friends who are active in this field to look at the naked short selling article, and they felt it was completely inadequate, so I hope that editors knowledgeable in this field will now feel they have the support of the Arbcom to go in and clean up the related articles.


 * I am concerned that Arbcom has now established an unattainable standard for sockpuppetry investigations. Thousands of editors have been blocked with far, far less evidence in the past. Checkuser is a wonderful tool, but it is well known to have certain weaknesses, and this particular case may well have given truly malicious sockpuppeters a whole new set of tools to use in evading blocks and bans.

--Risker (talk) 04:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Finally, I think Arbcom needs to flesh out some form of definition of "serious violations." There is a terrible tendency for the community to take Arbcom decisions and apply them as if they are policy. Unfortunately, with 1500 admins, there are 1500 definitions of incivility, of NPA and of terms such as "serious violations." This is not a criticism of our admins, but it is indeed a reason for Arbcom to be crystal clear in its meaning. The committee tends to have to go back and re-address the same issues over and over because it has not clearly delineated the expectations and limits of its decisions.
 * I'll respond to your questions in order, though I can only speak for me:
 * There is, of course, no prohibition against mentioning the Weiss/Byrne dispute in these articles. If (and only if) editors conclude that the real-world controversy is notable and covered in reliable sources, it should be included. What is prohibited is advocacy for any side in connection with the dispute, i.e., importing the dispute itself to Wikipedia, as opposed to neutral encyclopedic coverage of the dispute.
 * The concern about raising the bar in sockpuppet cases is a legitimate one and I don't believe we are attempting to create a new standard to be quoted in every sock case. In fact, to the extent we are considering establishing a standard, it is the one mentioned in the proposed principles. More important, the draft decision in this case should be read as a whole, including the restrictions on editors of the subject articles that will affect the named parties to the case along with everyone else&mdash;a fact overlooked in the assessments of the draft I have seen to this point. If all editors abide by the remedies, then the problems associated with this entire suite of problems will abate. If editors do not abide by the remedies, then administrators or if necessary the committee will enforce them.
 * The term "serious violations" is used twice, once in connection with whether a warning should be given before a block, and once in connection with what types of future behavior should be reported to the committee. My personal preference in any context is to warn first rather than block if there is a reasonable choice between them, and to keep the committee more rather than less informed in a situation of this degree of contentiousness.
 * Hope this helps, and thanks for your comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response, NYB. The clarification on what level of content relating to the external disputes may be included is very valuable, and I propose that it be included on the talk page of the involved articles, so that "fresh eyes" will have the benefit of that guidance. I believe Principle #4 (Evaluating sockpuppetry) really needs to have more flesh on its bones to clarify the position of the Committee, which is clearly not on the same page as the community in this specific case. I recognise that the Arbitration Committee, as an official body of Wikipedia, is constrained in ways that the editing community is not, and thus cannot put into writing some things that the community can say without fear of repercussion from external sources.  Having said that, identifying right in the principle that this is an exceptional case and should not be considered the "gold standard" for future sockpuppetry investigations involving established users would be extremely helpful for those who serve the encyclopedia by investigating such cases. Likewise, the term "serious violations" really does need to be fleshed out. What does it include? I can easily see some (not all) administrators blocking if an editor makes so much as a suggestion that another editor has a COI or may be a sockpuppet. I remain concerned that several of the editors involved in this case will perceive that they have no conflict of interest, or that admins who have carried out blocks or protections in the past will not recognize that they are "involved." In order for these articles to attain the expected level of quality, knowledgeable editors who have never touched them need to be involved. Those editors need some reassurance that they will not get whacked for cleaning up this mess.  Risker (talk) 05:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Brad, regarding only the issue of viewing the draft decision as a whole rather than in parts - is it accurate to say that the decision need not be passed as a whole, and in fact individual portions will be voted upon separately and only those that acquire a majority will make up part of the final decision? It seems that, in such a case, each principle/FoF/remedy must stand on its own as well as with others in a final decision (i.e. not contradict other passing elements). Avruch  T 15:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The sense of the Committee
Arbcom, please reverse direction on the style of the proposed decision. I would rather see specific and detailed findings of fact, principles, and remedies with each Arbcom member supporting, opposing, or abstaining&mdash;even if the Committee is hopelessly divided&mdash;than a vague mostly-unanimous "sense of the Committee" like what has started to appear. Each Arbcom member should be willing to take public responsibility for her or his own opinion, even if outnumbered or unpopular or wary of provoking more drama. To draw an analogy (acknowledging the differences between SCOTUS and Arbcom), I'd rather see a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision with the opinion and dissent both cogently argued, than a unanimous opinion that states little more than "we acknowledge the existence of the dispute and we'd like to see it resolved." I believe I speak not only for myself in this regard. alanyst /talk/ 04:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolute, 110% support for this. Was going to say the same. Viridae Talk 04:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to sound defensive here, but I believe the intent of the committee&mdash;certainly, mine&mdash;was to address this situation with forward-looking remedies that (per my comment to Risker above) would solve the problems if all users abide by them, and would be enforced by administrators or if necessary by the committee if users fail to abide by them. Those alleging, for example, that the articles in question are "controlled" by conflicted users should welcome the COI disclosure remedy, which to my knowledge is novel. This case is not simply about whether one user sockpuppeted abusively or not, though I certainly have my own personal opinion on that issue. I spent a fair amount of time (as did other arbitrators who commented on the draft) honing principles and remedies, not just the finding that many are saying is too vague. I don't at present see why that approach is being seen as an illegitimate approach to resolving a dispute of this gravity, and would welcome input on this issue as it may affect how I approach future cases.
 * On the other hand, to perpetuate the U.S. Supreme Court analogy, the next time I draft a controversial decision I am styling it per curiam. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't particularly forward-looking to raise the bar for sockpuppet abuse. Any experienced editor knows how to do it.  Most don't because they're honest.  Most of the rest haven't because they thought there would be serious consequences.  Suppose five percent of experienced editors ran extra accounts to get a boost of support in important discussions?  Suppose ten percent did?  Suppose fifteen?  Durova  Charge! 05:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Durova's right. We don't need per curiam decisions in this narrow case, we need to know how the next case should be handled. Please stand for something. Cool Hand Luke 05:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean about concern for future cases. I will give everyone's points some more thought. But I hope that there will never, ever, ever have to be another case at all like this one. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * you and me, both! *laughs* SirFozzie (talk) 05:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's the one point that meets unanimous agreement.  Durova Charge! 05:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On a project where we allow anonymous editing, and offer no sanctions for sockpuppetry&mdash;as this draft does not&mdash;there's absolutely no incentive for editors not to set up socks. If you let this stand, this will be the beginning, not the end. Cool Hand Luke 05:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Brad, are you signalling with these proposals that you're limiting the scope of the case to only Mantanmoreland's sockpuppetry and a vaguely described off-wiki dispute and leaving out Mantanmoreland's POV-pushing, personal attacks, and inappropriate support from admins? Cla68 (talk) 05:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * COI and NPOV issues concerning these articles are addressed in the remedies. The draft does not deal directly with personal attacks by any user; this is an actual and not a rhetorical question: do you think any side of this situation really wants to open that can of worms? I don't believe there has been much discussion of sanctions against any administrators here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (Multiple edit conflicts, replying to NYB.) Thanks for replying, Brad. I have no problem with "forward-looking remedies" to calm the roiled waters of a dispute.  But it's also vital to acknowledge violations of core WP policies and craft appropriate sanctions.  Doing this might seem like looking backward, but the community needs to know that the rules mean something&mdash;that those who violate them will be held accountable for the sake of the encyclopedia and the trust of its community.  If there are mitigating circumstances, by all means take them into account and enumerate them&mdash;but failing to acknowledge what specifically went wrong and who was responsible is unfair to the community, to the aggrieved parties, and even to those who did wrong, since it could lead them into worse behavior (having gotten away with offenses in the past). alanyst /talk/ 05:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a very reasonable point of view although in this case a consensus of the committee was to take a different approach. Since I seem to be unsuccessful at convincing the commenters so far that it was the right approach, I am going to yield the floor for a bit and see if perhaps other arbitrators would like to take a shot at doing so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * regarding NYB's comment that "But I hope that there will never, ever, ever have to be another case at all like this one." Based on this decision, that is hopelessly naive.  I'm sorry, but if this doesn't address the actual abuses of the community by at least the most egregious of the editors involved it is not going to help.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct, and failing to remedy this abuse could only encourage more. I look forward to further findings from FT2 or any arbitrator that cares to enforce this community's rules. Cool Hand Luke 05:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought I wrote, I meant to write, remedies with some teeth in the context of this dispute. I'm interested to know why everyone seemingly thinks that they are of no value. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They apply equally to Cla68 and MM. Anyone involved in an edit war or with a COI could set up a sock with full knowledge that the worst that can happen is a remedy that applies equally to their opponents. That's not only no deterrence&mdash;that's encouragement for abuse. Cool Hand Luke 05:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The remedies so far only deal with the content dispute, not the abuse of the community. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In this specific case, there was a visible internal question on the weight to give the technical evidence. That weight varied from "damning" to "just some numbers, proves nothing". Newyorkbrad has pitched his stance and drafting at a point we have agreed, minimally, we are likely to agree upon. It may be that a stronger statement is possible (or indeed a weaker one), but as yet, Newyorkbrad has posted that draft alone, which (as he correctly states) reflect the baseline agreed by consensus. Others - self included - may post further proposals for voting, that may gain differing degrees of consensus.

But this case has been actively discussed and should be read as a whole. Yes we could itemize every last thing anyone did wrong -- for 2 years back on this dispute if need be. Do we choose to? Not in that way. A major concern is that it was allowed to be dramatized and thus roll on. The better focus is the future. The actual article issue is being addressed. The dispute on the articles will be closed. Any common editing has been almost negligible for some 5 months (we analysed that). With that closed, and intense scrutiny on all parties, it may be that there is no need for the Committee to take further action for the integrity of the project's debates and articles going forward. The question may well be moot. The community will gain a balanced consensus on the puppetry concerns, for consideration in the event that this is still of concern. Our first aim in Newyorkbrad's initial drafting is the basic measures and facts needed to sort out the dispute around which this debate has arisen, on the wiki, and ensure it comes to an end. Other more specific posts may follow. I have a couple I'm thinking of, since I was looking at various specific areas; other Arbitrators will too, I'm sure. FT2 (Talk 05:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * While I agree that every instance of poor behavior over the two years or so that this has festered is not appropriate for remedy, at least one user has used inappropriate methods to gain the upper hand in a content dispute multiple times. And we are not going to sanction said user at all.  Unless, I misunderstand and the committee is acutally asking for a community ban or other community restrictions?  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (Note: I'm going to bed soon. Any comments left here for me will be answered tomorrow sometime during the day. Editors asking rhetorical questions about my motives for writing the decision, but posting them on external sites where I don't have an account, are invited to ask them here or on my talkpage instead, where if they are reasonable questions I'll be glad to answer them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC))
 * My observation is that folks with questions on the "Board of Outer Darkness Where There is Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth" should get someone to post them here if they are real questions (i havn't looked at this time).--Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the case proposed doesn't go far enough. While not a focus of evidence and workshop, there is evidence cited that Mantanmoreland has also edited in other places where he has a different conflict of interest, such as Julian Robertson and related articles. Thus remedies focused on the primary real world dispute do not adequately address the scope of prior misbehavior nor constrain future misbehavior. I think the restriction/warning Slim Virgin reportedly gave him in 2006 was better - no editing on these topics or articles about living people that GW has written about. I really can't stomach the committee drawing up narrow remedies than that; they should be far stronger given the evidence available now that wasn't known or considered in November 2006. GRBerry 21:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Community ban? / specific factual findings
Could we have an express finding that community sanction may be applied to users who are not "definitive" sockpuppets according to ArbCom?

Incidentally, I've asked several times for detailed requests about what sorts of evidence would be helpful to the Committee. More specific findings of fact would aid Alanyst, GRBerry, Cla68, myself, and others who are willing to fill holes that dissenting arbitrators perceive in the current evidence.

On the other had, if these dissenters feel that no non-CU evidence can establish sockpuppetry, I would appreciate if they could sign such a finding. Cool Hand Luke 06:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There was some discussion of community ban back on one of the rfa/an pages, off the top of my poor memory it looked like the quick consensus was "this needs to go to arbcom." If the committee abdicates any decision back to the community, maybe we will need to fire up the rfa with that discussion in full.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The Proposed Decision needs/is required to be carefully worded (Brad--could you weigh in on this if I'm off base?) so that the Committee does not appear to be overstepping their authority to imply that the community is discouraged from or prohibited from taking sanction actions based on evidence in this case after this case closes if unhappy with the outcome. My understanding of the AC's mandate and level of authority is they can impose sanctions and so forth, but have zero power beyond as any individual admins to stop or prevent the community from taking action; but that they can be an avenue of appeal to reduce community sanction; and that it would seriously take extraordinary community force and consensus to de facto overrule an already imposed AC sanction, but that the community does retain that authority.

The short version being, if the AC says no action taken by them, the Community is free to go ahead as they need to afterwards, and community sanctioned parties can appeal to the AC after if they aren't happy with that community choice--but the AC and ergo Jimmy (him "being the AC" really) is beyond their authority/power to "as the AC" to discourage or stop the Community from placing sanctions--they're all just individual admins in that regard.

Short short version: if the Community needs to ban someone for something, they can do it, and the AC/any one admin really can't stop them. Does that make sense? Let me know on what specific points I'm wrong on. If some want to take the sockpuppetry/COI to the nth and final degree with a full community discussion on the matter after this RFAR, which appears scope-wise to now be just on the editing conflicts and is MM=Samiharris, I think their concern is the Proposed Decision as it's heading may imply this is precluded.

So, a clarification on my rambling here could be helpful, and an answer to this question: if the Community wants to take this sockpuppetry/COI investigation "all the way", is the AC going to try to stop them, and does the AC even have the power to do so via a decision or anything else? I think this simple clarification will soothe a lot of people. Lawrence § t/e 06:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your understanding is correct. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 06:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We haven't discussed this as a committee, but there is the precedent of Archtransit as recently as last week, although it wasn't in the context of a formal case. The committee desysopped him and limited him to a single account on Monday, but did not ban him; by Wednesday, he was community banned. Note that I am not drawing any parallels between the facts of that matter and this one, and the fact that Archtransit was an administrator was certainly an aggravating factor in that case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. Your answers will calm a lot of drama before it builds, since it means the people who feel they need to go further after this case can to take and propose possible community remedies. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 06:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Individual admins on the committee (or others) could stop any sort of community remedy through appeal to the commitee/jimbo who as group seem unwilling to make user sanctions in this case. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This would seem to conflict with what Josh and Brad are saying. The "Community" appears to outrank the AC and Jimbo, no, if push comes to shove? <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 06:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, we have not discussed this aspect as a committee at all, but to me individually there is a clear difference between deciding not to take an action as an arbitrator, and deciding to affirmatively overrule that action if taken by the community. I would say that if a community ban were imposed on some user, the ArbCom overruled or reduced the ban, and then the next day it were proposed to reimpose it, then a problematic situation would arise. But that is not this case. Personally, I do think this committee's judgment is sufficiently valuable that if we vote that a particular set of remedies is sufficient, it might be in order to give those remedies a reasonable opportunity to work before reopening the discussion. That may be more a matter of community discretion than a fixed rule. The bottom line is there are no precedents on point that I can think of at this late hour; the Archtransit situation last week, which I mention above, is the closest. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's been the unanswered question does the community get an override? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently, yes. If the AC says Rocksanddirt is a banned from Some page and is banned for 1 year on top of that, or the AC says, "Congrats, Wordbomb! You're unbanned!" the Community with enough clear consensus could simply say, "No," and go otherwise. But the point is that beyond simply electing different arbiters each year, the Community really has to want to flat out override the AC, but can, is my reading of how it works and based on the answers. In short, even the AC and Jimmy have to bow to the system as created and designed, which makes sense--anything here can change with enough correctly done, supported, and widescale pushing. We elected and chose these guys to do this heavy lifting for us because we trusted them when we chose them, in short, and that's their job as the AC. We simply retain the authority in extraordinary circumstances to say No to them, the same as they can say No to us. Nice system of checks and balances. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 07:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And before someone asks, if both sides (Community/AC) said No equally forcefully to each other on some insane matter, I'd imagine the push would automatically come to shove in favor of the community side, since the community is the AC and selects them. I can't even guess what level of insanity would require that. Banning User:Jimbo Wales? It would have to be something absurd, so probably not worth dwelling on here. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 07:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, but....say after this is over, there is a community sanction discussion and two members of the committee participate as regular users/admins and end up against an otherwise broad consensus for some remedy? They usual standard is that would not be consensus for editing restrictions and should be referred to the committee.  what then?  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when did consensus = unanimous? <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 07:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's been the usual rule for community bans/restrictions anything that "some admin won't undo". There are cases where folks object, but state that they wouldn't undo an action or wouldn't appeal it to the committee...but if someone does that's all it takes to shoot down community sanctions.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And if the AC ever were to take that case up again then, and force the equivalent of a Constitutional crisis, it could be amazingly disruptive. No one would benefit, since it ever came down to a consensus shouting match, no one can beat the community, since the community is everything. The AC comes from the community, the community (from all the wikis) elects the Foundation Board, which hires the paid staff who run the servers and business. Betting against the community in any ultimate push/shove is like betting against the house in a casino. The odds mathematically will always go against you in the end, no matter who you are. If you win the local specific fight, you could well lose the next local election for AC seats. Take it up the food chain, you could lose your Board spot(s). <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 07:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Outside of the confines of an arbitration case, with certain very limited exceptions, each of the arbitrators acts as an individual editor, and is entitled to take actions and to hold and voice opinions as an individual editor. Even within a case, we see arbitrators identifying what their own personal practice would be in a given situation, while making it clear that their position is not an "Arbcom" practice. I think something to keep in mind here is that, in almost all cases, the Arbitration Committee narrows down (or expands) which issues it chooses to address in its decision. That does not preclude the community from deciding to take action on matters that may be raised or identified during the course of an Arbcom case.  Indeed, if I recall correctly, the sockpuppet policy underwent considerable editing during the Privatemusings case, and many other policies and issues have been reviewed and modified based on arbcom cases.  Risker (talk) 07:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree at all, and I hope that what comes out of this evenings discussion is a clear indication to the committee that the proposed decision is no where near complete, and that some of the proposals may have unintended consequences. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, sorry for belaboring the point. Figured it'd be best to just get those cards on the table before everyone started whitewashing chant mantras and drama. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 06:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if that door remains open then that would settle a lot of concerns. Whether the community takes action or not, at least the decision wouldn't have the problems that appeared initially.  In this particular case more than usual, there appears to be a credible potential for formal offsite continuation.  The world at large understands very little about how Wikipedia works; it's conceivable that an official Committee decision on some aspects of this case might be construed among non-Wikipedians as having more than its intended weight and conclusiveness.  And (this is conjecture) such concerns might have something to do with the difficulties in achieving consensus? <font face="Verdana"> Durova  Charge! 06:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See my last proposed principle (#8). Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Principle 4.1 by FT2
What would it take in this case to make such a showing of 'likelyhood of sockpupppetry'? I really think we need to state clearly what it would have taken to conclude sockpuppetry in this case. Maybe NYB and FT2 can't help us with that as they might feel that it does exist. Could someone who doesn't feel that it does, please say what it would take to show it? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also perplexed by this. Principle 4.1 would not say that there is definitive proof, but that it is reasonable to treat these two accounts as one person based on the evidence and based on how Wikipedia has acted in the past. It's hard to see how this principle (which is consistent with what I hoped to see) would be passed without any finding. Mackan79 (talk) 15:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Community ban
I call for a community ban for the principals in this two year war and all accounts identified now or in the future as "significantly suggestive whether or not confirmed" sockpuppets or meat puppets of the two principals who whether they are or they are not the suggested real life persons act enough like it so that the best interest of NPOV at Wikipedia is best served by these bans due to two years of apparent COI editing on a wide variety of articles related to their employment and friends and associates.Letter published by the Securities and Exchange Commision of the United States WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That was a comment letter. You send it in, they print it. It has as much standing as a post in a message board.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 13:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So what? The letter presents some verifiable claims that are relevant to this case. Further it illustrates that this case is about real world financial conflicts of interest, including editing Wikipedia to make friends look better. A short list of articles not to be edited will not prevent a known lying COI sockpuppeter from corrupting Wikipedia articles with spin for his friends. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I skimmed it and see just a lot of incoherent gibberish about Ron Paul and attacks on Patrick Byrne. What has that got to do with anything?--Mantanmoreland (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, more precisely, if it is a comment letter even loosely related to something they are working on, they'll publish it. Unsolicited comments on other issues won't be published.  See the FAQ answer at http://www.sec.gov/answers/commentletters.htm.  But MM is right here; it evidences no more than the opinion of whomever wrote it, and published because it is submitted as a comment to the SEC's consideration of amendments to regulation SHO.  Like our arbitrators, the SEC commissioners are expected to read every single comment letter on a topic before reaching a decision.  Whether they do, or focus on ones that their staff select to highlight, is unknown to me.  GRBerry 13:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just link Varkala and his blog. Every other post is about Overstock.com. Support community ban. Cool Hand Luke 14:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate venue for the community ban discussion, at least in my opinion. GRBerry 14:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please move the discussion to WP:AN. Please comment there. Jehochman  Talk 14:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This section is a comment and an appeal and information on the proposed decision and is meant to influence Arbcom so they can achieve their desired objective of putting this behind us, which will not happen unless the two warring sides are banned. This is exactly the right place for this comment and appeal and information on the proposed decision. It is on a page designed for exactly that. That its mere form or style or content has similarities to the form or style or content of sections that sometimes appear on other pages does not mean it should be moved to one of those other pages. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is, it's really _not_ appropriate to run a community ban discussion concurrently with an arbcom case (though if arbcom wishes to suspend the case to allow such a discussion to run its course, as it has in the past for RFCs, that would be reasonable). —Random832 15:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just put this in abeyance until the case closes, there's time. If at that time the current set of findings stands, do what ArbCom did not. ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A present for the committee
Y'all seem to have misplaced yours, so here's a spare. 213.239.220.202 (talk) 14:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC) (This IP is an open proxy, so you'll probably want to block it.)


 * Thanks, Anonymous Coward. This open proxy has been blocked. Jehochman  Talk 14:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * sigh, an unhelpful comment. (though a nice pic). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the images were redacted: in case any casual readers want to know what's going on, the pictures the anon posted were (presumably, based on the filenames - I only looked at the diff) of a spine and balls. —Random832 15:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what they were. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive by the IP, yes, but unfortunately also to-the-point. The current proposed decision is simply abhorrent. You might as well have dismissed the case and saved us all a lot of time. I'm utterly disappointed with the proposals so far. Dorftrottel (warn) 17:42, February 29, 2008


 * Hey, I tried to tell them not to take the case... Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland. Admittedly, I did it because I thought there was no way they could do better than the community, as opposed to this which is far worse than what the community would have done.  GRBerry 21:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

confounding issues
I, for one, would like to know as much about these "confounding issues" as the committee can tell us. The basic nature of the issues would be a good place to start - secret evidence in their favor? legal threats? Even if you can't tell us what specifically is going on, what can you tell us? If I decide to start sockpuppeting tomorrow, how can I make sure I get "a more cautious and conservative standard" when I'm found out? —Random832 15:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify - that last question was rhetorical and you would (of course) be fools to answer it, but I submit that you're fools to have multiple standards in the first place. It invites gaming the system. —Random832 15:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's one thing I was wondering as well. Is this arbitration and proposed decision a de facto endorsement of double standards, for some users in regards to certain forms of allegations? Are others seeing it that way? I'd imagine there should be a rigid standard that all such standards are applied the same for everyone. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 16:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reluctance by the committee to make an official ruling in this case does not (I think) prevent the community from making similar rulings in the future as it has in the past. Thatcher 16:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know... the above section covered that. I was just speaking to Random's statements that the Proposed Decision as written may be seen by some as an endorsement of double standards, or that some users operate under a modified set of rules than everyone else. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 16:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Without going into details (and no, I have no special information from Arbcom on this point), there may be some extenuating circumstances in particular cases that require a more flexible manner of addressing issues. When it comes to sockpuppetry, there are always shades of grey. While many in the community may see this case as primarily being a "sockpuppetry" one, based on the currently proposed decision, I believe that Arbcom has taken a very different view of the case. That view does not necessarily preclude the community pursuing certain issues without the direct intervention of Arbcom. It's not the first time this has happened; a close reading of any number of Arbcom cases has resulted in final decisions quite different from that anticipated at the time of the request for arbitration.  Risker (talk) 16:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Without a doubt. I was just speaking to Random's apparent thoughts that the appearance of an endorsement of double standards or different standards for different people is a potentially Bad Thing. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 16:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * @Risker: I can't speak for anyone else but I did not see this case as primarily about sockpuppetry. The sockpuppetry allegations, to my way of thinking, were a done deal to anyone that cared to look before the case started. That's way too narrow a scope. I saw the case as primarily about the wider matters surrounding the sockpuppetry, the issues and allegations that this sockpuppetry was known about among many senior editors and admins for some time and was not dealt with. I have no idea about the truth of those, I had hoped to see more evidence presented, but that is what I hoped the focus would be on. The decision so far, which calls what I considered a done deal into question, and which doesn't address the wider issues at all, is a bit of a jaw dropper and I have expressed my disappointment to NYB directly just now, in case it's not clear enough to him yet. I am not at all surprised to see the large number of community members signing below where I expressed my disbelief about the evidence apparently being questioned by some members of ArbCom. ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The decision fails the community
WIth all due respect, this decision fails the community.
 * 1) It does not identify the parties in the area of dispute or the off-wiki battle
 * 2) It does not clearly state that Mantanmoreland has a conflict of interest in the area of dispute
 * 3) It does not ban Mantanmoreland from editing the area of dispute.

Since he has stated all along that he is not Gary Weiss, then he can continue to edit the articles involved under the principle of Remedy #1. Apparently the Arbcom is leaving it up to some administrator involve in Arbitration enforcement to issue a topic ban somewhere down the road. (Unless they are hoping Mantanmoreland will suddenly take a quiet wikibreak.)

Now, I do not believe it is necessary to state as a fact that MM=SH=GW. It is sufficient to say for purposes of this case that they may be, and they whether they are or are not, they have acted in a manner that constitutes a conflict of interest. Nor do I think it is necessary to pillory any admins for being overzealous in protecting Mantanmoreland from harassment, since it seems to me that there is a significant difference between having one abusive sockpuppeteer (who also runs an attack web site) saying "look at the elephant in the room" and having a dozen experienced editors and admins conduct an exhaustive review of the elephant problem (and remember that this "room" that allegedly contains an elephant is not so much a quiet living room as Burbon Street on Mardi Gras, so spotting the elephant does require a bit of skill and patience).

I have made some alternate proposals. Thatcher 17:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * . . . based upon editing misconduct consisting of what? What tendentious editing? What edit warring? And are you seriously suggesting that nobody editing these articles has reflected a point of view for or against any of the principals in these off-wiki controversies? --Mantanmoreland (talk) 17:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The editorial process can usually deal with people who have conflicts of interest if those conflicts are disclosed. I think Wordbomb has made some interesting points about naked short selling and the DTCC on the Site of Gnashing of Teeth (or whatever that nickname was).  I would like to have confidence that Wikipedia's article on naked short selling is neutral and reflects a broad range of sources and opinion and covers both reasons why naked short selling might be good and reasons why it might be bad.  I do not have confidence that you are the editor who can do that.  Arbcom basically asks in this proposed decision for the article to be cleaned up by unbiased experts.  You present yourself as such an expert but I do not believe that is the case, and I believe Arbcom should explicitly state as much. Thatcher 17:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoa! When did I ever "present myself as such an expert?" When did I ever tell people not to contribute to naked short selling, on or off wiki? Has anyone other than Bagley and Piperdown ever done so? When have I? For that matter, when has anyone done so who disagrees with Bagley or Byrne and their stock market conspiracy theories? Despite all the "gnashing of teeth" about the naked shorting articles, very few people actually go there and contribute to it. But if you feel that there has been a problem with my editing, you should point out the diffs. Funny how in the some days this has been pending, with many thousands of hits on the Wikipedia Review section devoted to this case, nobody has came up with diffs of misconduct on my part.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I invite your attention to the information that Thatcher just posted. This seems to be a case of "Never Defend, Always Attack". Your constant "Overstock/Bagley" refrain is overdone, tiresome and not useful. If you see a vast conspiracy behind the number of editors/checkusers who have good-faith concerns, well, then I feel sorry for you. SirFozzie (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the majority of the evidence centers around an attempt to prove identity, something I have always felt was tangential to the case. (Who you are is less important than what you have done.)  But there is some evidence on that issue. Thatcher 18:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thatcher has posted his diffs, which consist of two year old edits that are, with one exception (a blog link that shouldn't have been added) perfectly valid and within policy. I've replied in the workshop. Except for the blog post, the material I added to those articles two years ago remains in them, despite all the attention focused on these articles. That is the distinguishing characteristic of this arbitration, which is that people have trouble coming up with bad edits, edit warring, and the stuff the arbcom usually deals with I would suppose. As for Overstock/Bagley, that is why we are here. If it weren't for their campaign, which consists of character assassination and not of criticism of the articles on their merits, we wouldn't be having this discussion.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had no problem at all coming up with bad edits, and "the material I added to those articles two years ago remains in them, despite all the attention focused on these articles" is precisely the bloody problem. Boy, this has been an awful waste of everyone's time, since half the people haven't read what other people are writing, and the other half don't appear to care. Relata refero (talk) 19:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is a problem, a very big one, that there is no evidence of bad editing. It is something of a waste of time that this case is being pushed so aggressively despite that. I would respectfully suggest that the diffs you posted in the workshop don't prove a blessed thing, as described in my workshop response.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't have a response. You had an assertion, and a poor one at that, amounting to precisely what I dismantled elegantly by quoting you above. Whatever. As if ArbCom cares if you had a response or not. Congratulations. Relata refero (talk) 19:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't a response? You pointed out "tendentious editing" where none existed.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, its not a response, and if its the best you came up with in the ten days since I put up my findings.... since all of it consists of "but nobody objected" when the problem is that you are being investigated for gaming consensus, I can only suppose you are being deliberately obstructive. Relata refero (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, correct. You cited routine edits to which nobody objected and called it "tendentious editing."--Mantanmoreland (talk) 22:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For the last time, I've demonstrated they weren't routine. Nothing in your evidence contradicts that, because your evidence relies heavily on the fact that nobody pointed out that you were editing tendentiously. Only they did, and they were banned. Or they were reverted and the page protected, as at Talk:Gary Weiss. Or they were ignored, as in the case of the chap from the Econ wikiproject or the chap with the tags. Whatever. Talking to a brick wall, evidently. Relata refero (talk) 23:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Bad editing: Character assassination:    Other use of Wikipedia for off-Wikipedia feud:   All of these have conributed to the problem over time. Mackan79 (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The "bad editing" are routine editing that has never been disputed to this day, the "character assassination" is mainly accurate references to the notorious troll WordBomb (Judd Bagley), and the "use of Wikipedia for off-Wikipedia feud" is a google blog search and a proposal in a previous arbitration. The only "problem over time" that I see here is a pattern of allegations being made without any basis in fact.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "....that has never been disputed to this day.." - I'm beginning to think I'd support a community ban on you for wilfully disregarding points already made. That's usually a foolproof sign of enormous tendentiousness. Relata refero (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Endorse that this decision as it stands now fails the community. ++Lar: t/c 19:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I also endorse that this decision as it stands now fails the community. R. Baley (talk) 19:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. As things stand, the decision fails not only the community, but Arbcom itself. Giving a "wishy-wash" decision to a situation as serious as this, with a number of implications, just strikes me as fundamentally wrong Whit  stable  19:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not the arbcoms job to offer blood at each sacrifice. I am thinking everyone needs to carefully reread the proposals and figure out what the end result is...seriously. The articles in question will likely never be edited by any COI editor in the near or even distant future...I don't see how MM can continue to edit without a huge shadow hanging over him...I mean, I would have walked away long ago if I were him...no matter whether the accusations are true or not.--MONGO 19:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "The articles in question will likely never be edited by any COI editor in the near or even distant future" Really? How will we know? We can't block them for being sockpuppets using WP:DUCK, can we? And what on earth will it take to establish COI? And who is going to do the reversion of apparent COI and risk becoming an 'involved' editor? The problem isn't that I haven't read the proposals, its that they're shortsighted. Last year ArbCom was handing out amnesties. This year they're handing out this nonsense. Next year, I have no doubt, it will be community service. Three hours of vandal reversion a week, for three weeks, and you will have served your debt to the project. Relata refero (talk) 19:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * just because Arbcom decides not to take a stand on the sockpuppet issue (although I hope they will consider my proposal) does not invalidate the community's approach to past or future issues, such as the duck test. Whether it is wise for Arbcom to hold itself to such a higher standard is another matter. Thatcher 20:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Was this a "COI edit"? An editor removed a reference to an entire article in the New York Times by a notable journalist on Patrick M. Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com, on the ludicrous grounds that it was an "advocacy" source and "not reliable." That is far worse than any edit attributed to me. But it doesn't matter because this edit is POV-pushing on behalf of Patrick Byrne, and Patrick Byrne is a darling of Wikipedia Review, which is screaming its heads off off-wiki. Nobody has suggested that this editor as a "COI" and this is truly a horrendous edit that damaged the article. Let's stop this "COI edit" nonsense, because the issue is whether the editing is good or bad. I have yet to see any editors on the other side even attempt to take an even-handed approach, and instead all I read are shrill denunciations. I am sorry, but despite all the distancing from Wikipedia Review I have no doubt that what we are seeing reflects all the one-sided advocacy going on there.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I added two news sources to that article, and added several more that day, just so I could take out a direct rumor quote from a columnists that read "Though no one will say so publicly..." I don't push POV, as demonstrated by adding hard citations for fisticuffs Patrick Byrne got into. Cool Hand Luke 21:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But you adamantly refused to allow two news sources, the New York Times and Forbes.com, that were devoted entirely to Byrne's confrontation with state legislators over the naked shorting legislation. There is no reference to that in the article at all, and the article suffers for it, and that is entirely because of your POV pushing. If that had happened in Gary Weiss, you'd be screaming bloody murder and it would be rung up the flagpole here as a horrendous act.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm so tired of your idle accusations of bad faith. If you think I'm POV pushing, do start an RfC. I'm not. I found new, unflattering sources about Byrne and put them into the article. I don't believe you have ever done that for Gary Weiss, nor have you ever added favorable treatment to the subjects you loath. Cool Hand Luke 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't edited Gary Weiss in months, or even participated in talk page discussions such as the one you had with Sami. It is difficult to add favorable content to the Byrne article because of a dearth of such sources. I am sorry, but your refusing to allow an entire column by a New York Times financial columnist, and an article by a journalist at Forbes.com, to be quoted on Byrne was poor judgment at best and POV pushing at worst. Your editing of Patrick M. Byrne is relevant to this arbitration, because the editing of the articles generally is very much at issue. My point is that all the edits in these articles need to be put under scrutiny, including yours.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 22:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In a BLP, it was the correct decision. I would never argue for similar quotes to be included about Weiss. The New York Times said Weiss "made a second career out of ridiculing Mr. Byrne on his blog." We should not include such a statement in his article. Instead, we said that Weiss was a critic of Overstock.com, but your "friend" Samiharris still threw a fit about "Bagley memes." By omitting inflammatory opinion, BLPs are better and more encyclopedic&mdash;both for Weiss and for Byrne. Cool Hand Luke 22:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The community understands that there was abusive sock puppetry and will treat Matanmoreland as a social outcast. It is not within the Committee's power to change that perception, unless they offer a clear explanation with evidence why there was no sock puppetry.  Jehochman  Talk 19:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In reading the decision, Mantanmoreland is free to continue editing Patrick Byrne, Naked short selling and all the rest, because he denies he has a conflict of interest, therefore that requirements of remedy #1 don't apply to him. That means that it will fall to someone at WP:AE to determine he does have a conflict and to ban him from the page, which he will appeal, causing more drama, or which he will ignore, leading to a block, which he will appeal, leading to more drama.  I'm asking Arbcom to take a stand and not fob the problem off on WP:AE. Thatcher 19:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Lets see; Thatcher recused, I declared myself semi-involved when urging the committee not to take the case, Sir Fozzie filed it, Rlesve clerked the case, Who is an WP:AE regular left that didn't help enable Mantanmoreland's abuse by addressing one of WorldBomb's socks over the past year and a half?  I'm not sure there are any uninvolved admins among the current WP:AE regulars.  GRBerry 21:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've not been editing these articles in some months. But I strongly object to the kind of one-sided screaming that has been going on here, the making of accusations without any basis, and the sheer hysteria. I am sick and tired of being accused of "bad editing" consisting of routine stuff that happened two years ago, while totally noxious stuff from the past few weeks, such as the link I just posted from Patrick M. Byrne, is ignored. If fairness was being done here there would be a look at all the editing in these articles, not just mine. But as you say, Bagley has posted "interesting" stuff, and his fictions are what is driving this discussion. Bagley obviously is not going to object to editors here removing New York Times articles describing Byrne's political activism, or his lobbying on the naked shorting legislation. There is at present no reference to that Joseph Nocera column in the article. If someone had removed a similar article from Gary Weiss, there would be endless screaming. Let's be frank and admit that elephant in the room, which is Bagley.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Bagley's paying me. Relata refero (talk) 20:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that it's sheer silliness to suggest that Bagley and Wikipedia Review are not having a strong influence on this whole thing. That is separate from the fact that Bagley used a sockpuppet to initiate this case.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This case was initiated by Sir Fozzie, a forthright and upstanding member of this community for many years. Your implication that he is a sockpuppet is beyond the pale.  Risker (talk) 20:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Mantanmoreland is there referring to the sockpuppet that filed the Request for Checkuser that blew the "no go zone" limits away, allowing the duck test to actually be tested... GRBerry 20:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. It was a checkuser confirmed sock of Bagley/WordBomb.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because any account in good standing would have been blocked for doing so. It would not have been very wise, excuse the pun Whit  stable  20:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. What have here are two sides to a fight (Weiss and Wordbomb) that are both wrong, as far as Wikipedia is concerned.  We need them, and their friends, to "take it outside" and not return to the bar until they are ready to get along well with other patrons, and more importantly, not wreck the fine decor by throwing bar stools and whiskey bottles at each other. Jehochman  Talk 20:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct. there was a sockpuppet of WordBomb that filed the initial sockpuppet report.. I just took the ball and ran with it when there appeared to be fire underneath the smoke (little did I know about the inferno underneath, mind you!) The fact that a WordBomb sock filed the initial report should do NOTHING to smear the work of the many different people who did things the right way and kept things on the straight and narrow. I hope that's not what you're insinuating, MM. SirFozzie (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

MM - I'm going to make this really clear - the main reason that only your behavior is being examined here is not that anyone thinks WordBomb hasn't done anything wrong, but rather because WB is already banned and no-one's seriously considering unbanning him. —Random832 20:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear
I haven't read this talkpage, but I do hope that ArbCom knows that this will be viewed as an extremely unhelpful set of decisions so far from the point of view of writing this encyclopaedia. I for one have no intention of returning to the Naked Short Selling page to clean it up, as an outside observer, if the duly elected representatives of the community don't show that they're serious about confronting the disruption surrounding these articles in the past.

If the ArbCom does not realise that giving in to POV-pushers and handing out "everybody was a good person, basically, and now these articles are being watched, so its all OK, isnt it" remedies are not helping, I fear our current system of dispute resolution is fatally flawed.

Have fun, people. This has been a waste of everyone's time. Relata refero (talk) 18:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's the problem. It seems that people, knowing only what Bagley tells them on Wikipedia Review and elsewhere, complain that the naked short selling is deficient in some vague way. But they won't come in and edit it. They say that what Bagley says is "interesting." Fine. So where are the reliable sources that have been omitted and need to be added to this article? In your workshop submission you claimed that there were seven studies that belong in the article. I encourage you to add references to those studies if they are indeed relevant to the subject matter and useful. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? Why? So you can bring a couple of sockpuppets in through open proxies and revert me? And then I'll be "involved" and subject to banning? No bloody thanks. ArbCom, take note, this is the nonsense that you're permitting thanks to your pointless evasion of your responsibilities. Relata refero (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Editing from open proxies is banned under this decision, and I am sure the articles will be closely watched. I guess you have nothing to add to those articles. Why not list those "seven studies" you say were "artificially omitted" from the article?--Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, delightful comeback. Unfortunately, I can direct everyone to several different proxies for hire if they're willing to shell out $14.99 a month. That might be worth it.
 * And, for the last time, if ArbCom doesn't show any concern for the quality of those articles by letting this kind of behaviour pass, I, for one, am not interested enough in the subject to run the gauntlet of whatever mysterious new user shows up to revert me. And I suspect nobody is going to be interested enough either given these circumstances. And as for the seven studies, go check SSRN yourself. It's a moment's work, which you would have done at any point over the past two years if you were interested in the neutrality and quality of those articles. Relata refero (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If Arbcom or the community or a war crimes tribunal in Belgium does everything you want, and bans everybody you don't like, there still is a need for editors in NSS and there is still always the possibility of open proxies and socks. WordBomb has 33 checkuser-confirmed socks, so I am sure he will be out in force.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And if genuinely uninvolved editors can be certain that ArbCom is treating all such sockpuppets alike, and admins are empowered to strike down on them in an even-handed manner, then it won't matter.
 * Editors might be needed, but these principles will not deliver uninvolved ones, and will allow disruptive ones full play. I don't really care about Wordbomb or whatever, so don't keep on bringing him up. He isn't the one whose screwed up these articles as far as I can see.
 * I really don't know why I'm arguing with you any more, since you show no evident desire to learn from the community's reaction. Pretty much every other disruptive editor (all of whom claim not to be disruptive) at least show some signs of attempting to turn over a new leaf for the couple of weeks before and after they're being scrutinized at a RfArb. That you show none demonstrates that ArbCom is even more foolhardy in this mysterious clemency in your favour than I imagined. Relata refero (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Editing from open proxies is banned under this decision and who's going to checkuser your socks? Who's going to request the checkuser? Will they be banned as a WordBomb sock, too? —Random832 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If checkuser confirms them. The list of WordBomb confirmed socks is not being kept up to date, but at last count was 33.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And if they're not, they can be banned anyway as duck, meat, or whatever. The one who requested the checkuser that started this mess may have been checkuser-confirmed, but he/she/it was blocked _before_ that happened (and all checkuser needs to "confirm", anyway, is that someone's from Utah) —Random832 20:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Impact of this case on past sockpuppetry decisions
A portion of the proposed decision states:

"A majority of the committee concludes that the weight of the credible evidence taken as a whole is suggestive of or consistent with a relationship between the two accounts, but that the absence of usable checkuser findings and other factors prevent a definitive conclusion from being reached."

From comments above I gather much of the committee will support this finding which will perhaps be the only definitive statement made about the sockpuppetry issue (since there is a split in the committee apparently).

Given the amount of evidence presented in this "duck test" case (which I think nearly everyone has acknowledged was extraordinary) and the apparent conclusion that it was "not enough," do not users who have been banned on the basis of less (or even similar) evidence in the past have a strong case to be made for their unbanning? And please do not wikilawyer away this question with the point that ArbCom decisions do not necessarily have bearing on future or past actions/decisions - clearly they do. I want to know what the committee says to someone who e-mails them and says "I was banned on less information, why should I stay banned?" Simply quoting wiki-policy at them probably will not work since they will probably feel that we follow policy inconsistently.

The one case I am aware of from the past that would seem suspect now is the SevenOfDiamonds case (where MONGO presented evidence about on a par - in some ways better in some ways not as good - with the evidence here and the committee banned the user in question, probably rightfully so). Others have mentioned the Poetlister case and I'm sure there are many more which are far less prominent. What do we do about these folks if they ask that their bans be reversed - just ignore them?

I do not think that this is an idle or tangential question - it is central to the case. The fact that the Arbs apparently cannot come to a conclusion on the sock accusations (thus, not incidentally, disagreeing with the vast majority of the those in the community who have taken a look at this case) suggests that they have set an incredibly, incredibly high standard for the "duck test." Why would this incredibly high standard not apply retroactively to past cases? Why would it not apply to cases in the future?

I would really like to hear answers from the committee on these questions. The current proposed finding might well have an effect on past and future sockpuppetry accusations whether the Arbs like it or not and I don't think you can stick any additional findings in there which will change that fact.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. Instead of handling the important issues this case DID raise, ArbCom chose to repudiate community findings about the extremely likely connection here. Thus, ArbCom has opened up an entirely new can of worms (what other findings come unraveled next?) when it had a chance to close an old and rotting one instead, and thus making things worse rather than better. The community would be well suited to take it on itself to resoundingly endorse its own findings, community ban the lot of the editors involved in this and override ArbCom's rather limp wristed findings. Sorry if I seem a bit steamed here. ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If that is the only way to do it, then the community has to reserve the right to overrule Arbcom. As things stand, we have to throw out the sock puppet policy or, at the very least, rewrite it Whit  stable  19:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What do we do about these folks if they ask that their bans be reversed - just ignore them? Sure. They don't have any confounding issues, after all. —Random832 19:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely true. Expect a lot of requests for re-evaluation of past "sockpuppet" bans, which were done one way flimsier evidence. In addition, and if this passes, I expect the community to only ban suspected sockpuppets if unambiguous checkuser information is available and not for anything less--Reinoutr (talk) 20:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I can only speak for myself, but if this proposed finding passes it will have absolutely no effect on the standard I apply to block or not block suspected sockpuppets. This finding is clearly directed to this specific case, which I think we can all agree is a bit atypical, and is not general guidance on how to review a case of suspected sockpuppetry. MastCell Talk 20:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it atypical? What makes it so? How is what makes it atypical relevant to the standards of sockpuppetry? How do we know that what makes it atypical in your estimation will not be repeated more regularly in the future? Relata refero (talk) 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, there is nothing atypical here. Any user known to have used sockpuppets in the past would be blocked or even banned at even the slightest hint or the smallest of evidence. Yet here, suddenly only checkuser reports are good enough. Hence, positive checkuser reports are required for any block for suspected use of sockpuppets from now on. --Reinoutr (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I'm sure you see the ways in which this is not a typical case of suspected sockpuppetry. All I'm saying is that it will not have an effect on how I (and I suspect, most other admins who take on such tasks) review sockpuppetry cases. I'm not suddenly going to ignore contribution patterns and quacking if the checkuser evidence isn't rock-solid. My point is this: people are already finding plenty in this case to get worked up about. Claiming that on top of everything else it's going to destroy our ability to deal effectively with sockpuppets strikes me as a bit hyperbolic. MastCell Talk 22:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And its going to make unblocking them ridiculously easy. "But this doesn't stand up to the Mantanmoreland standard of evidence...." and can you imagine the discussions at AN/I? So the community doesn't have to follow precedent. That doesn't mean it doesn't. --Relata refero (talk) 23:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * MastCell's comment "I'm sure you see the ways in which this is not a typical case of suspected sockpuppetry" does not answer my question, which was: how do we explain to users banned for sockpuppetry that their ban was righteous even though it was based on far less evidence than that provided in this case, where no one was banned? Basically MastCell should put her or himself in the position of a person banned for socking - not the admin banning the sock - and ask how that person would view/pontificate about this ruling. It is something we need to consider, and I would still like to hear what Arbs think about this issue.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom protects the 'pedia, assigning blame is not always part of this role - right or wrong?
Something is being lost in the sturm und drang over the proposed decision. My understanding has been that the purpose of ArbCom, the reason we select them for this role and the reason Jimbo created it, is to protect Wikipedia and promote the goal: content. Does this responsibility always include assigning blame for all decisions related to the scope of a case? If it doesn't, in what circumstances is it appropriate for the Committee to address the future of the content in question rather than focus on who did what and why? I think the folks who have decided they are utterly disgusted with the Committee need to take a step back and make some reevaluations: Are you looking for a decision that provides for the protection of Wikipedia, or a decision that provides justice to those who have transgressed? If the second, to what better end? To those who declare that not providing a stiff penalty in this case threatens future sock cases, how? ArbCom decisions are not, formally, precedent setting. WP:DUCK blocks are made by admins in the community, not ArbCom. If a WP:DUCK socker, particularly one well known by the community, uses the results of this case as a defence... I don't think that attempt will be met with much success, but perhaps you disagree. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 19:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have pointed out above and below at tedious length why this decision is bad for quality. I don't care who gets blamed - indeed, I personally think we should take "fair and equitable" out of ArbCom's job description, as long as ArbCom actually does a job. Relata refero (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * By "pointed out...why this decision is bad for quality" do you mean your statement that you won't touch the naked short selling article because the Committee hasn't blamed and banned people for the disruption? Perhaps you will choose not to, hopefully others will - the concern of the Committee isn't whether you are fully satisfied and if, failing that, refuse to edit... its concern is for the ability of other editors, not involved in this case, to come and contribute in this area or others without hindrance. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 21:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, I am uninvolved. As in, before this ArbCom began I'd never looked at the articles. You've just made my point nicely, thanks. Relata refero (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You may not be involved in the dispute, but judging just by your work on this page you are certainly involved in the case. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 21:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And why on earth should it be different for those who haven't spent a little time reading this case? That's patently illogical. You think anyone is going to make even a couple of edits on those pages for the next year plus without following a lead to this case even if by some miracle they don't know about it already? Relata refero (talk) 23:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am afraid Relata refero is right; I've contacted a couple of editors who have done work in this general field, and they won't even consider touching the articles, despite acknowledging they are complete messes. One said "no thanks, I have a clean block record and I intend to keep it that way," and the second said he had no doubt that any edits he made would be contested and railed at. Perhaps the arbitrators could put on their editing hats and demonstrate how it is done - or make personal requests of very knowledgeable and well respected editors to clean things up, under the protection of the committee. Risker (talk) 23:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be different because the remedies that are proposed provide for the future protection of pages in this area: Required disclosure of CoI, restriction to one account and no open proxies (and presumably checkuser enforced without the fishing template), probation, etc. You are not asking that these pages be protected more than they will be under this decision - you are asking that the editors who have garnered the ill-will of the community be punished in the name of justice - this is not the role of ArbCom as I understand it. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 23:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the fact that those remedies have already been made something of a mockery of in this case (probably). I am concerned that this means, as Risker says above, that nobody will touch them because ArbCom doesn't seem interested in enforcing our standards in this area. It has happened before, and it is happening here, only perhaps worse because there was more reason for them to be bold here. Most of us have enough battlefields, and genuine editors aren't looking for more. If ArbCom doesn't have our backs - and that means by handing out sentences to those who have probably violated the norms the rest of us edit by - we won't enter this arena. So there is a direct link between ArbCom being suitable severe on transgressions and the protection of this content. Particularly in this particular set of articles, where the attention that has been lavished on it has been counterproductive. Relata refero (talk) 23:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am so surprised that the Committee is unable to realise that no editing of those articles will ever be free of cries of bias or undue weight. I knew that my relevant proposed finding of fact and subsequent proposed remedy were never going to be adopted, but I entertained some hope that it would be realised that the articles will always be considered as compromised by one or both parties to the off-Wiki dispute. I am not surprised that all those with some expertise in the area decline to edit the articles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand how you feel but for the record I have dealt with cries of the same issues regarding undue weight and bias on article related to the events of 9/11 for over 2 years now...the sad fact of this open resource is that there will always be some areas that are magnets for those with strong opinions. I have also noticed that in many areas, we don't have enough editors that truly are neutral and are interested in working on subjects that have a tendency to be polarizing.--MONGO 06:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is an excellent reason for ArbCom to reduce those areas, not expand them. Relata refero (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent points from both, there is likely to be subjects where the preponderance of opinionated contributions are going to disincline neutral editors from participating and that the Committee should act - where it has been engaged - in reducing those areas of the 'pedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Avruch, I would expect this decision to make some admins block-shy - knowing that an appeal to ArbCom could easily see the blocking admin de-sysopped for blocking without sufficient evidence. I mean, it's not like ArbCom doesn't have form in this area... It could also make admins doing unblock review more likely to give socks another chance - for fear that ArbCom will use the standards here to go after both the blocking admin and the unblock reviewer. How is either of these likely to help 'pedia building in the future? Jay*Jay (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not the end, or giving up?
I can only assume that there are further proposals to come from the arbitrators.

1) That Mantanmoreland and SamiHarris, due to engaging in sockpuppetry, be blocked for an appropriate length of time.

2) That it be made clear that for COI affected editors, it is best practice to declare the Conflict of interest before any contentious editing is engaged in.

3) That possible admin misconduct/serious lapses of judgement/possible COI in edits related to the indef-blocking of User:Wordbomb, and the aftermath, will be further investigated, and if possible, details of deleted DIFFs which constitute possibly extremely important evidence, will be made available in open evidence.

When these further proposals come forth, the arbitration case will be in a position to close effectively and honourably.

Were the case to end here without such further proposals, and their enforcement, then that is simply a travesty of justice, and trampling on the right of the entire en.wikipedia conmmunity to obtain fair play.

The disappointment of many editors to date, and that of many editors too let down to even bother commenting is noted, it is virtually universal. Dissapointment -, or maybe disgust.

I have read every word of evidence presented, and I thank those editors who performed what must be huge efforts, and vast amounts of time to gather a dossier of evidence that far surpasses any rational threshhold for positive determination. For that effort to be disrespected in the way that the current state of the proposals page indicates, is disturbing, not to say dismissive and could only be described as actually traitorous. With respect&mdash; 20:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Traitorous"? We could do without that kind of hyperbole.  We've only just started to hear from a few of the arbitrators, who are trying to lay out the areas where the committee apparently was able to come to consensus.  I think there's still time for the committee to take the proposed decision into more detailed and concrete findings and remedies, as the community clearly desires.  Let's give them reasons to listen to us and adjust their approach, not dismiss us as a mindless mob. alanyst /talk/ 20:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I think much of what I'm reading is mindless. There are accusations made without a shred of proof, and below someone chimes in to say that people have to post here and justify my existence. That is not the purpose of an arbitration case. If people want stuff done, they have to submit evidence for it. Evidence of bad editing is simply not been introduced. POV edits by people on the other side of the dispute are ignored. The loud braying of Wikipedia Review is the obvious reason for this hysteria.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Evidence of bad editing is simply not been introduced." Sigh. Here's a suggestion: for the forty-seven more times you will make this assertion on this talkpage, try saying instead that "bad editing has not been demonstrated." That's still false, but not so false that everybody else thinks you can't read. Relata refero (talk) 20:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, evidence of bad editing has not been introduced. . The diffs you provided don't even come close. But there is no need going back and forth over that here, that I agree.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See, here's the problem. What you should say is "evidence of bad editing has been refuted." That would also not be so false etc.
 * Frankly, if you don't get simple points made in good faith even after they've been made so many times, I wonder whether you'd be a net gain to the pedia even if you weren't blatantly tendentious. Relata refero (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, "evidence of bad editing" is not correct. No point in going around and around about it, though.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm beginning to see a point here. The more you avoid a more accurate representation of events (using a bald assertion and no form of backup) in favour of wording that would be of personal assistance to you, the more you dig your own grave as far as I'm concerned. Relata refero (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I've responded to your diffs in detail on the evidence page.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And for the uninitiated, the detail is "Overstock! Smear! WordBomb! Byrne! STALKERS! BLLLLAAAAAAAAHHH!" SirFozzie (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No the detail is here.. I say nothing of the kind. I think you're being deliberately disruptive. If you feel that helps your case, please keep it up.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 22:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that detail being "nobody objected! And even if they were, they were WordBomb! So my edits had consensus! See, me and my puppet agreed! Even that other guy who disagreed, he was WordBomb!" Please. Relata refero (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * and below [BirgitteSB] chimes in to say that people have to post here and justify my existence. That is not the purpose of an arbitration case.  Let me clarify. A proposed principle reads "The purpose of Arbitration is to provide . . . final resolution of disputes on Wikipedia . . . in the best interests of the encyclopedia and all of its contributors."   I truly want to know why it is in the best interests of Wikipedia to continue to deal with you.  Your opponent is banned, misbehavior on that end has not been ignored and will not be in the future.  But why should you be able to continue to make demands on the communities attention?  What redeeming aspect of your participation here deserves such a sensitive approach? I can't see it.  You haven't been as blatant as some past controversial editors have been in breaking policies, but you haven't really offered much to the encyclopedia either.  So what is the purpose in keeping around someone who is at worst an extremely skilled manipulator who uses Wikipedia as a front in a long running dispute and must be closely watched; or at best extremely stubborn person who is unwilling to address the concerns of others frankly and makes little contribution to Wikipedia outside opposing WB (who has no lack of opposition), even though his very presence obviously provokes WB to be more active on Wikipedia. What exactly is the point again that makes this all in the best interests of Wikipedia?-- Birgitte  SB  21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been spending most of the past few weeks defending myself against this crap, so I think it is a bit unfair, to say the least, to cite my contribs say that I am "not interesting in writing an encyclopedia." I'd like to see you focus on List of Fordham alumni when some p.r. guy is attacking you left and right in three blogs and websites, and people are taking that hate campaign on-wiki. I'd love to go back to writing the encyclopedia and agree that people are wasting a ton of time on this.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 22:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How about getting written up in the legitimate tech press by reporters who didn't contact you for the chance to correct their inaccurate facts, and receiving hate mail? Three hostile blogs and websites would have been a cakewalk.  Would you like a forward of my Google alerts from December?  Yes, it's possible to focus on writing an encyclopedia afterward. <font face="Verdana"> Durova  Charge! 22:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your list of 500 article contribs goes back a year and a half! And I do not see many substantial edits outside of the topic under dispute. How does the past few weeks have anything to do with that?-- Birgitte SB  22:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He may have another account for editing some articles, perhaps. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 22:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Specifically, Mantanmoreland's last 500 Article edits actually took him from 2006 to February 2008 to accumulate. The primary purpose of Wikipedia is to write articles. What is going on here? <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 22:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear. <font face="Verdana"> Durova Charge! 21:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why this is so far problematic
The problem with this proposal is not necessarily the decision itself. This decision arising from a robust enough discussion could be acceptable to most people. And although I imagine there must have been such a discussion in private none of it is evidence on this case. A large group of people see MM's behavior as being very problematic, and they have gone to great lengths to articulate the problems they see. Others seem to disagree, but the reasoning in support of MM is not shared. It is perfectly understandable that some of evidence against MM is being dismissed out of hand. But I think MM actions have clearly surpassed passive "good faith" assumptions. What evidence is there that MM is a net positive to this project? I can find no active defense of MM anywhere among these pages, yet from this proposed decision I must surmise that such an active defense exists. I understand that Arbcom does not wish to be quoted in off-site battles, but the primary goal of this case "is to provide a fair and equitable, well-informed, expeditious, and final resolution of disputes on Wikipedia". I can not understand how anyone can even dream in their most pleasant dreams that this decision will bring final resolution to the actual dispute on Wikipedia. I believe Arbcom is elected to a role of judgment that the community cannot fulfill on it's own. However the community is truly the only enforcement of Arcom's judgment, and although a judgment does not seek or require the community's agreement is does (outside of simple bans) require the community's comprehension. I find this proposed decision incomprehensible in terms of the case presented and therefore largely unenforcable. Looking forward I can see this decision improving the situation on articles named in the "Locus of Dispute". However just because Arbcom may wish to limit this decision to that locus, it does not follow that the dispute does not actually reach into other areas of Wikipedia. Looking forward I can see this decision without further clarifications being detrimental to those other areas of Wikipedia (Noticeboards, Sock Investigations, etc.) Above some people have said this decision would encourage abuse of sockpupppets. But that can only be an issue in edge cases, my very large concern is rather that this decision will encourage stonewalling throughout all stages of dispute resolution. Frank communication is the means of all solutions within wikis, and it's absence always inflames problems. Ignore any issue at all within this case; except the apparent stonewalling. Just to be absolutely clear of the problem I see: I find no acceptable explanation given in this case to address the concerns raised by MM's actions. I can only imagine that those privy to all the information at Arbcom's disposal are able to disagree with that. But it is impossible to leave this up to imagination and expect any real closure. This is the "final step in dispute resolution" only so long as people are satisfied their concerns have been addressed, otherwise it is only one step in a cycle. Addressing peoples concerns is a significantly low bar that has not yet been met here. Shed some light on the robust discussion that has brought Arbcom to this stage. Share whatever you can of the arguments in defense of MM that were found convincing, even if only in the most general terms. My biggest questions are, which concerns over MM's actions did Arbcom find to have substantial enough evidence to surpass an assumption of good faith (if any)? Were the all concerns considered substantial satisfactorily explained? Were the satisfying explanations at all found within the public pages of this case, or were they solely part of private submissions?-- Birgitte SB  20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad someone thinks that at least this will have an effect on the four articles directly mentioned as the locus of the dispute. (I still haven't the vaguest idea how.) Relata refero (talk) 20:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Truthfully I can imagine two good approaches to this. There can wishy-washy FOFs and a broad banhammer (i.e. "We can't conclusively determine the facts of the matters, but it smells rotten and is in Wikipedia's best interest to ban all disputants from this topic broadly interpreted"}  Or there can be strong FOFs and a very nuanced forward looking remedies (i.e. "Situations A, B, and C due to X, Y, and Z details are improper or have such a strong appearance of impropriety as makes no difference.  Going forward all such activity is dis-allowed and blockable on an escalating scale.")  However the current proposal is not practical.  It basically says "We can't conclusively determine the facts of the matters, but looking forward no more of it".   So basically I can see the remedies that are very specific working narrowly, but no overall closure to the problem-- Birgitte  SB  22:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A quick thing to consider
Gary Weiss has shown previously on his blog that he knows of the disputes on Wikipedia. It's probably also fair to say if Arbcom were to rule that he has been editing Wikipedia under an alias, and denying it, in areas he shouldn't be to help his career, his career would subsequently take a bit of a battering. So why hasn't he turned up at these pages to say "I am not Sparticus?" Odd, hey? Although I admit that means nothing, as without watching someone log in as someone else, nothing really matters. Welcome to the new Wikipedia, home of more sockfarms than a cotton mill. Whit stable  20:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My guess, unless someone in a position to know states otherwise, is that he contacted ArbCom privately with "confounding issues" (i.e. legal threats). —Random832 20:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the problematic issue is the open participation in this case by the director of communications and CEO of Overstock.com, which is under investigation by the Securities and Exhcange Commission? But that is just a guess, and I see no point in speculating.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it true that you are mandated by law to throw in an attack against people not even involved in the freaking case with every post? Here's a challenge, MM. Can you go FIVE posts without throwing WordBomb/Patrick Byrne references in? I personally think it can't be done.. that you'd get 2-3 posts in, and then suffer from a version of Tourette's Syndrome where all you can say is "WordBomb! Overstock! Smear Campaign! RARRRRRRR!". SirFozzie (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I mention Overstock's participation in this case, because it is participating in this case. If that discomfits you, don't read it.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So that would be "no" then, I guess. No amount of repeating yourself will convince me of anything you say, I'm afraid, you have to actually address the points raised. ++Lar: t/c 21:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you might view this a little less callously if the CEO of some company and his paid stalker were after your bacon.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean your bacon or Gary Weiss' bacon? Seems to me they are more interested in "Gary Weiss" than "Mantanmoreland", that's why I ask.  daveh4h 21:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * BINGO!!! (I regret that the usual prize of a fluffy duck, although it has fluffy yellow feathers, wings, a beak, webbed feat, answers to the names Daffy and Howard, etc. has now been reclassified as "potential but unproven water fowl" - and has been substituted with a picture of a moose. Congratulations.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Have to give you grudging credit for your single-mindedness. We look upon this discussion, and see 50 different people. You just see 50 copies of one person and imagine that person is pulling the strings of everyone. Takes some imagination, I have to admit. As for the rest of your post, wow, I'm impressed. BLP Violations for all! (Apparently, the real name of the policy is WP:Biography of Living People We Like, and Screw The Rest. SirFozzie (talk) 21:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, since we're being brute force honest, you mention Overstock's "participation" in this case, because it's so much easier to go "Look at the silly monkey" then actually deal with the fact that many neutral editors have good faith concerns. SirFozzie (talk) 21:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do you, a Wikipedia editor, care so much about a company that 99.999 per cent of the world have never heard of? Whit  stable  20:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't care much about that company. But that company's CEO mentioned me and Samiharris on his corporate website, which I do think is pretty extraordinary.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)Why would evidence from an editor in good standing be a confounding issue in your defense? Or do you just want to get another jab at a RW adversary in? Relata refero (talk) 20:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that the fact that the CEO of Overstock.com is participating openly in this arbitration is a confounding issue from my perspective, but it might be from Arbcom's. That is just speculation. I have no idea. Perhaps if George W. Bush participated in an arbcom as User:GeorgeWBush, and attacked editors on the White House website, it would be taken in stride by all concerned.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It would depend on if the White House provided IP-based evidence of sockpuppetry, I suppose, the way this is going. Hint? <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 21:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It might also depend on if the White House routinely used fake emails and forged screen shots, engaged in other dirty tricks, and sent an email to an administrator saying that if "Weiss is banned" he will remove his attacks on the administrator and Wikipedia.. I know, I know, doesn't matter.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is all rather circular and pointless. Let's just all stop on this avenue. This clearly will not be resolved to the community's satisfaction until there is a full and open public investigation (an AN subpage discussion?) after this RFAR closes for the community to make a decision on the evidence provided. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 21:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering how this started, I think that would be the best Wikipedia example of a Vicious Circle, ever. SirFozzie (talk) 21:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How else will this end if the AC won't take up the evidence or directly address why they feel it's insufficient, and what this secret mitigating factor is? Is it a legal threat from someone off-wiki or an editor? Something else? Leaving the community dangling after 2+ years of this mess will just let it fester. Or, the community can take steps to permanently stop disruption. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me put it another way: If I posted on WP:AN today with the depth of evidence that has been presented here in regards to MM/SH/GW, about User:Bobby566, User:TeddyRoosevelt, and a BLP named Vince Clortho, out of the blue, how long would it take for the community to reach a decision about Bobby566 and TeddyRoosevelt? <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 21:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you posted a graph that clearly showed while TeddyRoosevelt's edit times changed to a time-zone on the other side of the planet and Vince Clortho could be should be shown to have been on the other side of the planet at the same time, we all know what would happen! This whole process did not need to go past Varkala! Whit  stable  21:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just commenting that it started at SSP, went to AN, went to private sandbox pages, went back to AN, went to RfC, went to AN for discussion of the RfC.. then to RfArb... and now back to AN, again? Hope we get some frequent Wiki miles out of this! :) SirFozzie (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And then it goes to CSN, and if that doesn't work it goes somewhere else, until the blood lust is satisfied.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it goes until the community (not YOU) rejects the evidence with counter-evidence and explanations. You still haven't even answered anything. Why did your and Sami's editing times change to Indian time suddenly? The answer is not "Patrick Byrne". <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 22:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to jump in, it was just Mantanmoreland so "I am not Sami" is no answer, either. Whit  stable  22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)Yes, we all get a free round trip to ANI. The blackout location is WP:FAC (this takes too much time and attention away from real editing). <font face="Verdana"> Durova  Charge! 21:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed principle on enabling
Effect, not affect. --Michael Snow (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think so - 'affect' meaning "External display of emotion or mood" is how I read it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a possible reading, I suppose, but the passage scans as if "effect" was intended. If "affect" really was intended, the sentence should be rewritten to eliminate the confusion (maybe it should be rewritten either way). I note that it's possible to sensationalize things and provoke disruption without presenting a sensationalist affect, and in fact some people are quite practiced at disrupting without calling attention to themselves in that way. --Michael Snow (talk) 21:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Question re effect of MM and SH on community reactions to WB
Although divided, the Committee seems to believe there is suggestive evidence for a link between MM and SH. Given that, it would be good to know if the Committee felt that there was a problem with the way MM and SH acted in concert against WordBomb. Does the Committee feel that these actions against WB coloured the response of the Wikipedia community in general to WB and his claims, and that this was a significant contributor to the length and heat of the conflict leading to this arbitration? Or does the Committee believe that the community acted properly in regard to WB, and that the actions of MM and SH did not negatively contribute to how the community reacted to these claims? BCST2001 (talk) 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Samiharris came on Wikipedia several months after WordBomb was banned.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct, it was MM and his checkuser confirmed sockpuppet Lastexit that acted in concert against WorldBomb. Correct the details, the basic question remains.  GRBerry 21:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies. Yes, I meant the way MM and Lastexit acted in concert, for instance here: . And then the way in which MM and SH acted in concert to colour the reactions to WB's claims and accusations. BCST2001 (talk) 21:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think anything caused WordBomb's banning except WordBomb's actions.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Attempting to perform the same function as multiple editors in good standing here are, although admittedly in not the "best" way? Whit  stable  21:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand you. I didn't ban WordBomb, and didn't even ask for him to be banned. There was no conspiracy against him. I do realize that is his big complaint, but I don't think it's quite accurate.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for your reply, Mantanmoreland, but, with respect, your somewhat unsurprising answer wasn't really what I was trying to elicit. What I am saying is that it would be worthwhile for the Arbitration Committee to indicate their views on my question, which is: given that the Committee tends to agree with WB's accusation that MM has been sockpuppeteering and has a conflict of interest in relation to the articles in question, does the Committee feel that MM/LE/SH acted in concert in relation to WB in a way that negatively coloured the community's reaction to WB and his accusation? Or, on the contrary, does the Committee feel there was no negative impact, and that there was nothing wrong with the community's reaction to WB and his accusations? BCST2001 (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And the pertinence of my question is as follows: I entirely agree with the intentions of the Committee to come up with "forward-directed" solutions, rather than apportioning blame, however, as it stands, these solutions appear to favour one "side" over the other. That is, while the accusations, which the Committee seems to acknowledge are grounded in fact, show that all sides have engaged in bad behaviour, WB remains banned, while MM and SH are not banned. This would seem to amount to an implicit finding that the community's reaction to WB was legitimate and not negatively coloured by the concerted actions of MM/LE/SH. I am asking if it is correct to read this implicit finding into the Committee's resolutions, and, if so, whether the Committee ought not make explicit what it seems to be expressing implicitly. Or, on the other hand, if the Committe does think that MM/LE/SH behaved badly in relation to WB, negatively affecting the community's reaction to WB, then the question is begged: how "forward looking" is the Committe being really, if their findings perpetuate the results of improper actions in the past, in terms of banning WB while leaving MM and SH unsanctioned?

The community's good faith
Regarding doubts about the time that it took to look into the sock concerns seriously, and whether that reflected improper collusion among other editors, I've written User:Durova/Mantanmoreland_statement. <font face="Verdana"> Durova Charge! 21:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that mantanmorelands opponents have been his best defense. I don't see anyone who helped conduct this investigation and review having done anything improper, other than maybe some overheated talk page rhetoric.  This is what makes it so disappointing, that the committee seems willing to let the community continue to be abused in this way.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The committee is still a committee, with all the flaws that entails - one of which being that the decisions made collectively are more likely to be timid than aggressive. Timid proposals from a committee meeting behind closed doors quite often reflect vigorous disagreement in private.


 * There are obviously flaws in discussing such things in private. However, I suspect that discussing this case in public would be so noisy as to prevent any decision from being made at all, unfortunately. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it an internal Committee policy or practice that other/dissenting Proposed Decision sections are generally not posted? I.e., does the Committee have to approve together on language for these ahead of time, or are individual members free to post their own dissenting opinions sections and findings at any time free of pressure or repercussion? It would seem that doing that, and allowing public up-and-down votes, would be the most just way to approach divisive cases, rather than taking the easy way out. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 23:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not in general; many cases see proposals that get voted down or which fail to gain sufficient support to pass. I suspect that alternate proposals may be offered to some of these (most likely will, in fact).  However, we do most of the time prefer to discuss cases that involve allegations tied to real-world identity in private. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that FT2 has already offered some additional or alternative proposals to the ones I posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) The arbitrators don't have to thrash things out in private before bringing them onwiki, but it some cases it helps. I don't think I break any secrets in saying that the majority of arbitrators thought this case needed thorough discussions before a proposed decision was posted. That feeling was not in any way binding, though. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * re:Morven's comments. I don't have a problem with private deliberations.  My problem is that the committee is seeming to ignore a users documented abuse of the community to a level that earns most folks a one year wikibreak.  It's the double standard question, and part 2 of it is:  do I have enough contribution to get to be on the good side of the double standard?  I know that some folks are concerned about the appearant double standard (via comments on other cases involving long standing users), don't let this codify it.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Types of evidence: precedents and milestones
Over the course of this investigation I think we've let our evidentiary classifications (circumstantial, "smoking-gun," duck test) become hopelessly blurred. This is a good time to revisit and sharpen these distinctions given that we're thinking about the precedent being set by this case.

We've been conflating the duck test with circumstantial evidence, when in fact these are quite different. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck – that's the duck test. When something is thought to be so self-evident that a rough eyeball estimatation will do, that's the duck test. It's what has been used for all Wordbomb socks and alleged socks. There are a few editors who refer to some 600 hundred private emails and claim to make out stylistic differences between SH and MM, but both the emails and the alleged stylistic differences have remained undisclosed, and the overwhelming consensus is that SH and MM pass the duck test with flying colors. But there was an almost equally strong consensus that due to the stakes and sensitivities of this case, evidence would need to be systematically gathered, vigorously vetted, and soberly presented. That is, even if the facts met a threshold of self-evidence deemed sufficient for duck-test decisions when dealing with Judd Bagley's manipulation of Wikipedia, more circumspection was necessary when dealing with Gary Weiss's manipulation of Wikipedia. The circumstantial evidence adduced by Alanyst, Cool Hand Luke, and others answered to this need. It has absolutely nothing to do with the duck test, and description of it as such not only demeans it, but totally misses the point of their efforts. Their evidence set a new standard for circumspection in sockpuppet investigations, and it is nothing short of overwhelming. Smoking-gun evidence of Mantan's COI problem has also been adduced – arguably in the case of the Ernie Pyle library, and incontestably in the case of Varkala. There is on the other hand no smoking-gun evidence for MM=SH.

In other words, the "duck test" as such was never applied to this case. Instead, a much, much higher bar of evidence was set, and incontestably cleared. Much discussion seems to take for granted that the best and most conclusive evidence possible would have been a positive checkuser, that that result would have provided a degree of certainty that mere circumstantial evidence, no matter how extensive and compelling in its own way, can ever quite match. I dispute this notion. I think if you took the circumstantial evidence adduced here for MM=SH and traded it all in for a positive CU, the result would be a net loss in certainty. MM says he is an "MBA candidate at a large Eastern university"; if SH claimed to be a fellow grad student sharing his office computer, that would be a cleaner, simpler, and ultimately more plausible story for a common IP address than what would be required, at this point, to make sense of the ever-expanding web of circumstantial evidence linking the two accounts.

I am not concerned that this decision will be a "green light" to other editors to sock-puppet. I have the opposite concern – that this decision will be widely perceived as confirmation of a double standard or worse, and that it will be seen as a blot on the committee's credibility. In Anchorman: the Legend of Ron Bergundy, Will Farrell, bless his soul, tells the lucky lady he's wooing that San Diego was discovered by the Germans and its name means "whale's vagina"; she says nuh-uh, no way, sorry that's incorrect, he says OK OK I admit it was blarney, I wanted to impress you, I don't know what it means and in fact no one does, "scholars maintain that the translation was lost hundreds of years ago"; she says look jackass, it means "Saint Diego," he says no I'm sorry you're wrong, she says no, really, her voice tightening. "Agree to disagree?" he pleads, hoping for détente. My younger brother laughed like hell at "whale's vagina." I laughed like hell at agree-to-disagree. Yesterday's Could-Samiharris-be-Wordbomb? was a whale's vagina, no doubt, and some laughed like hell, but today's suggestive-but-not-conclusive will be the connoisseur's punchline.

While admittedly disappointing, I don't think this is a big disaster. By far the most important milestone in this saga was passed weeks ago, when Sir Fozzie opened his evidence subpage and Jimbo gave it the go-ahead, and it ceased to be a "shoot-on-site" blockable or bannable offense to talk about obvious COI and sockpuppeting problems involving Mantanmoreland, obvious NPOV problems in the articles on Gary Weiss and Patrick M. Byrne, and obvious admin-abuse problems related to these (I am thinking particularly but not exclusively of the harassment of Cla68). The second most important milestone was passed when the arbcom case was opened, and investigating editors set a standard for sobriety and circumspection that, when the dust is settled, will be seen to have done more than anything else to put the era of bitter and sterile debates about "cliques" and "cabals" behind us as a community. Certainly, a vigorous, transparent, and just Arbcom decision now would be a fitting and deserved conclusion, but the community will survive without it.--G-Dett (talk) 22:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent consideration, even if you did misspell millstone every time. You also missed the smoking gun that is Varkala regarding socking - both MM and SH's edit patterns altered to accommodate that timeshift... Regarding the millstones I alluded to; if the detailed circumstantial evidence produced in the absence of checkuser is insufficient to indicate that a duck has been found quacking the it is going to be far canard (pardon my French) to justify sockpuppet blocks in the future on the analysis of contributions, shared interests and similar styles. The dedicated socker will be examining these deliberations closely, and those banned previously will doubtless be investigating whether the evidence used in their cases fails the standards apparently considered in this case (although this is not entirely bad - can Piperdown be the only innocently aggrieved party?)
 * Regarding the milestone that is SirFozzie being permitted to open an evidence subpage - all kudos to him and his integrity, but just about how many other individuals would have been permitted to do so? Indeed, how many of us with sysop privileges would not have been? Just how good a record do you need to be able to dare to start to discuss a (s)low article edit count contributor with an interest limited to little more than a few articles regarding an arcane subject matter and some of its players? It seems to be a step in the right direction, but not yet a leap. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as SH being MM, I'd like to add two more things that hadn't seemed necessary to mention (partly because they may be minor by comparison): First, I recommend that anyone interested try a ctrl f search through each editor's contribs for " -- ", to compare not just the frequency with which this is used, but also the manner.(MM/SH) I found this to be one way of cutting out a lot of noise for a direct comparison.  Second, I've personally noticed a distinctive pattern in both accounts not just to edit talk page posts afterward, but to add new thoughts as well.  Any review of Mantanmoreland's edits will show this (today: ) ; a list from Samiharris' first five hundred edits is here:  These are just two more things, but in my view noteworthy. Mackan79 (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well - I do that. I suspect a lot of people who participate a lot on talk pages do. I'm not sure I'd read much into that one in particular. —Random832 07:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Samiharris joined Wikipedia in January 07. The Varkala non-issue was in November 06. You may now return to your regularly scheduled circus.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Mantanmoreland is correct. Varkala, while not a non-issue in other regards, does not add to the other extensive evidence that Samiharris is an alternative account used abusively by Mantanmoreland. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. The timestamp evidence that SH=MM consists only in their joint haitus from wiki-editing from late Oct. through Nov. 2007, one year after India. Either they are socks or joined at the hip and vacation together. Neither has been forthcoming for what they did in those 5 weeks. SH? MM? For two guys who share the same edit tics, it's very odd that you slacked off astoundingly and obviously at the same time, there. How about it? S  B Harris 01:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Informal comment
This has been a case with a huge number of issues to raise. Picking the best for the community has taken considerable discussion. A lot of the above views, and the workshop discussion is persuasive... however it needs to be taken into account with the background. Then the reasons for the present approach are more clear.

This case has involved at a minimum, a long saga of problematic and downright unacceptable conducts, by many people. Features of this two year case have included:
 * Offsite attacks - up to and including February 2008
 * Linking to offsite attacks
 * Harassment campaigns
 * Forcible coercion attempts, going so far as possibly tantamount in one case to pretty much literal blackmail of an editor (Although I am not a lawyer)
 * Lies, campaigning and misrepresentation
 * Information that became clear at one point in time that was not reliable at a previous point in time
 * Significant "pot-stirring" in unhelpful ways by many people
 * Interpreting 2006 actions and decisions by reference to 2008 norms and knowledge
 * Good faith actions with bad outcomes
 * Historic gaming leading to bad conduct
 * Historic frustrations leading to user and admin misjudgement or error in the past.
 * People having an interest in ensuring others in the real-world situation will be made to look exceptionally good or exceptionally bad (for PR purposes), by whatever means necessary, including forgery, faking and deception, and who have the resources to achieve that.
 * A neutral review shows common editing between Mantanmoreland and Samiharris on a number of pages, which would be a concern if there is puppetry of some kind.
 * People with a grudge, or a view that they know beyond doubt what's best and most right, have felt compelled to present an opinion or their accusations; often speculative, part informed, or misinformed, and frequently not for the best for the community - but stated loudly and expectantly.

These are all features of a long dispute where patience was exhausted. I don't expect to cover all the issues that have been looked into and reviewed. There has been a mountain of it to consider.

We could go through and document it all. This admin blocked improperly; that user was grossly uncivil, this person engaged in personal attacks and that person switched between campaigning and attempted forcible coercion, these people latched onto a conspiracy theory and became convinced Something Evil Was Up, and those people unaware of the background in good faith became concerned a mis-handling had happened.

This is an exceptional case. It's the kind of case ArbCom is set up to handle, where privacy, and seriously divisive issues collided in a train wreck.

We are not inclined to further or perpetuate it, is our consensus. We could do that by blocks, bans, and rulings against these or those people, but in fact, we decided point blank not to. This needs explaining.

This mess is not a pure wiki problem. Behind the scenes is an attempt to use Wikipedia as one more battleground in a bitter offsite saga. Several people are probably mainly here (on-wiki), or have only visited here, because of a wish to fight that battleground. Any decision, we are more aware than most from the history of the dispute, will be used immediately as ammunition to perpetuate the dispute - that this one was wrongly blocked, that one wrongly let off, the community or Committee were biased by considering this matter but not that one from 2006 or 2007... users who were uncivil, unhelpful, over-dramatic, POINTy, or engaged in personal attacks or posted offsite attack links (especially on these pages)... and more disruption would ensue.

Accordingly we choose none of that. We have decided to take the exceptional measure to focus on none in particular, and to shut the core wiki-dispute down, or render it within communal control, so far as possible without citing the usual itinerary of who did what. If Mantanmoreland or others edit these articles in future, it will be under intense communal eyeballs. If further incident occurs the community will deal with it. Our focus has been to say simply, that without the drama of naming specifics that can only cause a further cycle of "X did Y", to take the few commonsense steps needed to assert three things:


 * 1) This isn't what we're here for, and the many who enabled it, helped it roll out, and pushed the matter into prominence (in and outside the community), must consider better actions, because this isn't what Wikipedia is for.
 * 2) The evidence of improper editing is "suggestive", but not 100% conclusive. It was less convincing in the past (third party campaigns to the contrary notwithstanding), and was required to be evaluated in the quite exceptional context that there were others with specific agendas to smear at any cost and via any means. Different users may read into that statement their own preferred degree of "suggestiveness", from "very little" to "very much". We, exceptionally and against our norms, do not plan to specify ours.
 * 3) The dispute - in on wiki editing terms - ends here.

That is our consensus -- to give the community our concern that in fact, the handling of disputes in that way can do more harm whether right or wrong, and to provide the few remedies needed to counter any forward-looking disruption. The rest, we remit back to the community to handle in totality, in the belief that the community will now be clued in and actually handle it quite well. That is our focus, not to provide "vindication" for any "side" in the real-world dispute, but to ask the important question - what remedy the community needs to get beyond the issue, and to remember we're here to write an encyclopedia, not for this. It seems most likely that all sides and all parties in the real-world dispute may well have have acted dishonorably, unethically, and duplicitously, and this may have done us as an encyclopedia no favors.

Our case decison is not yet complete. A number of proposals on the Workshop and which others feel "should have been decided", and that seem very credible, have been carefully considered internally first, and have already been dismissed as superficially helpful, but after more thought, were deemed less helpful than they at first appear in the context. That is why they weren't part of our main decision.

This case is exceptional and such considerations and issues and approaches here are not to be taken or applied as a norm. Some other cases dating back to 2006 had similar heated issues, though few as extreme. In line with ArbCom's changing communal role of considering increasingly more difficult cases over time, the Committee may well reassess the process by which it approaches such complex train-wrecks in future, since the unresolved past history and ambiguities were a key factor in making this case as problematic as it was.

Posted as a personal comment.

FT2 (Talk 23:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Thank you for that. I am satisfied that the ArbCom has taken the best decision they could take given their expectations of the effects of various decisions.
 * You are, however, completely wrong about the effect on the articles, as I note earlier on on this page, which is what counts.(Ending a "dispute", possibly, though the not-proven-socks were doing fine on ending disputes on their own; ensuring the integrity of those articles, not so much.)
 * You might also have severely misjudged what the community required from you in order to move on, but I will be proved either right or wrong on that in the fullness of time. I do hope to be proved wrong in this case. I usually am not, however. Relata refero (talk) 23:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You make some excellent points FT2 - one thing to consider in this case is that it is far outside the realms of the usual arbitration cases. It goes much much deeper than your everyday decision. What we have is an attempt by the committee to stop the disruption through on-wiki sanctions that help to keep the decorum. Pushing people off the project would only lead to the off wiki aspect of the dispute intenifying. If we are able to deal with things here, then hopefully the whole dispute will disengage. With respect to the sockpuppetry concerns - I'm not sure what else the committee could do, they are concerned with some of the editing patterns, but as there's no real evidence of it, it's not really right to start issuing bans for it. Thanks again for the clarification FT2. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  23:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * RE Ryan:Pushing people off the project would only lead to the off wiki aspect of the dispute intenifying. If we are able to deal with things here, then hopefully the whole dispute will disengage. Wordbomb is banned.  If MM and SH are banned, there is no more on-wiki dispute!  Problem solved, from our end.  "hopefully the whole dispute will disengage"--here it sounds like you are talking about the dispute as a whole, which I assure you Wikipedia has no way of solving, in fact it could have divorced itself from it right here with this case and chose not to.  daveh4h 07:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the further explanation too. However, I strongly feel that actions taken to avoid drama often ironically sow the seeds of future drama.  I think back to the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster and the investigation of the event.  What would have happened if the commission had said, "We don't want to cause further turmoil at NASA by talking about who made mistakes where; our purpose is to get the shuttle back into space, and discussing every bad decision will just create drama that distracts us from that goal"? alanyst /talk/ 23:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The analogy here would be: "Arguing who told who what 2 years ago or if John Doe needs sacking or not, isn't that helpful. The issue is, 1/ the quality control on O-rings needs improving whether John Doe is in that department or not, and 2/ we each and all must refocus on good quality space shuttle management which is what we're actually here for." I don't think anyone would disagree with that. FT2 (Talk 23:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the explaination, and understand the goal. However, I do not feel that this decision will get you there.  There are two parts of this enormous dispute that this arbitration hearing could actually make headway towards resolving.  1) abuse of the community through in appropriate use of alternate accounts, and 2) article content (through removal of protection of the pov controlling user.  The rest of this dispute is not possible to clear up through this hearing.  So, what's it going to be?  do what you can or not.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Rocksanddirt. This helps explain things. I'm not sure that I like your approach or think that it will work, or approve of free-passing those you've decided not to review, (because if the allegations are true, the behaviour isn't going to stop) but it definitely helps explain things. Frankly you all perhaps should have led with this instead of the stuff on the proposed decision page in more conventional format, I think, some of what's just been said maybe wouldn't need to have been said. ++Lar: t/c 00:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The behavior is tightly tied to specific articles and topics, which are likely to have strict controls placed on them. The proposed remedies are likely to be effective in clearing up the articles, and concerns over untoward conduct will be unlikely to continue given article probation plus communal scrutiny. If they do, then we'll see where the "leak" is. Its more measured that some would wish, but there's a good chance that will fix it, and if not, the community will be stricter now too.


 * On your second point, we actually did have a foreword drafted, for exactly that reason, but didn't ultimately use it. The idea of a narrative section on cases, saying how we have found the case and our approach on it, a sort of obiter dicta or general comment, has some considerable appeal but would be a change to the norm. if complex cases are going to happen more, maybe they should be used next time. Thoughts? FT2 (Talk 00:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * yes, a forward in cases where the committee is not going to follow their usual precedent I think is VERY important. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry but we don't need to get in depth with this case - it would be nice, but that is nowhere near the core issues. What we need is a solid ruling based on overwhelming evidence that MM is SH and whoever that is they appear to have a conflict of interest. MM/SH is then banned, restriceted in editing etc. That is the core of the case, there is simply overwhelming circumstantial evidence that this is the case. THe evidence is there that MM = GW too, but tat does not necessairly have to be said. That is the core of the case. Viridae Talk 00:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If I understand this correctly, the Committee is not going to concern themselves with the history as the consequences of doing so may prove detrimental to the encyclopedia but are going to address the present situation to provide a basis on which the community can more onward, into the future? Under the circumstances I can do no better than to reference George Santayana, substituting "will not" for "cannot". LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We remember the past. But to unpack it, against the hordes of voices... the problem is LHVU, that imagine we did. Imagine we had tried, methodically and soberly, to unpack the past, decide what was important and what was not, and make remedies on that basis. It wouldn't help because the mindset it faces is in many quarters, an emotional one, not a rational one. It would not be looked at calmly with thought, but used as ammunition, sources of new disputes and claims, and that would be so no matter how carefully and neutrally it was done. The lesson of the past that needs learning is "we all got distracted, and let something take us off track far too easily". Our solution is to draw a line under ther murky bits, take steps to kill the basis of the current and future issue (malediting on these topics leading to article probation) and let the community handle any minor issues if those involved do not visibly act in a reassuring manner from now on. There are lessons to learn, and we have them too. But the communal lesson is that this kind of thing is a distraction. A finding X was/wasn't a sockpuppet is not a "lesson" of the past. its a conclusion about the present. The best lesson is sometimes you draw a line and admit everything got fouled up, and determine not to contribute to that happening again. We must all make that determination, individually... and that above all is the lesson we wish not to have marginalized. (eg, by presenting it amongst many findings that will merely be squabbled over for ammunition for future with the important lesson ignored.) FT2 (Talk 01:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I realise (remember the past, if you like, from one of my first participations) that each ArbCom addresses the specific case and does not of itself make policy but enacts the principles and rules in relation to the dispute, and its resolution; however, as MONGO/BADSITES taught us, ArbCom decisions are referenced in the processes from that time forward. I would comment that the past was unpacked - indeed, would there have been this deliberation without the initial 'opening of the case' (what a waste of a pun) by SirFozzie - in the evidence and workshop sections. Thus we have both a strong indication that WP:SOCK was abused and that there will be no action taken for that violation, even though there is ample guidance in policy that it should. That is not an appetising consideration to take into future sock disputes. It would have been best, in my opinion, that my proposals that this ArbCom concerned itself only in the matter of the alleged sockpuppetry between Mantanmoreland and various accounts with only passing reference to COI (and its RL consequences) and the areas where it was manifested. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec with several editors) FT2's explantion, though appreciated, was on the whole rather opaque. We need y'all to do much better than that here. The comment "this case is exceptional and such considerations and issues and approaches here are not to be taken or applied as a norm" is particularly disappointing because it is impossible for any outside observer (and I hope we're thinking about them - not the 50-100 folks who have followed the case closely) to read that and know what in the hell that means, or know why this ArbCom case does not set a norm whereas others obviously have.


 * I agree with Viridae that this case was, at the heart, about the suspected sockpuppetry of one user. There's an enormous of background noise, of course, but we deserved an honest ruling on that issue. FT2's comment does not explain (even a little bit) why we will not get it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then may I ask, read it again. It does in fact explain, to my mind, and does specify exactly how we feel right to characterize the editors (which of course may differ from how you feel they should have been characterized). Others above have understood the rationale. Thanks :) FT2 (Talk 00:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No FT2, I already read it once, quite carefully. Believe it or not I'm actually a pretty good reader and don't remotely appreciate your suggestion that I read your comment again (which implies that I read it poorly the first time - a conclusion which you presumably intuited solely on the basis of the fact that I said your comment was not helpful...obviously I wasn't reading closely!). I know that other editors "have understood the rationale" and I know that you obviously think what you wrote makes sense given that you wrote it. I do not think it makes much sense and I am very much entitled to that opinion. Just a suggestion for the future - when someone else calls something you wrote "opaque" and not particularly useful it will pretty much never do you any good to simply tell them to read it again.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm right here with Bigtimepeace in finding the explanation lacking or even confounding. I'm not the smartest guy, and you obviously are able to type much more than me and you use bigger words, so maybe that has something to do with it. :-)
 * In regard to FT2's statement above: A neutral review shows common editing between Mantanmoreland and Samiharris on a number of pages, which would be a concern if there is puppetry of some kind. LOL. You've said yourself that sockpuppeting is suggestive, assuming they are puppets or not they have operated in tandem as such.  I agree with you that this is a complex case, but jeez don't complicate things that much!  As I said above:  Wordbomb is banned.  Mantanmoreland, who he believes to be Gary Weiss is still here.  Do you think that is a solution or a good way to move forward?  I'm not saying you should ban MM to appease Wordbomb, but I am saying that you are allowing (making!!) history repeat.  There will be another case, very shortly I suspect, when it could have been avoided by issuing a year long vacation.  That is preventative.  Not this.  daveh4h 07:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding comments above that it would be nice if some of this sentiment had been expressed prior to releasing the proposed decision page... Some of it was, although not in such a collected fashion, and to me it was both predictable before a decision was proposed and obvious afterwards. Folks decided that the decision proposed meant the worst of all possible worlds - the ArbCom had completely abdicated responsibility, and the Community must now repudiate them in the strongest possible terms! Well, no. The pitchfork and torch mentality is exactly what forced the ArbCom (in my view) to come to a decision that only addressed the future of the encyclopedia without rehashing the past. There are true transgressions at the source of this case - whether it be inappropriate blocks, poor judgments, sockpuppetry, whatever. What caused this case to become a major problem has no relation to any of those things, though. The problem is/was opposing crusades, with people convinced that their position was righteous and just. The solution is that arrived at by the Committee - take a step back, note what we are here for (the content of the encyclopedia, and its readers) and address that goal only. All other considerations take a back seat. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 17:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The committee refuses to make a decision
One must realize that, in addition to 500K of public evidence, the Arbs have also recieved evidence via email, which is kept private. It may well be that such evidence has proved decisive, and yet will never be made known to the WP community.

Such evidence could consist, for instance as a "smoking gun" DIFF, or perhaps legal threats were made, or death threats or just plain "blackmail". In which case the community may be furthermore disappointed if the arbs. choose not to at least indicate the type of evidence which has been received, and which has out-weighed the comprehensive analysis, which has seemed to convince the overwhelming majority of users and parties who have been following the, apparently pointless, public evidence.

Under the circumstances, if the arbs choose not to inform the community if such evidence has been given the power to over-rule the community and rational argument, then speculation is likely to mount as to just what such evidence, if it exists, could be.

The most likely would appear to be either of legal threats, or "blackmail", of a distinct and pronounced nature, in order to explain how the commitee could end up perpetrating such a gutless outcome. What has the Committee been threatened with, and who made those threats?

So, "blackmail" on behalf of Mantanmotreland has succeeded in thwarting all hope of resolving this matter. How very disturbing, indeed disgraceful. 02:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that this comment is unneccessarily conspiracy theory driven. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And the Committee's track record has been to siteban very swiftly when actual threats get made. <font face="Verdana"> Durova Charge! 03:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * {| style="border:black solid 1px;padding:5px" width="95%"


 * This is an example of the kind of thing that hasn't helped. A good-faith concern, that is used as the basis for bad faith, and whose effect is to raise the emotivity (sp?) of the case rather than speed its handling.

You start with a fair comment. ''One must realize that, in addition to 500K of public evidence, the Arbs have also received evidence via email, which is kept private. It may well be that such evidence has proved decisive, and yet will never be made known to the WP community''. That is both possible and a fair observation. You then slip from possible to assumed, hypothesising about "the most likely" as if it's certain. Finally you reach a conclusion, again completely misassumed, "So, 'blackmail' on behalf of Mantanmotreland has succeeded in thwarting all hope of resolving this matter".

It is hard to convey how much of the issue of this case and damage to the community has come from exactly this kind of (apologies for being blunt) inept, bad faith, and self-confirming argument. If you find it hard to believe, imagine how others (using the same style of thinking but both for your view and opposing it) act, and what a chorus of this kind of uninformed debate would do to any hope of rational discussion. It was this I had in mind when I stated major problems in this case included:
 * "Significant "pot-stirring" in unhelpful ways by many people"
 * "People with [...] a view that they know beyond doubt what's best and most right, have felt compelled to present an opinion or their accusations; often speculative [...] or misinformed, and frequently not for the best for the community - but stated loudly and expectantly"

I highlight your post because it is a very clear - almost classic - example of exactly the sort of thing that got this case where it is now on the Wiki, and a behavior which many editors have problematically engaged in to the communal detriment. Let's try an alternate strategy. Suppose you had the same valid concerns, but did something novel like post them as an open question ("Could some arbitrator comment") or emailed us with the worry you have. We could then have openly confirmed for the record that in fact, there was no "secret evidence" in this case of any note. The only non-public evidence was the great amount of prior discussion and past incidents reviewed that indicated how matters in this dispute have tended to go. No new or recent "secret" matters of any kind were presented of any note here. You speculated, assumed bad faith, and none of it was necessary. You goofed.

The one formal concrete speculation you also gave, that I have said on one occasion "coercion tantamount to blackmail"... lets look at what you did with that. First, you assumed it must have "been given the power to over-rule the community and rational argument". In fact it was one of many factors informing a rational discussion. Then out of nowhere you suddenly decide the answer is that "'blackmail' on behalf of Mantanmoreland has succeeded in thwarting all hope of resolving this matter". Which would indeed be disturbing and disgraceful, except that it's also in fact, hopelessly clueless. We did not give details of who (which person or victim), what (the actions sought or threatened) or when (2006.. 2007.. 2008) for exactly the same reason you would expect details not to be given - commonsense. The only thing influenced by all this, taken as a whole, was that we have decided the emphasis must be on a non-standard approach which we believe will be just as effective as the standard one, but less damaging in collateral.
 * }
 * FT2 (Talk 03:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (PS - Durova's more au fait with communal norms here, I think. FT2 (Talk 03:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Thankyou User:Ft2 for your response, which I will surely re-read and attempt to modify my behaviour as appropriate in acknowledging your well-made points. In my defence, I would like to state that ineptitude is not a rare beast, and that bad-faith, applied to myself, is I hope, a slip of the tongue.
 * Yes, this was speculative, and, in some eyes, needlessly provoking. Well, sticks and stones...
 * I have acted in good faith, taken these proceedings seriously, and have had hopes only for the best for en.Wikipedia, hopes which have been dashed, even crushed.
 * As to speculation ,and over-wrought posting, I must protest that there is a good case for being "more sinned against than sinning", in that the majority of posts by Mantanmoreland far exceed my efforts in terms of personal attacks mounted, non sequiters endlessly repeated, and utter disregard for answering questions. I did my best, sometimes it seems i have disturbed people with my words, but Mantanmoreland never attempted to answer a single, pertinent, question addressed to him.

I am sorry, but I do not see myself as the "bad guy" here, not by a long chalk, but I do appreciate your points. It seems that the accused, and guilty sockpuppeters are extended every freedom to transgress against civility and reason&mdash;such though is not allowed in respect of a good-faith editor who has transgressed against WP in no way. Just the old double standard, putting me in a collision course with CATCH22. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: I do not agree that the quality of argument coming from good-faith editors caused this Arbcom to fail; rather the crux of the matter is in the evidence. To be distracted by rhetoric is unfortunate, but the evidence should have been allowed to speak, through any confusion caused by my ineptitude with words. After all, none of the major evidence was contributed by this minor editor, with respect. 03:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see you as the "bad guy" either. Yet I hope you understand the way this dilemma has played out for a long time: Group A has a certain set of information, and the people in it are weighing how to act upon it.  Meanwhile Group B, who may have looked at some part of the picture in a valid way and have legitimate concerns to raise, pepper that with some off-the-wall speculation about Group A's dynamics.  It would take Group A a while to dig into Group B's real research, but Group A knows immediately that the part about its own dynamics is really off target.  That hurts Group B's chances of being taken seriously regarding the things it really cares about. <font face="Verdana"> Durova  Charge! 03:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would not go as far as to say "the bad guy", but my words were not lightly chosen. By making such comments you become a link in the chain, as Durova says. Or to say again...:
 * "People with [...] a view that they know beyond doubt what's best and most right, have felt compelled to present an opinion or their accusations; often speculative [...] or misinformed, and frequently not for the best for the community - but stated loudly and expectantly"
 * The argument "I don't see what I did as bad" may be true, but the fact you don't see it that way does not change that many people, all not seeing it that way, of whom you're one, together turn some of our worst problems into intractable ones. It's incumbent to understand why that style of debate just doesn't help the project, and why it must be replaced by an approach that does.
 * Arbcom contains in general, those editors who stood for the role, and whom the community rated as its top five trusted for the role for two, maybe 3 years now. That decision was by the community, with little or no change to its ratings by Jimbo - thus the December 2007 Arbcom appointees were strictly the top 6 rated by the community in open debate, at which anyone at all of sufficient edits could stand, and vote. It's a tough, gruelling election, and rightly so. When appointed, we remember we're there for the community, and we try to exercise our experience and judgement well on some of the community's most difficult and conflicted cases. That can be difficult. Sometimes we're almost the only ones who remember we aren't a lynch mob; sometimes we're almost the only ones who remember there are strict norms on basic conduct. Sometimes it's almost impossible; sometimes people are just human. If you have a question - and this applies anywhere not just at arbitration - ask, consider a fact check, consider what you heard may not be all that others are privy to, consider that all you see as mattering may not be all that really does matter. Ask, and seek clarification. It may be we can't say, but if its a fair question better ask than assume. It's worth it. That's all that WP:AGF means - don't assume negatively when you could as easily just be mistaken, uninformed, assumptive, or the victim of someone elses' bad communication. Ask, or ask others to ask for you. If you have a concern, at a pinch, email me or anyone at WP:AC, or ask an administrator "what should I do, this bothers me".


 * Hope this helps. FT2 (Talk 04:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies if I'm not helping, but you say that you should ask others if you have a concern that something's going on. It's been a little while since I read through the evidence, and I may be forgetting something, but it seems that doing this (albeit by starting in a way experienced Wikipedians would not do, but also by creating a mediation request) got WordBomb banned. --NE2 11:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Accepted. My apologies. For trying to walk before learning to crawl. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

SevenOfDiamonds
To the Arbitrators: How was the evidence of sockpuppetry in Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds more convincing than in this case? Thatcher 04:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note -- we discussed this separately, so this is purely brief notes on that, and on the issues distinguishing the cases, for anyone curious:


 * 7oD may be taken as an average case - 7oD may be taken to be an average routine case of this kind.
 * 7oD did not have the issues this case has - RFAR/7oD did not have the backdrop this case had in any way. It did not last 2 years, it did not involve bitter real-world issues, it did not involve movements that had embroiled the community and harmed individual editors as this case has had. It was a simple "sock/reincarnation case" with no real wider issue. The sole similarity was the type of data analysis performed.
 * 7oD none the less had a bare marginal pass too - 7oD had seven active arbitrators (4 = pass). Its relevant finding of fact was 4-1 that 7oD was a sockpuppet. The finding there was a bare, minimal, pass, and one arbitrator opposed after reviewing the evidence. It was not an overwhelming pass, but marginal.
 * 7oD's marginal pass was despite being based upon lukewarm wording - The 7oD finding was not an overwhelming one. It not only was marginal, it was marginal even on the conclusion wording: "The evidence presented by MONGO demonstrates that it is more likely that not that SevenOfDiamonds is a sockpuppet of NuclearUmpf." Hardly an overwhelmingly strong form of wording there either.
 * This case needs more caution and more conservatism - This case due to issues listed way above, needs more conservative treatment and caution than an average case.
 * Arbitrators have felt this case needs unusual approaches to drafting whatever its findings might be - In this case there are reasons stated, why the Arbitrators have decided to be non-specific. This is mostly to reduce the potential for ongoing damage to the community environment and harassment to editors (see above). In 7oD there was no such potential and no such need.
 * Wording' - Despite the above, te conclusion was "suggestive but not compelling".
 * Interpretation already indicated' - The community has already been told that the wording of choice "suggestive but not conclusive" is intended to guide but also to stand for a wide range of views, as our consensus. "Suggestive but not conclusive" is not entirely dissimilar to the 7oD finding, "more likely that not".


 * Hopefully this shows how the two cases compare, as discussed. None of this by the way, shoudl be taken to indicate the 7oD finding was not agreed and endorsed. It is drawn to show how in fact the decision here is compatible with past decisions based upon analytic techniques, which concluded "likely" or "yes" but with a considerable reserve of caution in both voting, and wording. As stated, this case is exceptional and users should not expect its decisions to be typical of other cases. In the core issue though, it can be seen that they are in fact comparable in most ways. FT2 (Talk 05:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

7oD did not have the issues this case has - you haven't demonstrated (though you've explicitly asserted it) that the issues mean that _the standard for proving sockpuppetry_, specifically, should be different for this case than for a case that does not have these issues. —Random832 06:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

''This case needs more caution and more conservatism - This case due to issues listed way above, needs more conservative treatment and caution than an average case. '' Can you list the issues again for reference? I was under the impression that you'd not yet identified what issues are affecting this, and that lack has led to speculation of legal threats, blackmail, or worse. Now, there are issues affecting this case that everyone's aware of, but the lack of any attempt to demonstrate that those issues mean that the case _for sockpuppetry by MM/SH_ should need more conservatism than any other sockpuppetry case, leads to the thought that there are issues that not everyone is aware of. —Random832 06:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (Will comment later if nobody else has. - FT2) 15:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like comment on the issue Random raises here as well. It seems as if the Arbcom, as a whole (or majority if you will) is afraid of something, which is leading to inaction.  I find it hard to believe that arbcom are afraid, but that is sure what it looks like.  It makes me long for the days of Fred Bauder, when it was proposed that a BLP be redirected to clown!


 * Additionally, I hope that this question is answered clearly and with as little pretty white backgrounds, black borders, and nifty show-hide javascript options as possible. FT2, you have a very unique writing style, which I am sure you are very proud of, but often I feel as if I am studying Torah when I read them.  My time is worth something, and I urge you to get the meat of the issue when answering questions, as much as that is possible.  I have a tendency to be wordy in my writing as well, so I sympathize, but I ask that you be aware that people may not be inclined to read everything you type.  This is just a suggestion of course; take it or leave it.   daveh4h 20:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thatcher's question was quite simple and despite all of the bullet points FT2 simply did not answer it. I'm quite sick of hearing "this case was complicated, etc., etc." as an explanation for why we cannot get a vote from the arbs on the sockpuppetry question. Random832's question is spot on - what is it about this case that changes the standards we use for spotting sockpuppets? As far as I can tell, nothing. I know the case has "issues" (we all know that) but pointing that out does not answer Thatcher's question. SevenofDiamonds was banned for being a sock of previously banned user, (that is a fact--"it was a close vote" and "the Arbs said 'more likely that not'" are not relevant points given the end result), so given that the evidence here seems to be at least on a par with the SoD evidence the fact that the committee does not find said evidence persuasive enough to conclude that socking occurred warrants an explanation. If an Arb can offer such an explanation without saying "this case was tricky and had a bunch of complicating factors" (which have nothing to do with the evidence of socking) than I look forward to reading it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Look trees!
(now where is that forest arbcom?) Viridae Talk 08:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, this is not helpful. This whole page is rapidly becoming unreadable. Unless there's something important to add, I would like the Arbitrator's do more splainin', with less redundant outrage here. Those who are outraged could perhaps signify it by supporting Lar's modest proposal above. I don't think more bare disapproval is helpful until we get some more detail from the arbitrators. Specific, signed findings would be the perfect start. Cool Hand Luke 08:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one who sees those tiny Gnomitrators patiently digging a fire trench? Avb 13:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, a couple of other people do. Yet others believe they're digging the wrong trench, and in the wrong direction. Relata refero (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)