Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed decision/Archive2

Questions for ArbCom Members
FT2 has noted that it is better to ask than to assume, so here goes - and these are directed at any Committee member who is willing to respond: Thank you. Jay*Jay (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do indivudal arbitrators (or better you, the Committee collectively) anticipate that Mantanmoreland will be community banned within days of this case closing? (Note: question predicated on a closure with no block of MM.)
 * 2) If a FoF concluding that there had been sock puppetry (however gently worded) were posted and received a vote, would it almost certainly pass? likely pass? don't know? likely fail? almost certainly fail?
 * 3) Is preventing knowing where individual arbitrators stand consistent with maintaining community confidence in ArbCom and its processes? Why / Why not?
 * 4) If the community had decided to act on the evidence itself, instead of bringing the case to ArbCom, would we all be better off? Why / Why not?
 * 5) If the community decides to act where ArbCom will not (as seems likely, at lesat to me), would this signal that the community should ban editors instead of bringing ArbCom cases?
 * 6) I note the recent decisions of ArbCom (notably in MH) where admin blocks and reviews in WP:SOCK cases have been questioned. Given the level of evidence in this case, would members please comment on any concern that admins may become more reluctant to block abusive sock puppets in response to ArbCom's apparent scepticism in cases of sock puppetry which lack conclusive CU evidence?
 * Great questions Jay Jay and I hope all the non-recused arbitrators will respond. Cla68 (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Quick answers:
 * Do individual arbitrators (or better you, the Committee collectively) anticipate that Mantanmoreland will be community banned within days of this case closing? (Note: question predicated on a closure with no block of MM.)
 * Community bans are a communal decision. It would probably sway the community greatly if arbitrators were early-advocates for this, or against it (in such a case). Sadly one of the realities of arbcom is the number of communal issues one might have a significant or valid view on, but may need to take care whether to speak, or even abstain. I abstained on commenting of my concerns on MONGO's January RFA for the same reason - it was an arb desysop, and everyone would have looked at an arbitrator's view as "what arbcom thought", even if it was actually just a view as an uninvolved admin. I might state a view, or comment, on the basis that (for example) it was in fact no longer under arb auspices, but I'd want to think carefully about how it might be taken and make a judgement on the risk of skewing the decision on it. And balance that against the harm done if I deprived the community of an experienced admin's view, too. (I had a few people noting my comment on KM's RFA last year was useful and balanced.) A difficult call, individual in each instance. Will you allow that I don't in this case predict/subtly direct what the community might or might not choose or be best to do?
 * If a FoF concluding that there had been sock puppetry (however gently worded) were posted and received a vote, would it almost certainly pass? likely pass? don't know? likely fail? almost certainly fail?
 * You're asking for a finding by the back door, that has already been explained we decided not to make in those terms. ("I know you said you won't vote on it but if you did would it have passed".)
 * Is preventing knowing where individual arbitrators stand consistent with maintaining community confidence in ArbCom and its processes? Why / Why not?
 * In some cases, lesser of two evils. Is giving those who have already made the case a wiki-damaging drama, more material to argue, campaign, and wage war, useful either? We took the latter as the more likely issue to cause longer term damage in this case.
 * By contrast, any issue that existed related to puppetry would be well within communal control anyhow, and we noted the community were likely to be motivated to scrutinize greatly in future for COI and NPOV issues, where they may not have done so as much in the past. Some wanted a definitive statement. But our view is that actually, this is all that's needed from us. Seven of Diamonds only got a "more likely than not", too. As a direct answer, any arbitrator can give their own view; any dissenting arbitrator has this right and we are not shy to use it. But when consensus says that this may in fact in some exceptional case be not so much helpful, as "used to promote the drama even more"... you can see why actually the consensus was that the aim of the case was better served this way.
 * If the community had decided to act on the evidence itself, instead of bringing the case to ArbCom, would we all be better off? Why / Why not?
 * An interesting question. I thought about this a while and decided "this has benefits, but not in the obvious way". The evidence has been revised and reviewed since then, and the communal mood is a bit more balanced than perhaps was the case a week or so ago. Sometimes it's seemed that the really difficult heated issues need some means to vent, or to reach RFAR, before being sure a more balanced view will be found when remitted back to the community. This was the case at WP:SRNC, the Gdansk naming issue, and many other disputes. Consider the opposing question - if the community had proceeded from the RFC to a ban, how long before it would have been interminably contested as unfair, gloated over by some, paraded by others, and so on? Sometimes even though it may seem to do nothing on the surface, it's got a lot of value to have a second independent review, because our concern is not just "now" for the community, but the reduction of future harm too.
 * If the community decides to act where ArbCom will not (as seems likely, at lesat to me), would this signal that the community should ban editors instead of bringing ArbCom cases?
 * The community has always had the ability to ban editors. Communal bans are issued routinely. It was the community's view that having entered an RFC, this one should be referred here for consideration. In other cases that's not been felt needed. Compare to Arbcom's self imposed rule not to usually ban for over a year. Clearly many people who come to Arbcom should probably be indef-banned. But we prefer to leave that decision, where possible, to the community to enact/not enact in such cases. Likewise with the puppeteer-admin Archtransit a fortnight ago... we desysopped and explained the issues, but we left the rest to the community to take a final decision (Archtransit was immediately community-banned, no real surprise). Our role is last recourse, often to deal with the actual source of harm and render it likely to be within communal control. Beyond that as often as not, we do in fact pass the issue back to the community. That's a common Arbcom norm, and the only difference here is evidently some in the community had hoped for us to rule for the maximum we could, whereas we see our role as closer to protecting the project, and assessing what is really needed for the community to deal with any real issues. Note if a community ban is potentially unfair, the appeal comes our way anyhow, though.
 * I note the recent decisions of ArbCom (notably in MH) where admin blocks and reviews in WP:SOCK cases have been questioned. Given the level of evidence in this case, would members please comment on any concern that admins may become more reluctant to block abusive sock puppets in response to ArbCom's apparent scepticism in cases of sock puppetry which lack conclusive CU evidence?
 * Note our approach has not been so much been expressing "skepticism", as "careful reserve, similar caution to other technical-only evidence cases, and awareness of wider issues", as discussed. This case is exceptional. As an admin I've done a lot of difficult sock work myself. So this is my view as an arbitrator, a participant in the case discussions, and an admin with experience in such areas: I'm broadly content with the community's usual approach, which works 99% of the time (if applied fairly and subject to independent review when uncertain), and see no need for a singular exception to change the wider norm in this case. Problematically there are always going to be a handful of sock-related concerns where one cannot assume the norms hold. (For example a rule of thumb is that an editor with 100+ votes is probably genuine, yet there have been proven bad-faith sockmasters with several thousand.) Also inevitably, by nature, these are the ones you usually see more of at Arbitration, not the 99% that are routine. Sadly this is one where nobody can readily assume usual assumptions hold. It's important to recognize exceptional cases happen, we learn from them, but that when they do, it does not necessarily change a working recipe and balance on the vast majority. The current standard we (communally) usually apply has arisen from extensive trial and error, and thousands of cases and experiences int he community. The problem is 1/ we may be entering an era of more sophisticated sock use (not specifically related to this case's concerns), 2/ There will now and then be cases that don't follow the norm, and 3/ the more "heat" and less "light" there is, the more chance of mistakes which calmer voices have to think about. In that sense those who shouted loudest actually harmed their own case, since the possibility of unbalanced "mob decision-making" by campaigning (where everyone "knew it was true" basically because everyone was saying it) became a greater possibility. As in most disputes, it's way easier to be sure what's up if one voice is fair, balanced, and reasonable. Sadly in this case many 'pushing' voices over the years (on both sides, and on- and off-wiki) have not been, which also hasn't helped things much.


 * Hope that helps. Apologies for the length but 1/ it's how it comes, and 2/ I figured you'd probably want a fuller version rather than a "skimped" one anyway. FT2 (Talk 15:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll do it the terse way: it's how it comes.
 * It wouldn't surprise me; given the nature and volume of the evidence, the community doesn't really need our help to make that decision.
 * As FT2 said.
 * We need to be able to have free and unfettered discussion on the private mailing list; this implies that the community doesn't always get to know where we stand on specific issues.
 * Probably slightly, yeah. The case might still have come up as an appeal of a community ban, and ArbCom would have had a far more focussed issue to deal with. But it was a mess one way or another, so it's basically a wash.
 * As FT2 said.
 * I've never seen admins have any reluctance to ban sockpuppets, and there's no reason it should start now. Most truly pernicious puppeteers who aren't entirely stupid do just fine evading CU as it is; this decision, were it to pass in its current form, wouldn't change that at all.
 * --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the very clear and lucid answers, jpgordon. daveh4h 19:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What daveh4h said. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

One more arb question - classism
I'd toss in one more question for arbs:


 * Does this pending decision by Arbcom reflect a view that decisions involving identifiable or possibly identifiable living people should be handled differently than unidentifiable people for the outcome itself, and do you feel that this gives "identifiable" editors a different standing and application of rules than completely anonymous editors for their possible protection from certain forms of harm?

As I mentioned in passing during the IRC case in regards to myself, Tony Sidaway, and Phil Sandifer, this would be a dangerous precedent, as it would create a clear separate class of users on Wikipedia. My take is that irregardless of what name you choose to edit under, applications of rules, and repercussions from them, MUST be the same. If User:PopeyeTheSailorMan is busted for sockpuppetry, or threats, or whatever, he gets logged as banned and blocked. If User:William James Jones III, noted scholar/attorney/whatever is busted for sockpuppetry, or threats, or whatever, he gets logged as banned and blocked exactly the same and by the same standards as Popeye. Is there any valid community accepted reason for any other way to approach it? Lawrence § t/e 15:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the "possibly identifiable" is the key here. I don't think there should be any difference in the circumstance you mention. But add to it the problem that Popeye is believed by some to be Mr. Public Figure, an allegation Popeye vehemently denies, and that Brutus or perhaps the Sea Hag is responsible for at least some of the allegations, it gets pretty complicated, since Wikipedia's dedication to preserving anonymity when desired means it's pretty unlikely that Arbcom will officially expose Popeye. The community might act on the preponderance of evidence while Arbcom might have a reasonable doubt standard. We need to treat real-name-userid-people and pseud-userid-people the same; it's equally nasty, for example, to post "Mr. Jones lives at 12 Drury Lane, Alexandria VA" as to post "Popeye is actually Mr Public Figure who lives at 12 Drury Lane". Editors have the right to be as public or as private as they see fit. This does, of course, make COI issues a lot harder, if not impossible, to control, but the only alternative there is requiring personally verifiable registration for everyone, and that's not how Wikipedia works. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Did we actually need an ArbCom case?
I've read FT2's fuller explanations of why the arbcom is choosing to keep the case narrow, and more specifically choosing to officially ignore entirely the allegations made (about actions that protected the sockists). I read them. I understand them. I just don't agree with them.

Arbcom exists to handle difficult questions. If all the community needed here was a finding that MM and SH were socks, we have that. In fact, possibly, we have it better without ArbCom than with it, because I suspect many, if not most, in the community discount UC's explanations of why he's dubious as (ahem) dubious, at best. The community needed these allegations actually dealt with, not brushed aside with "the past is past". I see no reason why this matter won't continue to fester. So despite the further explanation, which I've read and understand, I remain unconvinced this is the right approach and I remain disappointed in ArbCom for being narrow. But I repeat myself in that, there may not be much more to say. Time will tell.

As for time telling... FT2 just above doesn't predict the future but I will. Here's my nightmare: There will be continued socking, and continued POV pushing by new socks in these sorry little articles, and the real-world conflict will continue to be brought here by the parties, who will rules lawyer about what the case provisions say. Meanwhile, the community will move to community ban MM and SH, but it won't stick because someone will cite the uncertainty in the arbcom case, and further drama will ensue (remember that the standard for a community ban to stick is tougher... a few determined admins can prevent it from sticking... arbcom just needs a majority vote). Meanwhile, the matters raised that are wider in scope won't be able to be resolved by the community alone, no matter how hard it tries (because it historically has been fairly easy to derail RfCs if you set your mind to it, especially if there are a few like minded editors or admins that think it's a bad idea to have it around) and ArbCom will reject any further cases related to this on the grounds that it's been decided already. Moar Dramah will ensue.

Too bad really. I'd be delighted to be wrong but that's how I see it likely going. ++Lar: t/c 16:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If it ever came to a follow-on case, I think it would be a lot simpler. If that did ever happen, we'd be dealing with recent, current, matters, a clearcut article/topic under probation, probably less confounding other conducts, and much more communal consensus. Of course I hope it won't come to that, but this case is intended to draw a line and provide useful remedies. Second time around cases are often far easier and more definitive than the initial (messy) cases, because the confusion that allowed the initial case to grow and become messy is no longer nearly as possible. Indeed if the initial case doesn't fully kill the issue then often what's left is easily handled by the community, which is also taken into account in deciding what's needed. One hopes a second case wouldn't be needed, and that restrictions and probation on the few affected articles and their editors would do the job... but if it were to take two cases to put this to bed, so be it. But of course, hopefully it won't. FT2 (Talk 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got my fingers crossed. ++Lar: t/c 17:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly I answered this question during arbcom election as follows, when as a non-arb admin I had exactly the same knowledge and WP:CLUE as anyone else on the wiki:


 * {| style="border:black solid 1px" width="90%"


 * Do Arbcom act too hastily, and facets get dropped...? I'd like to say that on the whole, arbcom seem remarkably balanced at what they do, especially given the complexity of the cases they look at. However this isn't a single-sided question; the question covers several points:

...
 * 1) Do arbcom get it right, but fail to communicate this, so that people perceive an error of judgement?
 * 2) Are some errors in fact legitimate differences of interpretation, or application of good faith?
 * 3) Do arbcom take the decisional view that rulings aren't expected to be perfect (given the pressures and complexity) but can be reviewed if needed, whilst users expect perfect insight?
 * 4) Are case pages so messy by the time all evidence and counter-accusations are presented, that it's not clear where a decision has come from or if it's well informed?
 * 5) Do arbcom have their own views and criteria to measure what constitutes "successful/appropriate case handling", so that the targets they work to are slightly different to the broader community's? (Ie, with more experience comes hopefully, wisdom in deciding what a "successful" handling might be, what matters, and what doesn't. Conceivably facets might well be dropped through wisdom and clear thinking, and not error, in some cases.)
 * 6) In some cases, is there non-public evidence involved, so that what seems unusual from outside is a partial view? (By its nature, decisions based on such evidence may not be capable of informed review by other editors; this is a communal status quo with high buy-in though.)
 * }

See especially, 3 and 5. It was obvious from outside arbcom, and with no unusual inside information, that there might be factors often overlooked, as well as wider lessons all round. FT2 (Talk 16:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That last part reads like you're trying to lecture the community, or me specifically, about something we, or I, already know. That may not be a good approach, especially not if it's directed at me specifically, as I was active in online communities before some of the current arbitrators were born. The use of boxes for emphasis is perhaps also not a good approach. We tend to discourage trying to give certain words undue weight with formatting that sets them aside, unless they are official pronouncements, warnings, and the like. Perhaps you should consider removing boxes from where you've used them on this page. ++Lar: t/c 17:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not intended to sound that way, lar. You asked a reasonable question, it seemed best not to reinvent the wheel but to cite what I'd already written on the identical question barely a few months ago. I boxed it as a quote for readability, alone, a style that I sometimes use in discussions, that seems to help with parsing of some text that otherwise might confuse a long thread. No "officialness" intended - the original was boxed for readability too. Please disregard it in future. FT2 (Talk 17:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A point to Lar, with whom I mostly otherwise agree, is that some of us really did feel the need for a clear ArbCom finding of abusive sockpuppetry - as there was felt to be little chance of a block sticking without it. In this way the ArbCom has failed the community, and should MM be blocked by a sysop for violation of that policy then, as you fear, it will likely return here. There is still time for that finding to be included, of course, but it appears the will is not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In recognition of that concern - which is a fair one - I have added a brief interpretational note to that finding of fact, which I hope will reassure that there is firm recourse to address any hypothesized attempt to game it, or to argue (in good-faith but mistakenly) to misconstrue it, if renewed concerns were to arise. (Subject to agreement by other arbitrators.) FT2 (Talk 19:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for listening, and for clarification on the page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * LessHorrid: I "feel the need for a clear ArbCom finding of abusive sockpuppetry" too. I just happen to think that the sockpuppetry is pretty obvious with or without that finding and that there were other matters that ArbCom should have dealt with. ArbCom participants here stated they expicitly chose not to, and FT2 has given reasons why. I understand but don't agree. There's not much more to say there, if they don't see the need, they don't. I think the second case, when it comes up, will NOT be more constrained, (well maybe the bad edit related things will be tightly circumscribed, but that's small beer compared to Cla68's allegations, and other stuff raised during the case about larger issues) it will raise all those same old issues again. And presumably they will then rule "we already said we won't deal with them" and round we go. Worse, I have reason to believe now, based on something that I just received, there possibly are larger real world issues than we previously realized. ++Lar: t/c 21:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Lar, I am not sure what your last comment refers to. Please e-mail me or the committee if you believe there is something we should know about. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not either but I can guess. I think that some precis of whatever it is needs to be made public, if it is to be taken into consideration by arbcom (and if it is new).--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have mailed Brad about it. As for you, feel free to mail me your guess if you like. ++Lar: t/c 21:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also support making secret evidence public (or at least reviewable by trusted checkusers like Lar). Let's start with the "confounding issues." If they're in the form of emails with headers, it really makes more sense for a checkuser to review them anyway. Cool Hand Luke 22:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't email your guess Mantan – put it on this page! I'm sure your guess is an educated one, and it'll do for a précis while we're all sitting here twiddling our thumbs.--G-Dett (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, if I made a guess the Boss Man would stuff me into the rear of a black SUV.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're a crackup, Mantan; you're alright. Now don't go all gloomy on me.  If a banning discussion starts I'm on your side, and if you were here right now I'd pour you a tequila and offer you a chesterfield.  How about a little gallows candor while we wait for the sky to fall?  What I want to know is, why couldn't you wait out the hour before Sami made his first edit?  Wikipedia's use of GMT always throws me; my guess is it threw you too, and when Sami debuted just after 11pm GMT on January 31st you thought he'd edged past midnight on the Greenwich clock, and would be getting a February 1st timestamp, for a perfect one-year-and-four-days.  I've been reading Wall Street Versus America, and there's that wonderful passage about the American fascination with hedge-fund traders, which the author likens to the American fascination with myth, the flirtation with lawlessness, which he then illustrates by invoking the magnetism of places like Tombstone, Arizona, and there's a lyrical description of tourists taking in Tombstone by night, and its reenactments – literal and imaginary – of the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral...I've also been reading Born to Steal: When the Mafia Hit Wall Street, about the gangster Louis Pasciuto.  Superb!  Quite different style; this Weiss has range.  Very pared down.  Minimal.  Masculine.  Kind of grunting, even.  Think Elmore Leonard with a hangover, or Hemingway with a st-st-stammer:
 * Louis went to Arizona to steal from Joe Welch just a couple of months before he was arrested. He went to steal but not to rob.  There is a difference.  A robber uses a gun.  Louis never used a gun when he stole.  He didn’t have to.  Joe Welch lived in northeast Tucson, on a side road off a side road.  A dirt road.  Since this was the desert Southwest, the street where he lived had a weird-sounding name – Tonolea Trail.  When Louis heard it he thought he had misunderstood.  Tana-what?  Tana-Lay?  As in fuck?  Louis hated the Southwest.  He hated the desert.  He hated dirt roads. He hated dirt. Period.


 * Period. Love it!  Hemingway dispensed with metaphor; you get the feeling Weiss would sooner just dispense with words altogether.  Just sit there and smolder on the page like James Dean on a street corner.  Love it!--G-Dett (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm dumbfounded. Period. Cool Hand Luke 00:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Responsibility for one's voice
FoF 2 includes the following: 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. I note that arbitrators voting for this finding of fact are not expressing an opinion on the matter at hand, but an opinion on the thinking of other arbitrators. This voting behind curtains seems unusual. By striking the phrase "A majority of the committee" arbitrators could restore transparency - at no real cost. Jd2718 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I also note that this was added after arbitrators voted on prior content. It is a significant change in the content of the proposed finding of fact, and I trust that FT2 will have personally notified all of the arbitrators who voted prior to this addition that he has changed the content. I will also point out that the community voiced their opinion of each arbitrator as an individual. It is a core principle of Wikipedia that each individual is responsible for his or her own actions on-wiki, whether it is writing a featured article or deleting the main page.  It is rather odd to read this proposed decision, with its weasel words and utopian view of how easily the articles involved in this case will suddenly become exemplars of our encyclopedia. Every time I read the term "uninvolved administrator" it makes me laugh. Guys...really...write your proposals with the same eye as you would your articles, and we might actually get somewhere.  As it is, you're all mom and apple pie and absolutely no substance on the proposed decision page.  Risker (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This was not added after other arbitrators had voted; it was part of Newyorkbrad's initial proposals. Jd2718 (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Didn't need asking, Risker. Your trust was not misplaced. A complete note by email, with link, was sent to all other arbitrators to advise them to recheck or critique, at the same time as the modification. That's the sort of thing that (lapse of mind aside) is pretty automatic. You'll often find arbitrators slightly refining others proposals here and there, whilst in proposed form. That's in part what the 24 hour close rule is for - to allow everyone one final review. FT2 (Talk 21:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, FT2. To me, the change in emphasis was significant enough to be considered equivalent to a change in wording; perhaps that is simply because I tend to read such things from my real-world perspective, where what many here might feel is a minor change would have been considered an entirely new proposal. Risker (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Is User:Jd2718's point valid, that by striking the phrase "A majority of the committee concludes that", the proposal, if passed becomes clearer? Newbyguesses - Talk 23:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Repeating my warning
This sentence: "the absence of usable checkuser findings and other factors prevent a definitive conclusion from being reached." is going to cause a lot of trouble for administrators working at WP:SSP. Puppeteers tend to be the wikilawyering sort, and you are giving them a beautiful excuse to challenge any finding of sock puppetry that does not involve checkuser. There are many situations where checkuser is not effective, such as stale edits or proxy usage. Please, please, please edit this sentence so it does not have the unintended consequence of providing an excuse for bad actors. Jehochman Talk 19:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to suggest language that would make clear what's always been the case regarding checkuser and sockpuppetry. Telling wikilawyers "oh shut up" can indeed be made easier by a properly worded decision. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 it is not necessary to issue a definitive conclusion at this time. This is one of those situations where saying less will reduce drama. Jehochman  Talk 20:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * and change entirely the meaning of the sentence, so as to be less fair to me.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The future ramifications of this, since people tend apparently to take the AC's rulings as law and basis for new policy interpretation, makes this bigger than "you". You're a historical footnote, nothing else, in this context. Lawrence § t/e 20:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So take out the word "definitive" if future wikilawyering is the problem, and leave the rest alone. "Historical footnote" notwithstanding, I think fairness needs to enter into it somewhere, circus atmosphere and massive external pressure notwithstanding.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been watching this case since its inception, and I can say that there has been absolutely no "circus atmosphere" in this arbitration, other than your constant and increasingly shrill claims that Wordbomb/Bagley is behind all this. I might have been able to have more sympathy for your side of the case if your tone was not so hostile towards your opposition. Dr. Extreme (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You just raised Bagley, not myself, but the fact that the p.r. director of Overstock.com has been pushing for a circus such as this for two years is relevant to this case, just not to this part of it. .--Mantanmoreland (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was commenting on your overall tone throughout the case, as a response to the "circus" allegation. It was actually rather ill-considered; I'll remove it. However, the fact remains that you have consistently been hostile towards this entire process and most of the people involved in it who presented evidence against you. Dr. Extreme (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dr. Extreme, I was being stalked by Judd Bagley off-wiki and on-wiki, for the purpose of achieving very much the present case, long before you became an editor. Please don't lecture me about the "tone" that results from that. Have a nice day.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "less fair to" you, Mantanmoreland? Um, hello. First of all, Wikipedia is not inherently designed to be fair. it's a project to build an encyclopedia. Everything has to be matched against that standard, that goal. This isn't a moot court, it isn't a system of justice or a government or a society. I for one really don't care a whole lot if you think things are fair to you or not. Your contributions are pretty worthless compared to, say, Giano, and the trouble you've caused far far outweighs even HIS contributions, much less yours. Having you banished forever, along with WordBomb, where the two of you can fight it out elsewhere, while the rest of us get on with writing an encyclopedia, is no big loss in the grand scheme of things, in my view. Second, all that said, I think actually, the rest of the community has been way way way more than fair to you. You and your socks have been given lots of chances to be a good contributor over the last two years or so, and everyone has bent over backward to enable you to participate in this process over the last month or so, and you come up far short in the being fair to everyone else department, not to mention the actually answering things raised without repeating memes, unsupported denials and excuses department. I'd suggest strongly to you that you knock the shrill rhetoric off, or I'll block you myself, take it to AN/I even before the case is over, and take the consequences... Third, what we're talking about here is being fair about tagging you as a socker. You might as well get used to that idea, you're already wearing that tag, at least in the minds of most of us, whether ArbCom chooses to admit it or not. ++Lar: t/c 21:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I can't "get used to the idea" because Samiharris is not a sock. There it is, another "unsupported denial," but it's not true.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, at least he hasn't socked in this Arb case! At least, not apparently. But after reading this decision I'm not sure what standards of proof it would take to establish that or not. Ameriquedialectics 21:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Requiring "a definitive conclusion" is an impossible burden of proof. It is higher than "more likely than not", "substantial", "clear and convincing", or "beyond a reasonable doubt". You do not want to make "a definitive conclusion" the required standard. You do need to clearly state what the standard is. +Kablammo (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The standards held to here (though more of a genetic analysis than a duck test) are incapable of providing a "definitive conclusion," but that's an unrealistically high bar to set in cases such as this. Dr. Extreme (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (Has been being discussed since 1st raised.) FT2 (Talk 20:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Then what is the standard of proof required? Is it "a substantial weight of credible evidence" (P-4), or is it evidence sufficient for "a definitive conclusion" (FoF 2)? Kablammo (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A "definitive conclusion" is impossible to provide with circumstantial evidence. I'd gravitate more towards P-4, a substantial weight of credible evidence. Basically, even though there will always be an element of doubt, that's no reason to make your decisions toothless. Dr. Extreme (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. If as suggested a "definitive conclusion" is required, that standard will not be reached absent conclusive checkuser evidence.  As that can easily be avoided, sockpuppetters now have a road map forward.  Kablammo (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to keep up with and overcome the stun factor at everything that has been posted so far, but I think I can sum up the frustration and concern I'm hearing by saying that a large number of undesired roadmaps forward will be provided if this decision stands. Not only are future standards on sockpuppetry, classes of editors to whom different standards apply, and admin actions set by this proposal: of equal concern is the Conflict of Interest editing that is becoming so prevalent and accepted throughout Wiki.  This has become the norm: from vendors pushing their products on anti-stuttering devices to practitioners promoting themselves at social stories to politicians who are said to "own" their Wiki articles and are claimed to have set up subnet IP masks in several countries to evade Checkuser, to persons employed by advocacy organizations editing articles to insert POV and openly stating as much.  Wiki has increasingly failed to take a strong stand on COI editing, and this decision only weasles even further on the matter.  Ignoring that a clear double standard is set, that we're undermining future sockpuppetry investigations, and that categories of users are established to whom different rules will apply, we are asking users – who apparently a significant number of other editors believe have already gamed the system and can't be trusted – to declare conflicts of interest, rather than simply banning them from those pages and stating that Wiki simply won't be part of this, period.  Which part of this proposal will reassure the good faith editors who keep their noses clean, stay out of dispute, edit neutrally and without COI, and work to generate Wiki's best content that the buck stops at ArbCom, that when a light is shone on problems they are addressed, and that their efforts to improve Wiki are worthwhile?    Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Kablammo: Not if we don't let them. One thing is clear here, whether on purpose or not, ArbCom is saying to the community in effect, the community has to step up and handle this. I'm frustrated that the deeper issues here are being swept aside but I think I'm going to be a lot more forceful in supporting blocks of sockers who happen to evade CU but who have a solid DUCK pattern, and a lot more forceful in supporting blocks of people who wikilawyer, for whatever reason. If arbcom can't lead in this matter, it can get out of the way. Which maybe is what the arbcom is actually telling us in any case. ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Lar, I hope you are correct. Despite a prior case where sanctions were imposed on the basis of evidence that “demonstrate[d] that it is more likely than not” that one user was a sockpuppet of another, here the arbitrators refuse to impose sanctions because a “definitive conclusion” was not reached.  The committee seems not to understand the inconsistency in and difference between those two standards, and the uncertainty their decision (or lack) has created.  Kablammo (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is more than just ArbCom, and in fact ArbCom has the power the community gives it, not the other way round. The community can, and should, act, with maximum practical fairness and rationality, when clear damage to the project may be preventable by so acting, whether or not ArbCom agrees. I suspect I am not the only admin that feels this way. ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope SandyGeorgia's comments are not going to be lost amongst the other voices here. I think that both FT2 and jpgordon have been attempting to answer the points raised by SG, but in response to others raising the same queries. What we have in SG is someone who has come in to this with fresh eyes and no agenda - and her responses are going to be far more indicative of the outside community (both on and off Wiki). Sometimes debating the nuances forgets the overview that might be held by others not familiar with the situation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, the proposed decision doesn't say the _community_ can't make a finding of sockpuppetry; rather, it says that ArbCom is sufficiently conflicted so as not to make such a finding. But I think I'll oppose any finding that mentions checkuser at all, since a negative checkuser result is exactly as powerful as if checkuser did not exist. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (It didn't say arbcom can't either FWIW. FT2 (Talk 21:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC))
 * That didn't parse for me. ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * jpgordon is saying the proposed decision isn't preventing the community from making a finding of sockpuppetry, and FT2 is saying it's not preventing ArbCom from doing the same...just that [the proposal says] ArbCom is too conflicted to make such a finding right now. 66.241.9.26 (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Substantial burden of credible evidence" is the most realistic and reasonable answer, "definitive" is way too I. FWIW, I work A LOT at SSP and once had the backlog to ZERO. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 23:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope SandyGeorgia's comments are not going to be lost amongst the other voices here. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Please feel free, whomever, to refactor my comment near her first one so it's out of the way. ++Lar: t/c 23:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Re-factoring would be beyond my purview. User:SandyGeorgia commented again, two sections down, "Thought for the day" here. But her comments in this section still bear thought and answers. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Question for The Uninvited Co., Inc.
Uninvited, on the decision page you write: I believe that attempts to identify sock puppets through behavioral patterns is harmful to the project due to the likelihood of false positives, especially in situations where there may be a deliberate effort to discredit an editor by imitating their behavior. Did you intend this as a general principle only, or one with specific applicability to the Mantanmoreland/Samiharris case? Does the final clause refer to the theory floated by SV that Samiharris might be a strawman sockpuppet created by Wordbomb? If so, can you explain how you find this plausible? If Samiharris were operated by Wordbomb in order to discredit Mantan, wouldn't Wordbomb have made Sami go in and edit one of Mantan's posts? Finally, if your skepticism balks at the idea that Mantan could operate Sami for so long without making a mistake, why is it indulgent of the idea that Wordbomb could do the same?

Sorry for the barrage of questions. I stress that none of them is rhetorical. If the answer to the second question is "no," and the subsequent questions thus superfluous, please accept my apologies.--G-Dett (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thought for the day
Based on all of this, which just crossed my mind. I have no answer:

In the future, if sockpuppetry investigations, conflicts of interest, a "right" to and protection of anonymity, and integrity of article content/neutrality intersect, which is more important? Which is least important, and expendable? Which is the acceptable loss? One has to be. Because, if we can't enforce COI investigations/sockpuppetry investigations because of outing real people, and pulling away the curtain to reveal our own little Henry Gales influencing things for their own gains, something will have to give. Is it our puppetry investigations? Our COI investigations? Right to and protection of anonymity? Integrity of article content/neutrality?.

I personally feel that anyone who says integrity of article content and neutrality is not the most important is wrong. But am I wrong? I'd urge the Arbcom to consider that how the values they place in the decision are the right ones. What is most important, for looking forward six months? A year? Two years? Lawrence § t/e 22:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is just me, but if it came down to a choice between, say, fixing a BLP issue and letting a socker get away, or nailing the socker but leaving an article in a state where it damaged an innocent third party, it's a no brainer, BLP considerations trump "justice". This project ain't about justice anyway. I can't see that choice ever facing us but I would say yes, article content and neutrality are the most important, short only of real people getting hurt. ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, u:Lar, but hurt how much, in what way? Their persons attacked? Their reputation attacked? Their poodle insulted on a website? How much BLP does it take to out-weigh a SSP? Newbyguesses - Talk 22:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't take much at all. SSP is an internal Wikipedia matter; BLP is article space and has real world ramifications. SSP issues are annoyances; BLP issues can do real damage. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes but how much damage? What specific damage (obviously guns are out)? What if some External link said "George Bush's poodle is ugly" Or "Some one you have never met is both short, excessively slim and unknown to you?" Is that insulting to a LivingPerson? Does that make that site, and every site that copies it a BADSITE BLPvio, and therefore taboo? Newbyguesses - Talk 23:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Article content, neutrality, and civility: doing our best to conduct Wiki in such a way that editors who contribute to those aspects are retained and valued, while others are restricted or shown the door.  Consistency, so the little guys who don't play the power games feel that they are laboring for a just and worthwhile venture, not relegated to a second class by a decision which creates a hierarchy of users and preferential treatment.  Does this proposal advance retention of our finest editors?  Does it advance COI, POV editing?  What does this proposal do to the troops who churn out most of the content while avoiding drama and dispute?  They're watching, they know the stakes, and they count on ArbCom to reassure them that Wiki is not a farce. Add to this the loss of editors like Giano and Bish (and for whatever drama ArbCom feels Giano created or furthered, at least he wrote featured content) ... discouraging.  I enjoy what I do here.  How much will I enjoy it if a year from now instead of passing beautiful articles like Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion, Great Fire of London, DNA, Red Barn Murder, Queluz National Palace, Battle of Edson's Ridge to featured status, I'm passing marginal COI articles, because that's the door we left wide open, while showing out the others?  Anyone can delete BLP violations and police trolls and vandalism and many will willingly do that if they feel they are part of a just and worthy venture; creating beautiful content that showcases the best of what Wiki purports to be is not so easy.  ArbCom decisions should further the kind of editing that results in fine content and editors who further civil behavior.  The BLP protection and deletions will be taken care of by those editors, unless they're gone.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I'll buck the trend: content integrity. Now we have a BLP guideline onsite and I'm all for enforcing it strictly. That said, one of the biggest motivators we've got for people to avoid conflict of interest manipulation is that actions taken onsite are public record, and if they're sneaky about it then they look all the worse when that finally gets uncovered. Be polite and assume good faith and try to lead them to the right path within reason, but if someone wastes tons of volunteer time and deliberately misleads the public at the world's most popular reference site, then their day of reckoning ain't my problem. I'll follow policy, absolutely. But I won't tear my hair out wondering how to protect someone like that from the consequences of their own incorrigible bad judgement.  Durova Charge! 23:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What are the worst consequences, if some person deliberately sets out on a path which could end up destroying their own reputation? How best can WP avoid adding to that person's self-induced distress? While keeping ARTICLE INTEGRITY paramount? Newbyguesses - Talk 00:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Explain policies, try to show them how it's to their own advantage to abide by them. Ask them to play by the rules.  Most will, if asked nicely.  A few stubborn ones insist on doing it their way.  Show them the door politely and quietly, if possible.  But ultimately, in terms of offsite consequences, basically don't go out of the way to draw blood...and don't try to play paramedic either.  Durova  Charge! 01:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you saying then, that if a website, which otherwise would be considered a ReliabeSource, publishes "Smithee's reputation is shot", then WP can safely link to that site, keeping in mind WP:UNDUE. But, it is not the place of WP to initiate, and endorse, any unprovoked attacks on Smithee's reputation, real-world or otherwise, absent any previous such, that are verifiable? Newbyguesses - Talk 03:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be one way of approaching at it. For the last couple of days I've been chewing on different part of that steak.  The bone I keep gnawing looks like this: if there's a credible chance that WMF and/or some genuine productive volunteers could get dragged into a real world court case, then that's worth taking into account (note that a credible chance might exist without explicit threats).  That consideration earns my respect.  Regarding the rest, the community elected ArbCom to serve the interests of Wikipedia and it would upend the purpose of arbitration to sacrifice the site's interests for the benefit of someone who has already exploited the community.  Durova  Charge! 03:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Arbcom members, who are paid nothing, are legally out on a limb as it is stated WikiMedia policy that the WikiMedia Foundation is not the publisher and not legally responsible for the contents; the individuals and community are the publisher. That's one of the reasons I believe the English language WikiPedia community should have a formal legal existence that among other things raises money for the legal defense of our volunteers - especially arbcom members. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose few following this issue are unaware of the potential for real-world legal situations; I haven't followed it closely, and even I get it. But ArbCom really should throw some kind of bone to the community, to restore some sense that we do actually believe in and uphold the WP:5P. Even if the sockpuppetry allegations create a sticky wicket, I'm not understanding why the involved accounts aren't at least banned from any of the involved articles, as that would send a message that Wiki won't tolerate even the appearance of COI editing and dragging here of off-Wiki conflicts.  An article ban might help the community believe that, even though ArbCom does restrict "drama-creating" featured article writers, they also restrict editors who create even wider drama while never gracing our main page with excellent content.  Of course, a ban might not be very useful if we are, in fact, dealing with accomplished sockmasters, so perhaps the proposal allows better possibilities for nailing things down later.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Specifically regarding the chance of ban evasion, that's been attempted many times as an argument against banning and I've never seen it hold water.  Durova Charge! 04:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * in re Sandy's comments: I'm concerned that the committee doesn't uphold the WP:5P, and agree with your comments.  Unless something unpredictable happens, the community is in for more coi-wikilawyering-sockpuppet-pov-pushing-consipiricy-laden-argumentation and disruption than I think many have the patience for.  I certainly don't, and I'm not even admin who is going to have to deal with it.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

<--Yes, SandyGeorgia, your input is helpful, and requires answers. I will just here, though, briefly raise another aspect, please.

Any material submitted to any article or talk page is subject to challenge and removal, if it fails verifiability. And, WP:UNDUE has to apply, irrespective of further BLP issues. Now, what are the further BLP issues, regarding this case (publicly known ones, that is, I dont know what the "confounding issues" are). Well, it is that the LP is of minor importance, ENC-wise, and so there is little verifiable about them, but heaps of posts to obscure, or non-reliable sites, which the subject of the article clamours to add in, or delete, depending on whether they are flattering to [the subject]. That is not helpful to the encyclopedia.

And, in the case of Weiss/Bagley, and Mantanmoreland/Wordbomb, if they be different, there is plenty of evidence of an unpleasant OFF-WIKI campaign, which should not have been brought over to WP.

Also, I would argue that, if a subject is mainly interested in linking to their own opinions, blogs etc. in order to create a favourable impression of themself, that that constitutes a sanctionable breach of COI policy.

And, if the subject of an article has concerns, valid or otherwise, about the standard of the article, or possible attacks in the article, then those concerns ought to be addressed by the [Subject] raising a(n) Rfc, or other dispute resolution mechanism, not by resorting to sockpuppetry to enforce their point of view. I believe the Arbcom are working towards such a finding, it is just that apparently, they do not wish to make such as a specific finding re Mantanmoreland and SamiHarris.

I would argue that a COI-conflicted editor, whether the [Subject] of an article or not, is expected to be more, not less, scrupulous in applying NPOV, and more, not less, candid with other editors, or when presenting evidence to Arbcom.

So, I am not seeing it proved here, if that is the argument, that in some way, BLP should be allowed to trump VERIFIABILITY. That appears an extra hurdle that some editors, but not all, want to see put in place. And, as SandyGeorgia noted, if the arbcom does not find conclusively re MM & SH, that may in fact be because better options then become available to the community, at Rfc or whatever. Newbyguesses - Talk 04:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

some insightful comments
Disputed. And medicated and electroshocked, I suppose? Um, is there any evidence pointing to, or even remotely allowing for the conclusion that SamiHarris was created by an opponent of Mantanmoreland with the intention to disparage the latter user's reputation? This is certainly how it comes across, so some explanation would be greatly appreciated. Further: The quality of the presented evidence is considerably higher than in many cases. Indef blocks for similarity of editing patterns per WP:DUCK are and have always been commonplace — for the better or worse. What makes this case an exception? If grown-ups decide to take it onwiki, it's their own fault if their RL reputation ends up in the gutter. Their own fault, and I for one couldn't care less at this point. They are grown-ups, and now they should face the consequences of their own voluntary decisions. Otherwise, the project and community will inevitably face the consequences instead.
 * "inadvertantly and in good faith"
 * "editors who are prone to sensationalizing may be restrained."
 * UC: "I believe that attempts to identify sock puppets through behavioral patterns is harmful to the project due to the likelihood of false positives, especially in situations where there may be a deliberate effort to discredit an editor by imitating their behavior."

Please help on this one. I can't imagine that this case was any worse than the average arbitration request. What makes this proposed principle necessary when other proposals are being declined as obvious and therefore unnecessary? It sounds a bit like an attempt to lay the foundation for spurious blocks against anyone with reasonable concerns. May be my own private paranoia, but I don't think so.
 * "6) The pages associated with Arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia."

For the greatest possible degree of clarity: Is discussing any of the matter the evidence seems to back up onwiki, now or in the future, considered as sufficient grounds for the harassment of established users by threatening and/or issuing blocks, as has happened before in the dispute surrounding the namesake of this case (see also: inadvertantly and in good faith)? May I or may not write and post to any Wikipedia talk page the sentence: "To me personally, the evidence appears to thoroughly justify the conclusion that Gary Weiss has edited his own biography, as well as used (and was the first in this dispute to do so) Wikipedia as a battlefield in a real world dispute, by editing several related articles, with several different accounts which he used in an abusive manner over a prolonged period of time." ?

This is not in the least intended as disruption, so ignore it as you prefer. My concerns over free speech and especially, more importantly common sense being curtailed are however very real and I want them heard, because I get the feeling the ArbCom is not at all there for the community. Well, I'm sure their motives are pure.

As to MML and his continued refusal to comment on evidence like the Varkala edits and the timeshift situation appears far more logical now. I think it's because he expected to be protected by the ArbCom, for whatever reason. Ok, well, I've lost interest in this and am now unwatching all of the case pages. Have fun everyone. Dorftrottel (ask) 03:40, March 2, 2008

PS: When can we expect the evidence and all the other case pages to be courtesy oversighted? Dorftrottel (bait) 03:49, March 2, 2008
 * The first proposal you quote is FT2's, and the second quotation is from UninvitedCompany, so I'll let them respond. Proposal 6, which is mine, is adapted from a principle that passed unanimously in the Jim62sch case, and I thought was relevant because there have been some posts on these pages that were not helpful for the reasons given. Recall that the evidence and workshop pages had to be protected at one point for edit-warring. The proposed principle is a general comment and reminder, and as it happens, I generally do not favor any sort of sanctions based on comment on the arbitration pages, except in extreme circumstances. Regards (if you are in fact still reading), Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The pages had to be protected mainly because of Crum375, who incidentally has acted "inadvertantly and in good faith" before. Dorftrottel (taunt) 04:47, March 2, 2008
 * I will claim the right to reply here, it is my very first Arbcom. My general impression is that civility is observed pleasingly by most at most times. I have been advised that some of my posts seemed inflammatory; if that is so, i believe it evidence that the tone of this forum is reasonable, since i know that my efforts, at least, were seriously meant.


 * The danger we have not avoided is in being pulled away from the nub of the matter time and again if the posts become in the slightest personal, or a bit obscure. (Yes, I am getting your point FT2, thanks.)


 * So, CIVILITY commended, and FOCUS needs work, but overall, thanks to all sincere contributors. And to the clerk and Arbs. I am even going to thank Mantanmoreland here, there have been one or two laughs from that quarter, also. And, remember "I am not the bad guy"&mdash;I didn't even get a look-in at the edit-war(s). Newbyguesses - Talk 04:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * PS I share, as you can see, some of user:Dorftrottel's concerns: that no specific findings will be made re MM/SH, but that specific resolutions will pass that may allow action to be taken against a good-faith user, whose post is judged, by some standard, as disruptive, when in fact there is no avoiding it - HARD QUESTIONS SOMETIMES NEED TO BE ASKED. Newbyguesses - Talk 04:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to say that Proposal 6 is probably one that requires more precise language. Edit warring and editing of other people's evidence is neither a personal attack nor strident rhetoric, and more particularly it is far outside of any description of "incivil." So say that those specific behaviours are unacceptable.  The "incivil" term is one that is used regularly as a weapon to silence critics and create strawman arguments.  And one reader's "strident rhetoric" is another reader's "brilliant prose."  Arbcom cases place individuals under intense public scrutiny over the course of several weeks, often having to deal with extraordinarily negative commentary about themselves; to expect people to calmly and politely accept the Wikipedia equivalent of Chinese water torture is unreasonable. This applies to all individuals named in Arbcom cases. Right now, I know this is as horrible for Mantanmoreland as Sir Fozzie, or as it was for Durova or Giano or a certain Vanished User in other recent cases. For those of us who "choose" to involve ourselves on these pages, I agree that we should be held to the usual behavioural standards of the encyclopedia. But for named parties, I think there needs to be a little slack cut. Risker (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * An enormous amount of slack is cut as a matter of routine, and the statement that excessive stridency "should be avoided" (with no reference to a sanction of any kind) is hardly a threat to my way of thinking; but I will give further thought to the concerns expressed. As I mentioned, this wording passed 10-to-nothing in another case with no one expressing a misgiving of any kind&mdash;and that, too, was a somewhat high-profile case, though it moved more quickly than this one. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with the ease with which the 'bagely meme' block/ban arguementation is likely to come back into play.  Another issue, is that unless it moves really quickly and some users who are quite observant are away, no community sanction will be possible in this case either.  Perhaps if there is a specific finding that nothing in the decision is binding on any community sanction that might be imposed?  Otherwise there will be enough admin opposition to derail community sanctions.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I do now understand some of Giano's lashing out and disruption. Not os excuse it, but I understand better the feelings that might engender that sort of inapproriate action on these pages.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of this is very good
Thanks for your reply above, Newyorkbrad. While I share the concerns of many with respect to how best to handle the sockpuppetry issue, and I will probably always be a stickler for very precise language especially in situations where the decisions are likely to be referred to in the future, it strikes me that there is a lot of "good stuff" in this decision. I find Principles 2, 5, and 8 and FoF 3 are particularly on the mark. Risker (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Joe job
It is troubling to consider that Sami Harris could be operated by anybody. A very clever puppetmaster could seek to emulate the style and editing pattern of Matanmoreland and set them up. If this is the suspicion that prevents a finding of sock puppetry, the Committee is doing Matanmoreland a disservice by not explaining this. Most editors accused of sock puppetry do not have a motivated adversary capable of such subterfuge. Here, I think there is at least a credible possibility. Jehochman Talk 04:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While the possibility is technically credible, the feelings seem to run to high for the opponents of mantanmoreland to stick it out for a full year or more. If this is what is holding folks up, I don't know how angry to be.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Heck, even Mantanmoreland, on one of the other case talk pages, said that he was convinced that SH was not a WB sock. GRBerry 05:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally wonder if the hundreds of emails Samiharris is said to have sent to JzG are consistent with this, or if Mantanmoreland's are consistent with not having any idea who this person was who showed up to support all of his positions over the course of a year (including many very sharp attacks on Bagley). I doubt it, considering even MM has downplayed the idea. Mackan79 (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You know what, for all the commotion this has caused, I wouldn't be at all surprised if MM actually were a WB sock all along and has been stringing us all on for a ride. Ameriquedialectics 05:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So, the paid propagandist for Overstock.com seeks to discredit "Mantanmoreland" by posting uniformly negative publicity on Overstock.com and it's officers (including himself) for over year.
 * *takes a sip of tea*
 * My first reaction, is: I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
 * Even without examining the improbability of unrelated accounts never editing at the same time, this theory is an order of magnitude wackier than our "paranoid" witch hunt.
 * Anyhow, I do agree with Jehochman. If this is the honest rationale, please post it. Even if it's absurd on its face (as I think it is), such a finding will at least keep our DUCK standards intact for most cases. Cool Hand Luke 05:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at the section above, one of the arbitrators seems to indicate that this is a possibility. This theory is really far fetched given the lack of overlapping edits.  Another logical possibility to consider is that one person could be operating both SH and MM, but this person is an adversary of GW, with the goal of discrediting GW. Jehochman  Talk 05:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose. Amerique suggests that above. It's a good argument against trying to "out" the editors, but they're still sockpuppets in either case. Cool Hand Luke 05:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Two reasons why that is incredibly unlikley: 1. there are quicker and surer ways to get GW's reputation destroyed using sockpuppetry on wikipedia, making the socks more obvious to start with. 2. GW mentions wikipedia, the relevant articles and wordbomb frequently on his blog - he sure as hell isn't going to miss out on telling everyone about the person pretending to be him. There is only one conclusion given the evidence, they are socks and more circumstantially they are socks of GW. Viridae Talk 05:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah but if it were more obvious, it wouldn't have been dragged out for a year and a half - and GW might have picked up on it (he might well miss out on telling everyone about the person pretending to be him, if that person managed to avoid the appearance of pretending to be him by _just enough_ to fool GW). —Random832 07:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In the first place it is absurd to doubt a near certainty using the possibility of a near impossibility; and in the second place Wikipedia is better off with both warring sides gone. Since when has allowing someone to edit been more important than the encyclopedia itself? Allowing someone to edit is for the purpose of helping the encyclopedia. If it doesn't help the encyclopedia, you don't get to edit. Period. We kick people off all the time for not being here to help build the encyclopedia. MM will be kicked off because wikipedia is better off without him. Only arbcom does not want to be the one to do it and keeps coming up with literally unbelievable excuses why not. So when arbcom is done, the community's task is to finish the job. WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree somewhat. MM will not be community restricted or banned, because there will be some administrator who will object and be willing to undo a block, and/or appeal it back here.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Any admin that wheel wars over a community ban of either side should be blocked immediately. This two year war must end. WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not how community bans work. —Random832 07:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's exactly how they work. What do you think would happen if a random admin decided to unban Wordbomb? They might not be blocked immediately themselves but after a reblock, discussion, consensus that the block should remain in place, how about if they unblocked him again? How long do you think that could go on? The only question is whether there really is a broad consensus to ban a particular user, and a will to enforce that, or whether there's actually a substantial amount of dissent (not just a lone admin). Policy is whatever the community decides it is; only the WMF can change that and they're not going to. (To save people time commenting on it, no today's dynamically assigned IP hasn't had any previous contributions, yes, I could cycle until I found one that had, no that wouldn't affect the content of my comment.) 87.254.75.242 (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A community ban is "no admin is willing to unblock" - if an admin is willing to unblock, a user is therefore not community banned. —Random832 01:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't use logic if you want to understand how wikipedia works. For every "rule" that say X there is a rule that says "not X". Read WP:IAR to get the flavor of wikipedia rule making. We follow rules that anyone can edit at any time. Unless they are locked. But policy is what we do, not what is written. Unless the rule is prescriptive, when policy is then what we have consensus about being best practice rather than consensus on what we do. And consensus is defined as when everyone agrees. Except we are too big now for everyone to agree. So it is really a "rough consensus". Which we determine by voting. Except voting is evil and against policy. Are you getting the idea? People are community banned when any admin who would unblock them would be reverted and threatened with being desyoped/blocked. How do admins know what would happen? Private mailing lists and the like for starters. Ohhh we are so damn transparent! (Sorry for the rant. I love wikipedia, but its governance is anarchy.) WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is wordbomb?
I note that User:Wordbomb hasn't posted to this forum; oh, is blocked indefinitely. Now, i am beginning to see that the Arbs are concerned with "forward-looking" and "minimizing disruption", as a viable strategy leading to the community then being enabled? to follow up at Rfc,

so - is the matter of injustice to a user who is blocked for, possibly, no worse offence than it appears Mantanmoreland will once again get to slide by - is such percieved injustice sufficient that the community will still at this stage balk at the findings being presented?

Not meaning to be disruptive, but at this point, it seems that Wordbomb might be the elephant in the (foyer of) the room. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This hearing it still not about wb, and shouldn't be. Wb has his own issues, and they are not the same.  ANYTHING to do with wb is off topic, and not particularly helpful.  I'm sorry to be harsh, but it's time to focus.  The elephant is not hiding, he's respectfully waiting outside until we are ready to deal with him.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean. --NE2 05:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I have mis-understood how many editors there are in agreeance with this -


 * 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)


 * from above here. Or, perhaps the majority view is still that which i formed early in the case - we are better of without both camps fighting out on WP. (User:Jehochman, do you still think that?)
 * Or, the Arbs, in not finding against Mantanmoreland, are both displaying the utmost in civility to that user, and opening the way for the community to follow up as appropriate, without constraining the way in which the community might come to follow up?
 * I am inclined, again now, to adhere with the Arbs here, if I have understood it right. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Even assuming WordBomb was banned unjustly, his behavior since, both on and off-wiki, makes him thoroughly unwelcome. The point is that off-wiki battles, such as that between Weiss, Bagley and Byrne, have no place here, and the decision will at least allow admins to stop the battling on these articles, even if it does not go far enough for some.  If WordBomb really wants to edit unrelated articles about tree frogs or something, he can create a new account and do so, and as long as he stays away from Overstock and naked short selling and such, no one will even know he is here. Thatcher 16:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, well said Thatcher. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 17:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Pls leave our fine tree frogs out of this. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Even assuming WordBomb was banned unjustly, his behavior since, both on and off-wiki, makes him thoroughly unwelcome. Why so? Had Wordbomb not been unjustly assulted, his behavior most likely would have been entirely different. The idea of who initiated the unjust action and who defended, is not just a childish argument for the backseat of your vacation car. It's the basis of law, both international and domestic. Hiroshima must be understood in the context of Pearl Harbor-- you can't disentangle them. S  B Harris 00:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is about making an encyclopedia, not about being fair. Regardless of what is fair, WordBomb has created enough hostile emotion against him that letting him back in under that name or his real name would be unacceptably disruptive; especially when there is nothing preventing him from editing as an non-disruptive anon. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the best anyone can hope for is for him to go into "retirement in good standing" like another user recently did. But I don't think that's likely to happen, either on the community's end of things or on his. —Random832 16:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What effect do all of these comments have on the committee?
Obviously a rather significant number of very established users have weighed in with the point of view that this proposed decision is, well, crappy. I'm sure there are always folks who have problems with how these cases come out, but the indignation being expressed here strikes me as rather exceptional. To members of the committee, I'm wondering if the fact that so many find your approach so problematic gives you pause. I know that if I am thinking of taking a certain action and a couple of people I respect say "That's a terrible idea!" my general inclination is to scrap my plans or at least rethink them. Now that the agreements you worked out in camera have seen the light of day and been widely derided, are you open to the possibility that your approach was wrongheaded and should be rethunk? And if you remain convinced that you are doing the right thing here, how do you explain the fact that so many smart, respected editors feel you went off the rails? There seems to be a troubling disconnect between the community and the committee on this issue and I would like to hear your thoughts on that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a perfectly legitimate question. It being almost 1:00 a.m. here, I will answer it in the morning. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I too am a bit concerned about this. There are parts of this decision that are actually very good, as I identified here, and others that I'd like to see a bit more wordsmithing on (Principle 6 is the one I've noted above), but are essentially sound. To me, it appears the very strong community feeling about the sockpuppeting issue has overwhelmed the discussion of the proposed decision. If we were to remove all the commentary about that one aspect, this page would be relatively empty.  Risker (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Arbcom doesn't make policy. Unfortunately, the current proposed decision has negated chunks of existing policies and processes by denying the legitimacy of WP:DUCK.  I think this could be fixed with wordsmithing. Jehochman  Talk 06:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to come around to the view that they have not denied the legitimacy of anything, including DUCK. The have just remanded most of this back to the community to handle. They gave their reasons. The sock stuff and the article restriction stuff, if enough admins stick together, will stick, and the community, maybe after a fair bit of drama, will handle it. (if enough admins stick together, repeated for emphasis) The wider allegations, not so much, but again, the arbcom (or at least FT2's view of arbcom thinking, given as one person's statement) gave their reasons for not dealing with those either. It may be time to let most of this go. My little petition above probably is not going to get an up or down vote on the sockpuppetry to happen, there are enough arbcom members arguing that they need the right to have private views that it won't happen. Might not agree with that either but there it is. As I said before I will, if necessary, take a more active role in helping things stick, and others have indicated they will too. ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is an excellent and judicious summary statement of the way forward. I tried to say something similar in the last paragraph of my "types of evidence" section above, but the noise of my style drowned out my point.--G-Dett (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As a way forward on sockpuppetry allegations, possibly; the door is still too wide open for COI editing that is increasingly accepted throughout Wiki. I hope everyone will take a look at tightening up WP:COI, as it currently allows for too much advocacy and POV-pushing.  We shouldn't have people bringing their real world advocacy battles to Wiki articles; asking them to "declare" COI on talk pages in an anonymous environment isn't likely to resolve this.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Our policy is descriptivist, not prescriptivist. If enough admins get involved to tighten up COI enforcement, the WP:COI policy will follow along. There are a lot of voices here saying they are going to be doing just that. The proof will be in the pudding, but yes, let's hope that is exactly what happens. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As an established editor, let me weigh in with the view that the proposed decision is very fine work, displaying an understanding of the nuances between intervention and taking sides, and seems set fair to resolve the problems with the affected articles quite cleverly. There are some problems that might arise if some editors misunderstand arbitration committee findings as setting some kind of precedent (they do not) or providing fodder for wikilawyers (only people receptive to wikilawyers and setting their commonsense to one side could post such a danger).  I am confident that my encouraging comments, which I've no doubt speak for many experienced observers of the arbitration process, will have the requisite effects on the committee.


 * I'm especially pleased that other editors whose opinions I respect, and who earlier expressed reasonable reservations about the decision, are coming around to the view that it's actually a pretty good bit of work--if in places a little rough in the drafting--and the arbitrators have recognised some criticism and are tightening the wording where necessary. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "established editor" and your account was only made on Feb 23, 2008, and you admit to using other accounts? Hmmm. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 17:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at his talk page, the email address prominently displayed should reveal Anticipation's former identity. This is innocuous. alanyst /talk/ 17:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's Tony Sidaway's alternate account Whit  stable  17:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry if it isn't blindingly obvious. My email address (tonysidaway@gmail.com) is on the page, the old account page points to the new one, and most of the userspace subpages have been moved. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You can say all you like that there are no precedents set. Let me point out that the arbs have two options: they either accept that some people will use this as a precedent and tighten things accordingly; if they do not, they accept that people will want to know why this isn't a precedent, which will mean the community will have to continually revisit why this case was 'special' and required special circumstances. If anyone thinks that that is a healing procedure, good luck to them. No amount of blathering about only wikilawyers getting the wrong idea is going to change the fact that it's pretty far from healing. Relata refero (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't a precedent for the same reason that all other arbitration findings, unless otherwise stated, have no intrinsic precedential value. This case-by-case method has been the way the arbitration committee has worked since the very first formal cases. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am absolutely terrible at getting this point across, but even if cases don't have 'intrinsic precedential value', the community tends to mine them for precedents anyway. A finding of fact that says that this evidence is insufficient will have the same level of precedent-setting value that, say, the dubious MONGO principle that set off the BADSITES problem did. On this page we revisit the evidence here in comparison to 7oD and Poetlister. When Durova was under fire she specifically made comparisons to the Alkivar case. I don't know what world you're living in; claiming that because things are not supposed to be precedents, they won't be treated as such seems to as much wikilawyering as claiming that only wikilawyers believe in precedent. Relata refero (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The community is of course free to examine arbitration case rulings and taken them, in their whole context, as the thoughts of some of the best minds in Wikipedia. That has nothing to do with precedent, however. Arbitration rulings are not binding in that way.


 * As for the BADSITES kerfuffle, it has always been true that linking to offsite attacks in order to import an attack to Wikipedia is not permitted. The arbitration committee didn't make up that policy.  --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (insert) Yes, but when did linking to verifiable information provided by a reliable source become dis-allowed, as per the worst extremes of BADSITES, or per a pig-headed interpretation of BLPVIO, as some editors will insist on? Newbyguesses - Talk 21:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero is of course right that, though ArbCom cases are not designed to be precedent setting, they very often set a precedent. Past cases are routinely invoked, for a variety of purposes, by editors, admins, and members of the committee. Certain wording used in past decisions is often imported into new decisions and principles from previous cases are routinely referenced. We all know this and it's silly to pretend otherwise - the reality (past cases do affect future Wiki problems, cases, conflicts) is far more important here than the supposedly (that is by the book) limited scope of ArbCom rulings (i.e. they do not set precedent).

I'm still mainly interested though in hearing a response from Brad (or any other members of the committee obviously) to my original questions when they get a chance. Even if a number of folks are finding things they like in the proposed decision and muting some of their earlier criticism there are still a significant number who have major problems with it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the worry here is that the reluctance to make a concrete finding of sock puppetry here (where no credible finding of concrete wrongdoing is on the proposed decision, both editors have clean block records, etc) might lead to problems further down the line in similar cases. I don't see this as a problem at all.  If all we have to substantiate an allegation of wrongdoing is that user X's edits are from a proxy and user Y's edits are not, then no finding of wrongdoing can be made.  However it might be a good idea for the Committee to limit the use of proxies in certain cases (as here) in order to remove suspicion.


 * This case shouldn't affect the majority of sock puppetry cases, where actual credible evidence of concrete wrongdoing is presented, not merely the suspicion of a conflict of interest and the suspicion of potential sock puppetry.


 * It is also possible that in future some evidence could become available in this case, which would show that a concrete offence had been committed. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you have reviewed all of the evidence (which obviously is much more than "someone edited from a proxy, someone else didn't"), but if you have than we obviously disagree about the persuasiveness of that evidence. A large number (a clear majority in fact) of editors, myself included, find the very thorough evidence presented by several users to be quite damning by the "duck" test and further feel that the apparent sockpuppetry certainly qualifies as "abusive." ArbCom apparently cannot come to agreement on one or both of those points and indeed will not even offer a direct vote on those questions. Many folks find that problematic, and my question to the arbs in this section is whether or not the significant objections raised by the community are having an effect on their thinking about the sockpuppet issue, perhaps even causing them to reconsider their approach, and if not, why not. You like the committee's approach and that's a perfectly legitimate point of view - I'm wondering how the Arbs feel about the editors who have voiced extremely strong objections to said approach which is also a perfectly legitimate point of view and seems to be the view of the majority at this point--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC).


 * With all respect to you as an established editor, Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The, you still appear to be unfamiliar with the details of this case.--G-Dett (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If the evidence were persuasive, the Committee would have been persuaded by it. It would be quite a simple matter for the Committee to determine that either or both of the accused had acted abusively in his own right, which would simplify matters greatly, but to the contrary, the only findings on the proposed decision currently note that both editors "have or had clean block logs."  If persuasive evidence of disruptive editing should show up, we may yet see a simple remedy of the kind you evidently believe is merited.  But until such evidence shows up and is considered by the Committee, here is where we are. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's beginning to be clear that you haven't the vaguest idea about the evidence or about the level of disruption involved here. In future, I suggest spending a little while longer reading through the admittedly messy evidence and workshop pages, and spending a little time at the disputed articles. I'm sure the ArbCom is happy to find that if they've said something, then that's good enough for you, though I find it a little amusing that that's precisely the problem that we will face further down the road - and which you're vociferously denying will be a problem right now. Never mind. So much of this case has been a waste of my time, why should replying to you be any different? Relata refero (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You sound very bitter about this. I can only reiterate that, if there is no independent evidence of wrongdoing, no amount of speculation about socking is likely to be persuasive. And yes, if your case does rely on the presupposition that these chaps are sock puppets, and nothing else, it was always going to be a hard sell. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Bitter, schmitter. ArbCom has let everyone down by this sort of pussy-footing for anyone to be bitter about it.
 * And again, you are showing yourself marvelously unaware of the situation. And are you unable to see that evidence of disruption if they were puppets is present in ample amounts? And where does any case rely on a presupposition? And where is it 'my' case? Good lord, man, do yourself a a favour and get a clue before you comment. Relata refero (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to act tetchy. The conditionality of much (almost all) of the evidence has already been remarked upon.  I've even looked at your evidence of tendentious editing on naked short selling but it seems to highlight, at most, poor focus and dilatory research (which are annoying traits in a Wikipedian, but not, sadly, actionable abuse).  The most egregious case you found here, so far, was removal of a tag added by another editor, which  Samiharris justified on the talk page.  He was not challenged.  He was informed about the German exchange but indicated that he thought this was already mentioned.  Since there have been very few editors on the article at all in the time period of this discussion, it's lamentable that only Samiharris was paying much attention to it and he either doesn't seem to have thought enough of the comments to do much or simply lacked the ability to do act on them, but this falls considerably short of tendentious editing. Failing to act on driveby comments is not abusive editing.  --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Consistently failing to act? That is "at most poor focus"? Given that the only challenges to ownership were banned as puppets, you do realise you are making absolutely no sense, right? I provided more than one instance of open lying ("...there are no academic surveys"), more than one instance of pushing a marginal theory (GW's pet theory) etc. etc., and you are claiming that on articles where the "opposition" was banned that wasn't disruptive? Son, I have a bridge I want to sell you. Relata refero (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I shouldn't be responding, see Talk:Naked Short Selling, and stop nit-picking. Relata refero (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * These chaps don't have block buttons so I don't think you could blame them for excluding banned users. I'm looking at talk:naked short selling now.  Who said there were "no academic surveys", and when?  I could have missed it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The, please don't imply that you are informed of what has and has not persuaded the committee. They have made it clear that they see special circumstances in this case. They have not told us what those circumstances are. It is entirely possible that they find the sockpuppetry evidence persuasive but have elected not to pursue that line for reasons that they are not willing and/or at liberty to disclose.  The same may hold true for any evidence related to conflict of interest.  This continued leaping to conclusions (on all sides) is not helpful.  Risker (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You've misread my comment. I don't speak for the Committee, or pretend to, and I know of no special circumstances, disclosed or otherwise.  The Committee is fully empowered to make findings of abusive editing, where adequate evidence is presented.  No such persuasive evidence has yet been presented to the committee and considered by them.  In saying this I also allow above that such evidence could yet be presented and considered. Contrary to your claim, the committee has not declined to consider evidence against either of the accused; indeed one of them, user:bainer, has recently solicited it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is also possible that they do not find the evidence persuasive (as AoaNLA,T suggests) and that they are simply making a mistake by coming to that conclusion - i.e. they are "wrong" in some vaguely objective sense. I don't have enough confidence in the committee (or indeed in any group of people) to assume that because they do not think something is the case it therefore is not the case. I'm going to stop commenting on this though and wait for Brad or some other Arb to respond to my initial question--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course they could be mistaken. If that's so, overwhelm them with evidence of abusive editing. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * With – again – all due respect, I wonder if your comments here are having a positive effect. Lar's comment further up suggested a way for those who find the committee's decision uncompelling to move on.  And I think there is some nascent willingness to do that.  When you step in with obviously counterfactual statements ("all we have to substantiate an allegation of wrongdoing is that user X's edits are from a proxy and user Y's edits are not") and tautological appeals to authority ("as an established editor," "the best minds of Wikipedia," "if the evidence were persuasive, the Committee would be persuaded," etc.), it has the effect of squashing that nascent willingness, rekindling indignation, and adding to the stock arguments of those who would have us believe that "something is rotten in Denmark."--G-Dett (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(insert) Yes, (and yes tony seems rather uninformed here, for all the input). This is Lar's comment, which I also regard as helpful. Users please take note of it. ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC). No offence meant, TS &mdash;Newbyguesses - Talk 15:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (esprit de l'escalier) You've probably been somewhat selective in your reading, then.  I've not denied that the pair of them may be community-bannable given sufficient evidence.  My recent posting on wikback is alarmingly close to an elaboration of lar's suggestion: have arbcom establish that these chaps have been doing something actionable, something requiring a remedy of some sort.  Remedies apply to the person, not the account, so if there's community consensus that two accounts are socks, the remedy applies to both.  As an alternative, some kind of community remedy, but those are less secure and you've brought the case to the attention of the arbitrators so you might as well give it a go.  For an ignoramus, I think I'm pretty much up to speed on the case. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh I don't think my comments can possibly be read as squashing anything except a few misconceptions about the soundness of the case. I have asked for more evidence to be procured, and that cannot in any way be construed as an attempt to squash the willingness to provide it.


 * I don't believe I've misrepresented the evidence of socking. Indeed the counter-arguments seem to be to the effect that no, contrary to Uninivited Company's statement, it is possible for socks to go undetected for an extended period of time.  Now while such reasoning can be used to argue that the two accused could be socks (and who here denies that?), it is not proof that they are socks--any more than the absence of evidence to the contrary is proof that any other pair of Wikipedians are socks.


 * This argument wouldn't be taking place if the Committee had considered compelling evidence set before them and arrived at an inevitable conclusion justified by that evidence. If it has been presented, make efforts to bring it to the Committee's (and the community's) attention. If it can be procured but has not yet been presented, present it.  --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that the only evidence that's been presented is one of the two accounts using proxies. As a matter of fact – not opinion – that is false.  Myriad forms of evidence have been provided.  Presumably you don't find these many forms of evidence compelling, but you don't say that – you just keep claiming, falsely, that none has been presented.  Indeed you do not give the impression of reading any of this very carefully; the "willingness" I suggested you might be squashing is not the willingness to provide more evidence (though you are squashing that as well, by indicating that any such further evidence will not even be acknowledged, much less considered, by you); rather, as was clear from what I wrote, I was referring to the willingness of the community to move on (water under the bridge) from an arbcom decision an overwhelming majority find unsatisfactory.--G-Dett (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's try to work out what you could mean by evidence: that both editors edit little between the hours of 0700 and 1200? That the editors have been known to express agreement with one another?  That they have edited the same pages, and the same discussions, at roughly the same periods of time (if you extend the period over several days)?  That there are no periods when their editing sessions intermingled?  Excuse me, but I think those would be best filed under "overactive imagination".  If these chaps are up to no good, find some credible evidence that will stand independently of an allegation that requires us to believe that they are a single person who is clever enough to scrupulously avoid occasionally editing from the wrong account but stupid enough never to arrange for a simultaneous editing session. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * tum quoque marmorea caput a cervice revulsum gurgite
 * cum medio portans Oeagrius Herbrus volveret,
 * Varkala vox ipsa et frigida lingua a miseram Varkala!
 * anima fugiente vocabat: Varkala toto referebant flumine ripae.--217.16.219.117 (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * G-Dett: Let's be clear that the overwhelming majority in "overwhelming majority find unsatisfactory" is those people here. NOT the entire community. I don't think you mean that per se but it's good to underline. I suspect 99%+ of the community is happily editing away on unrelated matters, unaware of this. And I say that as one of those here who wish things had come out differently. We should be careful not to overstate. Tony/Ant: The evidence that shows correlation also includes a lot of analysis of edits. That analysis includes word usage, patterns of speech, and the like. It's rather exhaustive. I'm not sure you've reviewed it sufficiently yet, because you seem to be understating what it shows. ++Lar: t/c 00:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I am very wary of the kind of rabbit hole one can easily fall down once one starts textual analysis.  Most socking cases are far, far more open-and-shut than this one, and in the absence of independent evidence of wrongdoing one should--you know--assume good faith. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Anticipation, etc., you asked which pieces of evidence I found most compelling. In no particular order: Mantan's extensive prior history of abusive socking and lying, conclusive evidence of Mantan's COI problem, Samiharris's prompt debut just as Mantan was leaving pages he'd been warned away from, dramatic drops in Sami and Mantan's editing at a time simultaneous with a dramatic drop in Weiss' blogging, Sami and Mantan's common use of distinctive phrases (see my stylistic evidence and Luke's) and other editing tics (see Alanyst's statistical evidence).  Then there's Cool Hand Luke's timestamp evidence, which seems to be the part you're familiar with (because it was near the top?).  I found this also very compelling, especially with the statistical comparisons.  And then of course there's the edit that started this all, where Mantan responds to a question posed to Samiharris.  So that's the formally presented circumstantial evidence; for DUCK-y stuff there's Sami and Mantan's indistinguishable writing "voices," and the consistent pattern of response when Mantan's socks are revealed: secondary account promptly and quietly retires, Mantan issues categorical denials, claims "harassment" and engages in bizarre misdirection and/or outright lying.


 * As for my own evidence from the tombstones of Tombstone, having acknowledged its peculiarity qua evidence, I will say that yes, I do find it compelling. You'll as soon convince me that Weiss didn't populate his kabuki theater with the ghosts of Boothill as convince me that the chapters of Joyce's Ulysses aren't patterned on The Odyssey.  Yes, I have an overactive literary imagination, but then so does Weiss.--G-Dett (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Lar, point taken, "the community" is a bit of a grand phrase. I meant those who had reviewed this case and commented. --G-Dett (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) "Most socking cases are far, far more open-and-shut than this one" ummm, no, not really. R. Baley (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No kidding. MM has been established as GW’s online presence by not only by MM starting GW’s bio, but the shift in editing times when MM was around the world in India, but also by their separate mention of an obscure Indian town, in different media. SamiHarris’ first edit on Wikipedia, ever, was to GW’s TALK page. You don’t think that quacks? Then moved to Overstock, shortselling, etc. Okay, now add that GW has a fascination with Jewish cemetaries, and with Tombstone, Arizona, as per MM’s proven sock Lastexit. The last person to remain buried in the Tombstone Jewish cemetary is a child named Sam Harris. Okay, you say, coincidences, all. Coincidental name, too. And it's coincidence that MM and SamiHarris coincide in certain editorical comment tics better than thousands of other editors. Same time zone, same language tics, same interests (finances, Tombstone, cemetaries, interest in journalist GW, blah). But wait: something else-- SamiHarris and MM went from a reasonabie edit frequency to both nearly quitting editing from the end of October 2007 to Dec 1 2007, when they both picked up again on Dec. 1 simultaneously. It’s a gap clearly visible to the cleaning lady on the graph— you don’t need statistics for it. So these two users not only share the same interests, from geologic to personal to financial, same time zone and sleep schedule and language tics, and one has a name out of the other's past vacation--- but they share the same vacation schedule too. Overactive imagination, you say? What? S  B Harris 00:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize (well, at least, note by way of explanation) that I have been tied up in the real world today. The comments being offered on the proposed decision are being taken very seriously, and I do intend to respond to this thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If the evidence were persuasive, the Committee would have been persuaded by it.
If the evidence were persuasive, the Committee would have been persuaded by it. - Thanks for that Anticipation/Tony.

It make sense, though a bit tautological. The sense that i am getting fron this section, is that the Arbs are near to majority vote on a number of findings, proposals, and that there will not be a finding against Mantanmoreland, through a supposed paucity of evidence that all Arbs will acknowledge. The Arbs, as a whole, seem to be opening the way for the community to resume actions (Rfc etc.) which were suspended due to this appeal to the Arbs. The Arbs are de-fusing, I hope, a fraught situation, as is their purview. Though their input does not go far enough for some, who see the SP charges as utterly proved. But this is a workable way forward, if users come to see a clear path. Arbcom rulings do not, as such, set precedent, but they are highly influential of peoples' thinking. (HTH)Newbyguesses - Talk 21:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, with limited exceptions, nothing the arbitrators do or say can pre-empt the consensus of the community. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible alternatives to a sockpuppet finding
Perhaps it is time to provide the committee with some alternative considerations that they might find more acceptable. One possibility would be to article-ban Mantanmoreland and SamiHarris from the articles named in the decision. Another would be to ban those two accounts from editing under any other account name, either anywhere on Wikipedia, or in those specific articles. A third possibility would be to hold both of those accounts to 0-revert status on those articles and any related articles.

While it still leaves a bit of a bad taste in the mouth, any of these solutions would likely be more palatable to the community than the current proposal, which leaves open the door for continued drama. Crossposted to a similar discussion on Wikback   Risker (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is, if they _are_ the same person, your proposal amounts to "you may only have the one sockpuppet". Which you can probably see the problem with. —Random832 06:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I for one would be open to hearing more evidence about the edits made by these accounts to the relevant articles with respect to content policy, of which there has been essentially none presented so far (save for a brief section by Relata Refero). --bainer (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone had mentioned at the time that more was required, I would have provided more. Gary Weiss history is a treasure trove; and I didn't even look beyond a few months for examples. I was under the impression that this ArbCom was about sockpuppetry, so I merely demonstrated that if sockpuppetry had occurred, it was disruptive. I didn't know at the time that ArbCom would cop out again, of course. (Though if I'd known I wouldn't even have bothered to the extent I did.) Relata refero (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Risker just suggested that we misunderstand how the Committee has framed this case. I guess that Risker's right.
 * I suspect that some editors would be willing to work on such evidence if you're willing to accept it. This is precisely why I thought you should have posted findings long ago; it's not at all clear what kind of evidence you would find useful. Cool Hand Luke 07:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Bainer, a workshop proposal was presented here based on Relata refero's and my evidence sections. I also addressed the issue in more detail here. At least on Gary Weiss, I think a couple examples of what has kept other editors from improving the article can be seen here and here. I'd note this may not be worse than WordBomb’s early editing, but it doesn’t seem much better either. Mackan79 (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Samiharris diffs there need to be viewed in the context of the original discussion, archived here, after which was this.. These edits were in keeping with talk page concensus, and were certainly not tendentious or disruptive.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The context of that original discussion is indeed important. Cla68 argued that a New York Times article on Weiss was valid per WP:RS; Sami responded aggressively with a familiar speech about "Bagley memes," saying "we are not going to link to Bagley's smears in any way, shape or form," even if it's the New York Times, and accusing Cla68 (and me, and a few other editors) of being fixated on advancing the "agenda of Judd Bagley"; Jimbo eventually stepped in and said something ominous about "shooting on sight"; Cla68 was blocked and I was threatened – all for holding steadfast that the New York Times was a reliable source.  This took place shortly after the banning of Piperdown as a Wordbomb sock, a determination made on no other evidence than that he had edited articles of interest to Mantan and Sami and showed the temerity to disagree with them.  (I asked one admin involved in the ban, "would it be fair to say that Wikipedia's current working definition of a WordBomb sockpuppet is anyone whose edits focus (either wholly or in part) on naked-short-selling-related articles, and who opposes User:Mantanmoreland and User:Samiharris?" to which he responded, "I would say so.")  In the link provided above by Mackan, Sami pointedly warns Cla68 that he was already blocked once for suggesting the New York Times as a reliable source, suggesting the perils of revisiting the topic.


 * So yes, a certain tense calm had descended upon the article by that time, an atmosphere of fear which Mantan refers to here as "consensus." That "consensus" – and in my view it does considerable violence to the English language to call it that – was arrived at through a fallacy known as argumentum ad baculum, a problem indeed at the heart of this whole matter for the last two years.--G-Dett (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Question to FT2
The statement "In this case a more cautious and conservative standard was needed, due to confounding issues discussed internally by the Committee." has two possible meanings. Did you mean this: or this?
 * "the confounding issues that everyone is familiar with create a necessity for a more cautious and conservative standard", or did you mean
 * "there are confounding issues that are not known to those outside the committee, which reate a necessity for a more cautious and conservative standard"

The former interpretation has been disputed, so if this is what you meant, a little more justification should be provided. The assumption that the latter was meant (the statement about it having been internally discussed, and the fact that the former seems ridiculous on its face, lend themselves to this conclusion) has led to a lot of unhelpful speculation, and if this is the case you should tell everyone as much as you can about what issues exist. —Random832 08:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If this ArbCom whitewash makes the scales fall from your eyes, may I suggest how to get around it? – Patrick M. Byrne
Joseph Kennedy said, "Don't get mad, get even." No reason to get mad about this whitewash. For me, it was pretty much entirely expected. However, instead of banging your head on what the Jesuits called "impenetrable ignorance," may I suggest an alternate course of action? This not only bypasses the whitewash, it goes to the heart of their purpose in the whitewash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PatrickByrne/Whitewash_essay

Respect, Patrick PatrickByrne (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This really isn't an extraordinary case. Since the first arbitration case I attended, there has always been at least one faction, and often two or three, in any case, that believed its case so fanatically that it would brook no dissent.  The arbitration committee was wrong, the evidence was being skewed, or ignored.  Evil was being done without recourse.  If only we would listen!


 * Editors have gone off into the wilderness of a twelve month ban with dire warnings that Wikipedia was being manipulated by evil forces that we in our naive and idealistic way were powerless to comprehend and against which we were defenseless. Wikipedia, we were warned, was doomed.  Now if you've any idea what has happened in the three years or so since then, you'll know what I think of such warnings.  --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 04:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Jeremiads are routine, but this case has at least one distinguishing feature: it inspired an admin to revert about 10 times against everyone, getting himself blocked. I hope no one tries that again on PatrickByrne's new subpage. Cool Hand Luke 05:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "if you've any idea what has happened in the three years or so since then.." yeah, Wikipedia's got a lot more political crap. IF you ever spent some time in the real conflict areas - those that correspond to intense RW disputes - you'd know how ridiculous you sound. Relata refero (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I probably do sound ridiculous to someone who gauges the quality of Wikipedia by its most contentious and abuse-prone articles. The general quality of the articles has improved immeasurably in my experience of Wikipedia, and its popularity as a reference work has gone through the roof.  Problem areas remain, and there will always be problem areas, given our open editing model.  --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting information, PatrickByrne. The financial information largely corresponds with what I was told by some real world stock specialists of my acquaintance. Of course, until this RFAR is complete and the final decision is rendered, Jimbo's "shoot on sight" instructions may well remain operative, so like many others I am hardly inclined to edit the subject articles at this time. (In fairness, even with the various reading lists, I do not feel conversant enough with the subject to do it justice.) If nothing more comes of this ArbCom case than that the subject articles are returned to the conservancy of the community as a whole, the encyclopedia will still be further ahead than it was three weeks ago.  Risker (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that Patrick's piece overestimates his own importance. For me, the problems in ArbCom are two-fold: (1) the judgement of some ArbCom members is so far off that they should not hold their positions; and (2) the rest of ArbCom seems to believe that consensus and collegiality are better for WP than is transparency and allowing the community to evaluate the problems and act. In the short term, they are correct - questions over the judgement of ArbCom members will be very disruptive - but the longer term consequences of not acting will (I think) be worse. The institution of ArbCom itself is being damaged by the push for least common denominator consensus. This single case is not a great revelation of a massive conspiracy - it is just a symptom of a system under strain from internal pressure, and for which I can see no solution that will restore confidence and address the problems without transparency and some change in personnel. Jay*Jay (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Byrne's essay doesn't seem to me to saying that there is a "massive conspiracy," nor that Wikipedia has fallen into the hands of "evil forces." Such melodramatic interpretations seem almost like willful misreadings of what Byrne actually wrote. BCST2001 (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe we did read different essays at that.


 * "Sadly, as you have seen through this evidence page, throughout this evolution an enormous amount of energy has been expended spinning this story by certain Wikipedians and their protectors, culminating in this whitewash by ArbCom"
 * "As many others here have noted, Mantanmoreland made sure that within Wikipedia every possible misrepresentation of my position was cited, from blogs and the very journalists whom I had accused of being part of the problem, yet any news stories that accurately portrayed my position (let alone said something positive about me) found themselves dismissed on the flimsiest of excuses. Thus, did a self-reinforcing Kafkaesquilibrium come into existence."
 * "I am a guy who is trying to use his position to expose a financial crime that may be worse than any we have seen in our lifetimes"
 * "an obvious whitewash by an agenda-ridden ArbCom."


 * Now I don't know anything about stocks and shares, but I do know when a fantastic amount of handwaving is going on, and I do know when someone is claiming that two editors (or one, if the sock claims are to be believed) have secured the connivance and complicity of the arbitration committee and a substantial number of administrators and other editors in order to effect some terrible injustice involving the Russian mafia and other distasteful types. Ten out of ten for ambition, but really it's the same old jeremiad we've seen on arbcom month in, month out for years. At least we've been spared, so far, comparisons to Minister President  Vidkun Quisling.  But I don't want to put ideas into Mr Byrne's head.  --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 07:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, your posts in this arbitration have looked to me like a fair amount of handwaving, while openly acknowledging a lack of familiarity with the discussions. Several article have been kept in a very poor state; this has been shown to the extent it isn't obvious, and has happened by a couple of aggressive accounts who have convinced various authority figures to take their side.  I think we look better the less we look for ways to ridicule outside commenters, and the more we read for content, particularly if the idea is being pursued that ArbCom's hand is forced by a desire not to take sides. Mackan79 (talk) 08:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We're faced in any arbitration with a number of parties who know they are right; all I know is that I don't know who is right and who is wrong. If I appear to be waving my hands it's because I am--it's a case thin on evidence but thick with accusations.  You're in the same boat, so are all the people waving their statistics around.  We have our suspicions but we don't know.


 * But obviously Wikipedia doesn't want to get involved in this fellow's fight, which for all I know is very good and will improve life for all of us. We don't want to get involved on anybody's side.  This applies to the whole of Wikipedia, not just to the arbitration committee.  We don't want to take sides, we just want to produce the best free encyclopedia we can.


 * The good news (and the reason all this socking stuff is just a sideshow) is that we can easily get the article back on track, and the committee has already formulated a methodology for doing it. Simply ban use of proxies on the articles covered by the dispute.  Sorry, there's a lot less drama in that, because it doesn't require us to make a rather controversial sock puppetry determination.  But I'll take parsimony over drama any day.  Let's leave Mr Byrne to get on with his battles. We've got an encyclopedia to write.


 * What, you say, the arbcom is being manipulated? Not a bit of it.  If as I suggest the committee simply leaves the sockery stuff to one side and addresses the problem (that proxy use sometimes makes it impossible to resolve an accusation of socking, so in certain limited cases such as this it may be appropriate to ban its use on certain articles) then the encyclopedia wins, the Committee saves itself an unwinnable fight to convince everybody it made the right decision in the absence of decent evidence, and we all get on with it.  Those who want us to fail are left gnashing their by-now badly worn teeth, as usual. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 08:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, that's not so different from what Byrne said. Unfortunately, I'm not sure the neutrality issue has been answered. If Wikipedia unblocks WordBomb and decides that a tighter behavioral leash is all we need in these situations, that's one approach. It will just start to send the message: go to ArbCom often and early, because unless you've been there recently they aren't going to do anything. But somehow I don't think that is what people want. Rather, people seem to be saying if someone has abused the community to the extent of making it go through all of this mess just to figure out what happened, that the committee owes it to the community to resolve the issue or next time people may just stay away. I'm not sure if that's what the committee wants either, but I think it would fail the committee's mandate to resolve the community's larger disputes. Mackan79 (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, in some arbitrations you are left with a fringe that wants revenge, retribution, punishment, etc. That isn't what arbitration is about.  This isn't such a big dispute, really, it just has a higher profile than usual.  I don't think the arbitration committee is going to feel like making huge remedies when it can resolve the problem with very small, very economical ones.  I can get an arbitration call wrong, and completely misread the committee's mood, but it doesn't often happen. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 09:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah! The ArbCom makes little economic adjustments, while leaving the scorched-earth tactics to individual administrators who are never held accountable? What happened to little economical adjustments back when people were being indef-blocked as Wordbomb socks after writing just one wrong line in one wrong place? And hundreds of people got blocked because they shared an ISP with Bagley in Utah. And Jimbo was saying "Zero-tolerance, shoot on sight." So now that the OTHER guys are caught socking and COI editing, just as was originally alleged, what happens? Moderation. We wouldn't want to have any revenge, retribution, punishment. I could go on, but I'm going to quit, because if I say what I really think, I'm going to be in for some retribution and punishment. S  B Harris 10:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're probably not going to get anywhere sensible if you see it as a matter of taking sides. That's part of what we mean when we say that Wikipedia isn't a battleground.  --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 10:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Taking sides? You mean like "Your friend Mr. Bagley and my friend Mr. Wales"? Are you so blind, Tony, that you are unaware of the fact that people don't like the feeling that authority is arbitrary? And if you continue to think that ArbCom has resolved any problem with "small, economical remedies" recently, you are really pitifully out of touch. Hop over to WP:AE, why don't you. (Try not to comment the moment you're there.) Relata refero (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You may not be aware that for a long time I was practically the only admin servicing arbitration enforcement requests. Please don't talk cryptically, though.  Say what you mean. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Simply ban use of proxies on the articles covered by the dispute. No mechanism for doing this has been proposed - what, I'm supposed to stick my neck out and file a RFCU request on people who are editing the article in one direction or the other? I'd rather keep my clean block log, if it's all the same to you. —Random832 13:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't even need to file a checkuser request publicly. Simply contact the Committee; they all have checkuser permissions.  I don't see what filing a checkuser has to do with being blocked, however. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the fact that the person who filed the checkuser request that started this case was immediately blocked (and though it turned out they were a WB sockpuppet, there was initially no checkuser confirmation of this) might have something to do with a connection between filing a checkuser and being blocked. I really think you should familiarize yourself with the case more before commenting. —Random832 13:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we already know that this is a very dirty culture war. Crum375 seems to have blocked on a heavy hint by Thatcher  that Palabrazo was a ringer.  I think it's somewhat disingenuous to imply that any user who asks for such a checkuser faces a similar certainty of being blocked (though of course people asking for a checkuser should be expect to be checkusered as a matter of course). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * When users have been in the past blocked for suggesting the use of the New York Times as a reliable source in an article, I don't think there's anything disingenuous about implying that people may be blocked for anything at all. —Random832 14:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * New Lover, etc., it's hard to say what whistleblowers will face in the future. But before this case, anyone who tried to bring NPOV to naked-short-related articles, and in doing so had the temerity to contradict Sami or Mantan, was accused of being part of an Overstock conspiracy to spread "Bagley memes."  The most vociferous conspiracy theorists (after Sami and Mantan) were several influential admins.--G-Dett (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Relate refero has, in the course of trying to demonstrate that Samiharris and Mantanmoreland were engaged in tendentious editing, cited several examples of people with whom they disagreed on the subject of the naked short selling article. Because he neglected to say that they were accused of anything, and has rather concentrated on the polite but dismissive character of Samiharris's response, I've gotten the impression that attempts to improve the article have foundered on neglect and incompetence.  And (if he can show it by providing good evidence) possibly deceit.  Your account is inconsistent with his.  Did these accusations of "Bagley memes" and "overstock conspiracy" occur on the talk page of some other article?


 * In any case I notice that, apart from a few fiddling edits on a scandal-related list article and a few perfunctory tweaks related to Harry Potter and the like, I've been spending far too much time on this discussion. I hope my dissection of the rather weak evidence presented so far will spur those of a diligent cast of mind on to document cases such as those you suggest, all the manipulation, unmerited banning and blocking that is supposed to have taken place on the articles at the behest of these two (or one) editors.  Their methods of manipulation (I hesitate to say mind control) should also be documented.  The perhaps the arbitration committee, seeing the true extent to which Wikipedia has been abused by the anti-Overstock conspiracy, can take appropriate action. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Bwahahahahahahaha. You're funny, Tony. Oh wait, you're serious. My apologies. The level of evidence provided is 900% as much as normally needed for a DUCK block. And I see you take you're talking up the Mantanmoreland "This is all a vast Overstock conspiracy" points. They have pills for that, you know. SirFozzie (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Dissection"? "Mind control"?  "Anti-Overstock conspiracy"?  Are you a troll, Tony?--G-Dett (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The scales fell off my eyes a long time ago. I've spent a little time editing in some of the social conflict articles, where there is no end to the supply of culture warriors on both sides to keep disputes going forever. One should hope that when all the various people with a vested interest in the combat over this specific set of issues are persuaded/forced to back off, those with no immediate interest in the matter can write something that is accurate and complete. My personal suspicion is that all the accusations are true and that all parties are guilty, but then I've gotten rather cynical of late. But if uninvolved parties survey the literature and find that the world judges you culpable, Mr. Byrne, your beef is with the world, not with us. Ditto for you, Mr. Bagley, and for you, Mr. Weiss, wherever you may be. Fix the world's opinion, and we will fix ours to match. Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mr Byrne - I fully intend to get even. I want to ensure that nobody with an agenda gets to manipulate these (or any other) Wikipedia articles in the future. That I have been acting to have Mantanmoreland's bias and corruption of WP principles brought to light and held accountable does not mean that I would wish to allow another party to include their bias in the same articles. This may come as something of a surprise to you and AoaNLA,T but being anti the influence of GW does not mean being pro Byrne/Bagley - we are just dealing with the parties that have been allowed undue weight, and are not proposing that any other should be allowed too either. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hear hear. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I believe that there is an acronym that addresses what might best happen in this thread: WP:DFTT. Tony Sidaway, or as he likes to be called now, "Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The", has been booted from Arbcom cases before for this type of editing. There is no need to respond to the arguments of people who expansively expound on a serious matter while admitting that they haven't bothered to read up on the issue, and think that Lolcats are appropriate commentary for adult conversation. Risker (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's the standard memes and character assassination, no more, no less. It wasn't impressive when MM did it, and it's even less so to see someone else come in, take a five-second brief scan of the situation, and then to throw out terms like "mind control", etcetera. SirFozzie (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me it's a little funny some have paired the idea that the evidence doesn't indicate much along with the idea that it could all be Bagley's ruse. Some subtlety on his part, I guess? This may be part of what doesn't seem totally square. Mackan79 (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To put this in other words upon a little more thought: anyone who was struck by the possibility that SH could be Bagley, but now claims the evidence may not show anything, should consider whether they are neutrally evaluating the evidence. Mackan79 (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

argumentum ad baculum
Hmm - argumentum ad baculum - what a wonderful phrase, redolent with meaning. To be followed up, (after) Arbcom finds, I guess. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * heh. I would be surprized if we didn't go back to that situation in the locus of dispute of this hearing within just a few weeks.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I don't quite follow these comments. Please clarify so I can try to respond. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe they are referring to the comment by G-Dett above, where he indicates the blocking of Cla68 for using the New York Times as a reference, and Jimbo's "shoot on sight" post, could be interpreted as argumentum ad baculum. Risker (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See also Samiharris' warning to Cla68 here, for an example of argumentum ad baculum in action.--G-Dett (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Risker is correct (about my response anyway). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Transparency, elections, and the Arbitration Committee
I think that the community is entitled to know what position each arbitrator takes on the issue of "is SH a sockpuppet of MM" so that each editor can make his/her feelings known come December. If this is not done, I for one will be voting against all members of the current committee in the next three elections, for this shocking rejection of answerability. —Random832 19:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One is recused, see above. One is inactive and became so in the 24 hours prior to the posting of the proposed decision.  I'd recommend giving at least the recused Arbitrator a pass on that.  But in general, this possibility is why "private opinions" is not a reasonable rationale for the committee to decline to come on record individually about this.  GRBerry 19:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There's a couple arbcom folks who have let me know publically or privately their feelings on this issue (one each publically and privately, and also one seeing it as compelling and the other not seeing it as actionable). Even though I disagree quite strongly with UC on his viewpoint, at least he had the common courtesy to not duck the question and take the heat for his beliefs. I'd rather vote for someone who has the courage to state their thoughts, no matter how wrong I consider it, then someone who hides behind a star chamber wall and try to speak as if they're a monolithic entity. SirFozzie (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I do have to agree with that - I do respect UC more for that (even though he's completely wrong), and I'd go so far as to say that I'll exclude him as well as the recused arbitrator from my own oppose votes on this issue. And make no mistake, I'm reasonably sure everyone here knows where this "anti sockpuppet finding" attitude is coming from, but if neither they nor the ones who are convinced are willing to stand for anything, I'm not sure they deserve the confidence of the community. —Random832 20:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure how I feel about this. My sense is that I won't be active enough come december to bother with arbcomm advisory votes.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I voted only for Giano at the last election on the premise that Jimbo has the ultimate choice and need not follow the wishes of the community. Unless there is another Giano (or a change in the procedure) I shall not be voting again. I also refused to vote in the recent Stewards election on the same principles. Anyway, I wouldn't want an Arb to be beholden to my vote... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. People cannot make their nomination for ArbCom talking about their beliefs, philosophies and so forth, and then go to an anonymous pool when it comes time to see accountability and answerability. Achromatic (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Tons of sentiment already in this section. Should have a show of hands. Cool Hand Luke 20:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I count 17 editors seconding (and seventeenthing!) Lar's suggestion in the section above that we "poll the jury" so to speak. Add to that two editors who did not comment there but have in this section, plus a number of editors who did not specifically ask for a poll of the arbs on the sock question but who clearly want it, and I'd day we have between 25-30 folks taking this position. This is a significant number for any Arbitration case, I think, and it also seems significant that most all of these editors are very experienced and a good number are administrators (i.e. the complaints are not coming from run-of-the-mill POV pushers and other problem users as often happens in controversial cases).


 * Unfortunately it seems that the Arbs are not going to be persuaded on this particular issue so I don't know how much it good it does to continue to bring it up. Holding their ground is, of course, their prerogative, but it seems very likely that the reputation of this committee will take a hit as a result. If the Arbs want to stand on whatever principle they are standing on when they refuse to vote on the key allegation in this case they are welcome to do so, though I personally hope they feel at least some discomfort at being so out of step with the strongly held (and eminently rational) point of view of so many respected users who have given this case a great deal of serious thought and effort. I think we can all agree that there is nothing good about the disconnect there.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of arbitration is to resolve a problem that the community cannot. The problem, as I see it, is a series of conflicting claims about interference in the editing of certain articles related to naked short selling. Focussing on sock identities seems to me to be a bit of a sideshow. If the socks are as good as alleged, merely banning won't help, or rather banning won't stop further accusations of socking, on the same grounds that the socking is almost impossible to detect except by certain specialised behavioral analysis methods whose discriminatory power is, to be charitable, unevaluated. Presumably the solution to the socking allegations is to make some kind of more sock-resistant environment. I'm glad I don't have to do that job.

I therefore suggest that it's a mistake to focus on sock identity. Further, since arbitrators aren't experts in evaluation of socks, pushing them to a vote if they're not comfortable with it won't get us anywhere. We elected them to resolve otherwise intractable disputes, not as glorified checkusers. The checkusers themselves have come up with a blank on this matter, so recruiting non-specialists is unlikely to resolve anything. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "the checkusers themselves have come up with a blank on this matter". That's not exactly true, or perhaps it's too narrow a framing. This checkuser said, and stands behind, the statement that the results from using the checkuser TOOL are inconclusive, but I also have endorsed the pattern analysis material worked up as showing a strong likelihood of correlation. Other checkusers can speak for themselves, and have. Some of them, among them some ArbCom members, have said they are not as convinced as I am. Facility with the CU tools does not imply facility with evaluating pattern analysis results, of course. ++Lar: t/c 00:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * With that caveat, then. As I've said elsewhere, I'm impressed by the quantity of the analytical work, but it's very easy to see pattern where there is none. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 03:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself alone, the adverse community reaction to the form and content of the decision is troubling. This does not mean that the decision is incorrect, but I intend to provide a more detailed description of why the decision reads as it does, at some point when the real world allows me to come up for some air. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking as an avid kremlinologist, the more light on the thinking of the arbitrators the better. I notice that some proposed findings have been carefully tweaked in order to make them more refractive to misinterpretation, and that's good, too. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brad, I'm not at all trying to rush you into a response to that question (which I also asked above in the "What effect...?" section obviously) and appreciate your willingness to engage with it whenever you get a chance.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The truth is that I thought that, with the input of other arbitrators and with a goal toward achieving consensus among the committee members, I had drafted a decision whose methodology and goals would be clear to all sides of this dispute. I did not expect everyone to agree with the form or content of the decision, but I did not at all expect the degree of disagreement nor the expressions of the view that it represented an abrogation, a dereliction, or a cover-up&mdash;expressions that have come not just from partisans in the dispute, but (minus the last) from administrators including respected experienced admins (including clerks and checkusers) who work daily with the committee. In fact, I seem in this decision not to have communicated effectively with many editors at all: it is as if I had written the decision in Martian. I clearly owe it to the community to make another try at explaining myself here, and when I am sure I have found the right words this time, I plan to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for that, Brad.  Durova Charge! 00:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, and hope that we understand better where the committee is coming from, as I still don't get it. My view:  moving on is fine, and needed, but there has to be an expression of understanding of the past before that can happen.  So, the decision needs to address a)sockpuppet and coi, b) administrative good faith error that protected one side of a content dispute, c) content dispute remedies that move foward (we have that part).  If the committee really cannot address a) due to internal divisions, then a finding that the community should in no way be restricted from addressing those issues, would go a long way towards actual lessening of the disruption this off site dispute has engenendered on en.wikipedia.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly look forward to the response from Newyorkbrad, as there are so many unanswered questions swirling around in this case. It is good to see that a few ArbCom members - most notably NYB and FT2 - have been participating here and trying to shed some light onto the proposed decision. It may be a misinterpretation on my part, but the proposed decision reads to me like an attempt to draft a decision to which almost all the ArbCom members can agree, and to paper over the internal divisions in the earnest (but, in my view, mistaken) belief that ArbCom consensus is important for the community to have confidence in their actions. Again in my view, NYB has acted in this way previously - choosing not to formally propose his alternative for the MH decision, not posting a motion on the present EK appeal, and I gather something similar happened in the IRC case (which I didn't follow in any detail).

In my opinion, the community is entitled to know what individual committee members think. I accept that their reasoning may at times be based on evidence unavailable to the community, and that is fine. But it seems to me that consensus for the sake of protecting the reputation of ArbCom is actually undermining that confidence. Of course, it is true that ArbCom members must exercise their individual judgement, and must be allowed the discretion to act as they see fit. But, is that discretion completely unrestricted - and if so, should it be? Surely discretion should be limited to a range consistent with community expectations of reasonableness. Further, when discretion wanders beyond that range, shouldn't there be a mechanism for this to be addressed. At this moment, I would support motions of no confidence about several ArbCom members on the grounds that they have lost the confidence of the community. Going down such a route - especially whilst trying to figure out the rules, since no mechanism appears to exist - would be disruptive, but I think less disruptive than allowing ArbCom to be diverted from its task. Forward looking approaches are fine, and this does at times mean treating the past as past - but when the past is still here, and the wound still open, moving forward without treatment is not forward looking; it is procrastinating - putting off acting until tomorrow in the hope that it will become easier. Perhaps it will be easier - MM and SH will be community banned, in my opinion, but I am unsure that it will stick. But, the rancour about 'shoot on sight' inspired misdeeds will not abate - justice delayed is justice denied, and asking the community to rule a line and move on from past injustices without acknowledgement will not work.

There has been a lot of debate in Australia over the injustices to the Aboriginal people associated with the 'stolen generations'. Former Prime Minister Howard spent 10 years refusing to make an apology, and urging the community to move on - and the wound festered, and outrage (whilst quietened) did not diminish. In a symbolic gesture, the new Prime Minister issued an apology at the first sitting of the new Parliament, and this ws absolutely necessary for closure to be possible. This case is vastly different in scale and scope, but the same issue arises. Without an acknowledgement that wrongs have occurred, no ruling off of the issues is possible. This need not necessarily include sanctions against individual admins, but it is my view that refusal of formal recognition that they happened will simply perpetuate the community division. Jay*Jay (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I very heartily endorse Jay Jay's last paragraph. The rest, I'm not so sure about.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * At one time the UK Princess Diana inquest was going to be strictly limited in scope, but Mohamed Al-Fayed successfully argued for the inquest to cover all the issues. In the interest of openness and transparency there should similarly be no attempt to hobble this arbitration case. Any unpalatable facts which have a bearing on the case need to be faced head on, rather than swept under the carpet because they will surely cause further rancor if they are not honestly and openly discussed prior to a final decision. Now is as good a time as any to bring closure. Relevant issues to be placed openly before the committee in full view of the community for an open and transparent vote to be held. Also, suggest that the committee invites amicus briefs from recognized experts in the articles concerned - this could aid both the case itself and also help to benchmark the articles--luke (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While I shudder to think that we might as a community ever descend to the level where we identify with the bitterness and delusion of Mr Fayed, tragic and untimely though his bereavement was, I agree that it's Wikipedia's custom to keep things out in the open wherever possible. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The 'conspiracy theories' of Diana's death (one such theory was presented to the inquest by Mohammed Al Fayed) may perhaps be far-fetched, but the judiciary decided that it was best that they should be heard by a jury in a transparent manner in open court. This was contrary to the view of Baroness Butler-Sloss who thought a jury wouldn't be able to cope with the issues, and later stepped down as coroner. -- luke (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

...and then what?
Before too much more goes under the bridge...

For the sake of argument, assume that the case that there's been sockpuppetry by SH and MM is given and that everyone accepts that they're likely to be the journalist of the day.

Let me now ask: ...and then what?

There are numerous claims that there was a conflict of interest. Failure to disclose real-world COI issues policy violations are self-evident, but actual abuse of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS are not well documented in evidence.

There are numerous claims that there was abusive sockpuppetry in violation of policy. Backing each other up on arguments / creating the impression of more support for a position? A few cases. One listed double vote, some time ago. Possible further abuse by older, apparently abandoned socks which were not acknowledged but are old news.

The level of sockpuppetry abuse demonstrated here, with diffs, is insufficient for permanent sanctions.

Where are the diffs? I just went through all the diffs, and half of them were to other unrelated people's edits, or edits outside the timeframe, with the rest largely diffs without any context to show evidence of inter-account sockpuppet policy abuse.

If you assert Arbcom is clearly wrong for failing to act more stridently here... what's the specific evidence that argues that abuse requiring serious sanction is there?

I don't think anyone other than MM is likely to object to a pro forma finding of duck test similarity here. And the double vote and a couple of other things in evidence are enough of a sockpuppet policy abuse for a pro forma month block and warning to not do it again, sure. But surely we didn't just go spend weeks figuring this all out just to block someone for a month. There has to have been some more serious abuse going on which justifies having spent all this effort to make the identification.

I assumed for the sake of argument as this started, that the "prosecutors" here not only had a case for sockpuppetry which would hold up, but a case for abuse which would hold up. The former is advanced effectively, the latter not. Without the latter, this was in fact a collossal waste of time.

Please point to it. Links and diffs, in the evidence page. Please start new subsections for it so that it's clear what you're pointing to.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe some folks are compiling that right now. The challenge is that comments from committee members during the first part of the evidence phase gravitated towards questions about the sockpuppetry investigations, so other than a few examples evidence of abusive action was not researched.  While the abuse may be limited (even sensitive by usual pov pushing nutjob standards), it is also pervaisive and was ongoing for 18 months after warning by an arb FOR ABUSIVE SOCKPUPPETRY.  so, while a first time offense of this magnitude might get a month and stern admonition to knock it off....this is beyond that.  And even without a ban for it, the community needs the committee to stand up against abusive coi pushing in all it's forms.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple of points to GWH. First of all, there do seem to be members of the ArbCom who "object to a pro forma finding of duck test similarity here" - that's why there is no finding relating to that as of now. Given that, it does seem to be a bit of a waste of effort (at least right now) to develop further evidence of abusive sockpuppetry since the committee will not even agree that socking happened at all. I happen to think that the history of past abusive sockpuppetry, for which the user was warned, combined with double voting and a number of efforts to influence discussions (including an ArbCom case) using two accounts is certainly abusive enough for a long term block. But if that is not good enough for you George, what about Mantan's behavior in this entire weeks-long process? Assuming the allegations are true as you do above, do you not find it incredibly disruptive for Mantan to deny these allegations for weeks at a time, lash out at those veteran editors developing evidence and accuse them of carrying water for a banned user, all the while wasting an enormous amount of time of folks who could be doing better things - yourself included? I think that's arguably the most disturbing thing of all and I would ask George whether or not that bothers him. If the allegations are true than the blame for the "collossal (sic) waste of time" should be placed squarely on Mantan's shoulders - why not just come clean and deal with the consequences? And do we really want someone so willing to bend and even break the truth working on this project? Again this assume the socking allegations are true, but that's the assumption with which George started this thread.


 * In general I'm all for more evidence of abuse along the lines of that presented by Relata Refero, I just personally think the current evidence is sufficient to demonstrate abuse and at this point am not willing to dig up more when it might well have no effect whatsoever. If an Arb asked for it that would be different obviously.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For the sake of argument, what Arbcom decides and what the Community then do are both in play. Even if Arbcom decides as a body not to act on the sockpuppetry complaints, there's an active discussion lifting off about a community ban.  Regardless of where it comes into play, what was done with the presumptive sockpuppetry is entirely appropriate.  If the current set of presumptive socks committed serious abuses, it should be easy to lay out what those were.  The diffs posted to date aren't persuasive.  I don't presume that there isn't evidence there... but there's no evidence in evidence, as it were.  Might as well lay out the case in its entirety here.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't see/forgot about this at first (maybe you did or maybe you didn't, there has been so much evidence presented one loses track of it) but see FT2's chart on SirFozzie's original investigation page here which lists most if not all of the pages which both Samiharris and Mantanmoreland edited. FT2 listed a couple of instructive diffs at the end - and  - which show both users commenting on the "Attack Sites" Arbcom and on WT:NPA (obviously two of the more contentious issues in recent Wikihistory, though I personally had nothing to do with either of them and know little of the specifics). If you don't have a problem with a user double voting in AfD's and one RfA, double commenting on a contentious ArbCom case and on an important (and equally contentious) policy page, giving the impression of consistent agreement by two different users (who are in fact operated by one person) about articles in which the user in question has a COI (again using your initial "journalist of the day" scenario here), while all the while going through great lengths to maintain the non-socking fiction and refusing to be forthcoming about the socking when it is revealed then so be it.


 * But let me actually rephrase that as a direct question. Do you really want someone who engages in abusive socking (even if it is limited, but you cannot deny that the sock policy was violated repeatedly) after doing it once (or twice) before and being warned by an Arb, and who uses socks in an effort to advance their own real world interests (i.e. editing articles with two accounts about which they have a COI), and who when confronted with evidence denies it ad infinitum while casting aspersions on their accusers and forcing into a weeks-long process ending (maybe) in this messy arbitration - do you really feel that person should just run off and edit away happily? Stripping away all of the background noise of this case and pretending this is totally hypothetical situation about "Editor X," would you seriously argue for anything less than a one-year block?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nothing I can find in evidence that the COI led to other violations of the policy such as non-neutral articles. It raises the question in a big way, but we know that the people who started this aren't anywhere near neutral either, and their claims that the mere identity means bias have to be taken with a grain of salt.  This isn't a question of "They edited!", it's a question of "This thing they inserted is wrong/biased/unsourced" or "This was tag-teaming here and here and here and 3RR violations" and that sort of thing.  We know they edited the articles.  Please show us the specifics where it was abusive.
 * There's nothing I can find in evidence that the SH or MM edits would in fact advance the real world interests of the journalist in question. I don't see how the journalists' employement, income, professional reputation, or other factors are improved by the articles one way or the other.  There certainly could be such - there are ways that someone could do those things, using Wikipedia articles, we've seen them elsewhere - but the specifics aren't in evidence here.
 * How bad the abuse was is directly related to how bad it was. Say hypothetically we discover that Cla68 and G-Dett are the same person in real life - ok, they're socking.  Then what?  I don't know of anything other than this debate and some ANI edits where they're editing together.  One could make a case that they're to some degree violating the policy by both participating in the same administrative discussion and reinforcing each other.  One can easily make the case to block one indef for policy violations - but the other one?  This is traditionally "Roll your eyes in frustration at them".
 * What's alledged about MM and SH is more than that. But how much more?  Cut the hyperbole - supply diffs.  I will read diffs.  I may argue about interpretation of them, but they're evidence.  I want the evidence.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where I used hyperbole, but I'll try even harder to avoid that. Before continuing I really want to make sure I understand one thing (I mean this as a very straightforward, albeit lengthy, question and would appreciate a direct answer). Assuming the content of the edits were kinda "okay" in some vague sense, are you saying you would find it at least somewhat acceptable (i.e. a lengthy ban would not be necessary, for both accounts) if, after I had been warned for policy violating sockpuppetry in the past, I used two different accounts to edit no less than 25 of the same pages (in article and Wikipedia space) often with weeks, days, or hours of each other? Forget about the COI stuff or new diffs for a moment, I just want to clarify that first.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok? No.  Block all your accounts indef except main for a year?  Would be overreaction.  Further abuse could change that to not an overreaction.  The hyperbolic suggestions are potentially into that range - the question is, are the underlying facts of what was edited when and how.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I cannot parse all of that last comment, but in any case I started a new section below with a diff and some evidence and such. Let me know what you think.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly believe that undisclosed sockpuppetry is inherently bad and reason enough for a long, if not indefinite, block. I'm not talking legitimate alternate accounts (those that disclose the link, or edit completely different articles/topics, or else take the place of a retired account), but two accounts secretly operated during the same timeframe by the same person and interacting with the same articles or individuals, superficially appearing as independent accounts. I can think of no justifiable reason to do this. Not only does it undermine the "one editor one voice" underpinning of the Wikipedia concept of consensus, but it's a fundamental betrayal of every other editor's willingness to follow one of the core pillars of Wikipedia: Assume Good Faith. I need to be able to assume that the editor I'm dealing with is editing on the same basis as myself and not gaming the system. Deceiving others to amplify one's voice or gain an advantage over single-account editors is plain wrong. There may be mitigating factors allowing for nuanced remedies where necessary, but the general principle should be to block such sockpuppets because they undermine good-faith collaboration. alanyst /talk/ 08:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. Deceptively maintaining distinct identities in the same field of discourse distorts the community decision-making, even if it's just two socks discussing matters on a talk page. When a number of separate identities are maintained by just one or two people to keep focussing on a subject, the impression given by the multitude of identities can be quite intimidating and, for instance, will tend to chill attempts to explore other side of the subject. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 10:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally agreed, but the damage done is in proportion to the proximity in time and topic that the multiple accounts appear to support each other.
 * I would like to see the Evidence page lay out those proximity edits properly to assess that. If the edits tended to be days apart or in different subsections of a Talk page then there's less damage than if they're in the same subsection ping-ponging back and forth in a debate between one and the other.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well per your suggestion I made a point of laying out some evidence both below and on the evidence page. Can you please explain what you think of that evidence here? Is it a persuasive single example of abusive, COI socking? Combined with other evidence already mentioned how concerned are you now? How much more do you need to see? I'd appreciate your thoughts since you were the only person asking for evidence like this and I took the time to provide some for you.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Some evidence from Talk:Gary Weiss
This may or may not be worth my time, but per Georgewilliamherbert's request I found a diff (this diff) which is an old version of the Gary Weiss talk page. Above GWH asks the following: assuming SH is a sock of MM, and assuming MM is a certain journalist in the real-world, where is the sockpuppet abuse? Well for one example scroll down to the sections "RfC" and "Replies to RfC" in the diff above and read through that (perhaps someone already mentioned this somewhere in this terabyte-long discussion...I have not bothered to check as this is just the first thing I found after a lengthy 240 second search of the first page that came into my mind).

You'll note that Cla68 opens an RfC about including some material which references criticism of Weiss by Judd Bagley, including the notion that Weiss had engaged in "unethical or bad faith behavior." Now remember we are assuming that SH is a sock of MM and MM is that one guy. The first reply, in a "replies" section, comes from MM who says "This material is clearly not relevant to Weiss' notability." Less than 24 hours later (in a different section, the original "RFC" section above that), SH chimes in with "In the past, three editors -- myself, Mantanmoreland, JzG and Jayjg -- have opposed adding the material" and then goes on to explain why. (I would point out that, though it could actually be an honest and routine counting error, Samiharri's reference to "three editors -- myself, Mantanmoreland, JzG and Jayjg" is mildly hilarious given...well you know). Before JzG archived that and other talk page discussion, both SH and MM had weighed in twice (each in different sections) arguing that information critical of Weiss should not be added to the article.

Maybe they were even right about that, but that's hardly the point. GWH wanted evidence that MM/SH/a certain reporter (assuming they are one and the same) had used sockpuppets in an abusive fashion which also violated our COI policy. As I said I found that example in a matter of minutes. It probably does not do much good in this ArbCom, but might be of use for the community later (assuming someone else did not already lay this out and I just missed it). I'm curious as to what GWH thinks about this example.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not forgetting, of course, that somewhere in the terrabytes of the evidence is MM warning off Cla68, by invoking the overstock meme, regarding the GW question whereupon SH shows up recommending that Cla68 take heed of MM's warning. I don't have the diff to hand, but I am sure Cla68 can supply it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, "how many fingers, Winston?" (of course if I were him I would have said "all five, dammit!", counting Mr. Weiss as a separate entity). Hopefully this has been or will soon be added to the evidence page on the off chance that somebody is still reading it. — CharlotteWebb 13:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go ahead and add this to the evidence page just so it's on the record in the appropriate place.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Further examples? Certainly that was not the only thing we had this huge fight over...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How many more do you need George? 2, 5, 10? Can you ballpark it for me? What's your threshold as far as when this gets into problematic territory for you (and don't forget about the other evidence on the evidence page)? Is that threshold based in policy, or is it just your own opinion? As I said I found that example in just a few minutes and wanted to see what your reaction was but you did not offer a reaction other than "more?" If you are honestly maintaining (let's recount the evidence again) that a user who has abusively socked in the past; been warned for it; then used socks to votestack, influence discussions on policy pages and an ArbCom case, and help prevent critical material from entering that user's own BLP article does not deserve a block than I'm afraid I'm a bit nonplussed. If we took your view we would have to conclude that it is okay to use sockpuppets abusively to influence a BLP article about yourself so long as you don't do it that often. I hope you understand that that appears to be exactly what you are arguing for.


 * I really don't care for the way in which you keep demanding more evidence without even explaining how you feel about what was already provided. What do you think of the new piece of evidence I brought in? How big of a problem is it for you? How about the new stuff Mackan79 added here? This evidence was added specifically at your request (and no one else's), yet rather then react to it (or even offer a polite thank you and then your thoughts) you simply say "Further examples?" That's rather uncouth from where I sit.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

More evidence, please
We are now rapidly approaching a half megabyte of text on this page alone discussing this. Why is this level of energy not being put into finding diffs of specific policy violations for the evidence page? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know George, but maybe you should ask that question of yourself. A lot of the "half megabyte of text" on this page is you asking other people to produce evidence so you can look at it. Why not have a go at gathering evidence yourself man? A couple dozen other editors have already done that (some for hours on end), so maybe it's your turn. Scroll through the Naked Short Selling article and talk page histories, see what you can come up with, and go from there.


 * You already asked for diffs once, myself and Mackan provided some, and then you asked for more without commenting on the new evidence provided. Until you're willing to contribute a little more light and a lot less heat to this discussion I'm not going to bend over backward providing evidence to convince you of something of which most of us on this page are already convinced. Quite frankly at this point I'm not sure you can ever be convinced, though if you were willing to do a bit of digging on your own that would help matters.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * With a little looking; MONGO RfA - support #'s 24 & 73. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Submitted for consideration: 1) GWH's opinion here means no more than anyone elses.  The fact that we should try to convince him with evidence, or him require certain users to personally convince him with evidence, is a bit offensive.  2)GWH is very unlikely to change his views, in my opinion.   Further, it seems he would like you to submit evidence to him so he can dismiss and rebuke it--which is fine--if this was a time period when evidence collecting was in full force.  3)If GWH is indeed curious enough about this case, he would take the time he uses to discuss and use rhetoric here and investigate it himself—indeed, it appears that the only way he will be convinced is if he stumbles upon evidence himself, which isn't necessarily a bad thing (I'm a bit like that myself).


 * In conlcusion, I humbly state that submitting evidence here simply to convince GWH is not worth the time. This case has been done.  Burnout for those who have contributed heavily to this case is imminent.  The same old questions are being asked and the same old answers are being given.  There is no progress. I wish that the arbom would do whatever they feel necessary and, respectfully, get out of the way.  daveh4h 16:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To repeat what I said above:
 * "I for one would be open to hearing more evidence about the edits made by these accounts to the relevant articles with respect to content policy, of which there has been essentially none presented so far (save for a brief section by Relata Refero)."
 * By that I mean what has the nature of the editing on these articles been, and has any editing been problematic in terms of the core content policies (for example, have any editors on these articles misrepresented sources, or have they introduced unsourced statements into articles on living people)? --bainer (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think further evidence at this point could actually have an effect on the outcome of the case? Also new evidence has been presented (by G-Dett, Mackan79, I think, and my brief example above). Obviously there is nothing about introducing unsourced statements or similar policy breaches - the examples all deal with using socks to push a certain point of view while excluding others, i.e. the core content policy being violated is NPOV.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the section I added to evidence is here, while G-Dett discussed similar problems in detail here. Bigtimepeace states the problem well, though it also has to do with an almost jokingly tendentious style in the various alternate accounts, including statements such as, "Byrne has claimed that his company's shares have been attacked by 'miscreants' in the stock market, headed by a 'Sith Lord.'"  There are many others like this as well, as are discussed in the linked sections. Mackan79 (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Clarification regarding secret evidence
We're getting conflicting stories here (I'm talking flat out black/white things here), so I'm posting it here, so both FT2 and Uninvited Company can respond to it, and see if we can get our stories straight here.

(quote of UC on WikBack)

Second, the committee does have some evidence which cannot be made public, which tends to support the view that MM and SH are different people.

Which flatly contradicts what we're being told ON wikipedia, from another ArbCom member

From FT2 here on the Proposed Decision Talk Page:

'''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.'''

Is there, or is there not secret evidence in this case? This is flat out contradictory here. SirFozzie (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I echo SirFozzie, and note also that UninvitedCompany has referred to postings by MM and/or SH to a mailing list ("notably different writing style in offwiki (mailing list) participation"). I have not seen any evidence presented regarding this mailing list: which list, who participated, and how it was ascertained that the identities of those posting to the list correspond to the operator(s) of the MM and/or SH accounts.  I asked UC about it on his talk page but have had no answer (not unjustifiably; I'm sure UC is very busy).  If anyone can shed light on this I'd appreciate it. alanyst /talk/ 06:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, well as SirFozzie says that does need to be explained, though I would not be surprised if there is a valid explanation. To Alaynst, I believe (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong and/or elaborate on this) that the list in question was the "stalker/harassment" list (I'm sorry but I don't remember the exact name, but it was to deal with issues of harassment of Wiki editors apparently). Both JzG and Jimbo Wales had referenced receiving hundreds of e-mails from both MM and SH (many if not most from this list I assume) and both suggested that the writing style for SH and MM was different. As far as I know it is still unclear whether the ArbCom formally reviewed those e-mails, and there was some discussion about whether some of those e-mails might (with the appropriate users' permission) be released for a review by editors not on the committee but obviously nothing came of that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Questions to nobody in particular: Why has this silly conjecture about Samiharris == WordBomb been put forth if MM and SH were trusted members of a stalker/harassment mailing list? Certainly the operators of that list would take great pains not to let WordBomb infiltrate it.  And, if checkuser cannot show that MM and SH are related, and word analysis and editing time patterns are not to be trusted, then how can anyone claim that MM and SH here on Wikipedia are known to be the same individuals who posted to the mailing list?  If their emails reveal their identities, why are the arbitrators not saying that the two are known to be unrelated?  Conversely, if the emails don't reveal their identities, what makes them reliable sources of evidence regarding the WP accounts in question? alanyst /talk/ 06:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with the Samiharris == WordBomb theory is that it has neither evidentiary basis nor explanatory power. Even the rankest conspiracy theory usually has something juicy to offer by way of the latter.  This brain-belch by contrast substitutes Rube Goldberg for Occam's Razor, and for what heuristic payoff?  The right of "skeptics" to believe that the CEO of Overstock paid somebody to do everything he could to defame said CEO and said company on one of the most popular websites in the world, for over a year, so that in the fullness of time a sockpuppet investigation would take place and possibly get covered by major international news organs, such as The Register.  And the right to believe that the genius charged with carrying out this complicated shaggy-dog hoax wouldn't think to have his strawman sock, Samiharris, go in and edit a Mantanmoreland post and give this tribunal of head-scratchers their smoking-gun.  As WAS 4.250 elegantly phrased it, "it is absurd to doubt a near certainty using the possibility of a near impossibility."  And it is distressing that at this late stage, people presenting themselves as 'skeptics' are doing just that.--G-Dett (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There exists a quite reliable method of tying a particular email address to a particular wiki account. We use it all the time on the Checkuser list to validate new checkuser subscriptions. It does nothing to validate that either the email or the wiki account are anyone in particular, but it solidly links the accounts. Basically, you email the account claiming to be the wiki ID with a nonsense string, and ask them to make an edit while logged in with the account, with that nonsense string as edit summary, and mail the diff back. There is no meaningful way to spoof that unless you're dealing with a compromised wiki account or meatpuppetry (in which case it doesn't really matter). It does nothing to establish different identities but it could definitively link MM on-wiki to the email used by MM on a given list. ++Lar: t/c 15:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the additional insight, Lar. Is there any evidence that this took place for MM or SH? alanyst /talk/ 16:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are asking, could you clarify? I have no knowledge about what list moderators of lists I am not a moderator of may or may not have done. ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. What I mean is, if the technique you describe was used to verify their identities, we should see an edit summary (or enigmatic edit) with the nonsense string, somewhere in their user histories.  I haven't seen anything resembling that sort of thing in their edit summaries, but I wonder if anyone with a better idea of what to look for might have spotted something. alanyst /talk/ 19:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nod. I was not moderator of any list that SH or MM was on, to the best of my knowledge so I really can't say one way or the other what either or both of those IDs were asked to do. I would however point out via an example: "nonsense" edit (with apologies to fr:user:Clem23 for picking that example but it's recent and remembered so...) A nonsense string doesn't have to be gibberish per se, it just has to be one that I (or whoever) selected and specified in advance. If you were scanning contributions, would you necessarily pick that out as a nonsense string? I don't know if I would have if I hadn't known what to look for. I don't know if that helps you or not... did want to offer it up though. Different people's nonsense strings can be different. I go for witty, and sort of related to the userid, sorts of things rather than gibberish. No one could guess in advance exactly what I would specify so it's not spoofable. ++Lar: t/c 23:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Great pains" does not include requiring providing real-world identification to the list operator or members. Nor, let's be clear, do any other Wikipedia related groups inside or outside, other than OTRS and Foundation Board elections.  Do you actually factually know who anyone on Wikipedia Review really is, for sure?  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just pointing out the obvious: This type of thing is what "conspiracy theories" are made of, whether they are simply misstatements or not. What is causing all these strange actions and statements coming from the very few arbom members that are commenting? Information/evidence/case overload? Thankfully you all aren't commenting! Can you imagine that? Perhaps now I understand why so few arbs are commenting; It doesn't appear they know what they are looking at or what they should be deciding. That may sound terrible; I wish I could word it more tactfully. However, it seems that if deliberations were carried out more publicly, gaffs and blatant contradictions like this and others could be avoided. This is getting stranger by the day, isn't it? daveh4h 07:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Tis best to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt"? Is that the gist? LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)May I suggest an explanation? Perhaps various members of ArbCom saw different levels of significance to the offsite evidence. Reasonable people can weigh a circumstantial case differently.  Durova Charge! 19:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Normally, that would be the good faith way to view it, Durova, and I can agree that could be the case. I'm just looking askance at the sheer black and white nature of things. "There was evidence the public is not privy to that confirmed the belief that MM/SH are different people". versus "There was no non-public evidence at view here". SirFozzie (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But that no new evidence had an important caveat: significance. It could simply be a matter that one arbitrator thought something was insignificant and another found the same thing persuasive enough to raise reasonable doubt.  Durova  Charge! 23:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The various hypotheses on identity are beside the point. If it was discovered that I (who have never been involved in this affair) am WordBomb, or that Sheila Knott (who as far as I am aware has never been involved in this affair) is Samiharris, it shouldn't change things much except that I might get a little less fan mail. If we cannot tell whether or not Samiharris is WordBomb, it does count for something, but perhaps only if you think who they are matters more than what they do. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I think we should worry, because if we don't worry then that would send the message that recent double voting isn't important.  Durova Charge! 19:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if my example was misleading. As far as I'm aware, Samiharris, Sheila Knott, WordBomb and I have never participated in the same discussion.  Of course it would matter if we had deceptively socked (and perhaps my choice of example wasn't so clever). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What's actually at issue, though, is the linkage between Mantanmoreland and Samiharris. They voted together as recently as MONGO's RFA, and also at arbitration elections.  That compels us to treat this seriously, and not attempt a myopic interpretation of forward-looking, because the next time there's legitimate reason to question whether two established accounts are vote stacking, people need to have enough trust in the process that they believe it's worth the enormous effort of doing things the right way.  It took a year and a half to uncover Runcorn, remember.  If the Committee and respected Wikipedians sidestep that issue with it's not important/don't do it again, then the inevitable result will be more Wikipedians creating their own vote stacking socks.  It's much easier to make them than to catch them, so why not do it if people get off with a caution?  Durova  Charge! 23:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

On Sirfozzie's question above, I've argued on wikback that, by my parsing, there is nothing contradictory about Uninvited Company's and FT2's statements. I don't know the facts about which they're talking, but the statements do not seem to be contradictory. They use different words to describe what they're takling about, and there's no reason to believe that they're subdividing the evidence in identical ways. FT2 sees no "new or recent "secret" matters of any kind...of any note", while Uninvited company speaks of "some evidence which cannot be made public, which tends to support the view that MM and SH are different people".

Firstly, what Uninvited company thinks is significant may not be of note as far as FT2 is concerned (this is because FT2 and Uninvited Company are different people). Secondly, when FT2 speaks of "new or recent" matters he may be excluding older matters of which Uninvited Company is speaking.

Thirdly they're both grown-ups and can presumably clarify if the feel the need to. :) --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not relied on any non-public evidence in this case.
 * As promised above, I have been drafting some comments further explaining my thinking behind the proposed decision. At the moment, the draft of my thoughts is thrice as long as it should be and contains too many stream-of-consciousness ramblings. As soon as it is honed to a reasonable level I will post it here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Again thanks for that Brad, but if any Arbs have relied on non-public evidence should that not be clearly stated in the decision? Is it not possible, without breaking any confidences, to characterize the nature of that evidence (most of us assume it is the "600 e-mails") and give a general sense of why some Arbs felt it belied the possibility of a Mantan-Sami sock connection? I fully understand privacy and confidentiality and all that, but can we not have a bit of a rough idea of what (if any) the off-wiki evidence was, who was persuaded by it, and why? Uninvited Company seems to be suggesting (over on WikBack) that he can say absolutely nothing about it, but it's extremely hard to imagine a reason why that would be so. As GDett has pointed out on UC's talk page (a question that remains unanswered) it's also hard to imagine how someone who rejects the "word choice analysis" (which UC does apparently) would be convinced by a side-by-side analysis of writing styles (I'm not trying to pick on UninvitedCompany here, in fact I appreciate the fact that he has been relatively forthcoming with his opinion).


 * There are clearly questions which need to be answered here. Since Brad has not relied on any non-public evidence, I hope that those who (apparently) have will step forward and give us a sense of what was going on there. This "secret evidence" ball has been in the air since the beginning of this case - Arbs who relied in small or large part on off-Wiki evidence cannot pretend that the rest of the community is going to take it on faith that they evaluated that evidence appropriately. We are well past that point and we need as much open discussion of this as possible (we certainly need more than "none"). This is an important case, we all know that, but the waters only seem to be getting muddier as we go along. Not good.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks Brad, and hi to FT2. Now I do not wish to speculate in any way, so I wont, I will ask for clarification, regarding the nature and extent of secret evidence, if it is being taken into account at some weight by some Arbs. If such secret evidence is being taken into account, and if some substantial part of the evidence concerns the 600emails, then why was not a satisfactory answer offered to my evidence at /Evidence#Evidence presented by Newbyguesses, months ago days ago, at the/Evidence page?
 * Or has an answer been given that i did not see? And, if the 600emails do constitute evidence, to what extent is the Arbcom going to disclose the (non-BLPvio) nature of that evidence, and the reason for considering it?
 * That is, to be clear, if the 600emails are not under any condideration, then I have no question, and have wasted this post, sorry. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been following this case for a while and never felt the need to really get involved in the discussion but Newyorkbrad's latest comment really kills me. If the ArbCom is not relying on significant non-public evidence then the timidity of the proposed decision is baffling. I don't understand how anyone can look at the evidence presented over the last few weeks and arrive to any other conclusion: in all likelihood, SH and MM are either sock accounts or at the very least meatpuppets who have repeatedly, deceptively and often destructively worked in tandem. "Ah but what if SH is just a devilish long-term joe-job stunt?" say the conspiracy theorists. So what? Either way, this account needs to be blocked indefinitely.

The proposed "Allegations" says that evidence is inconclusive about SH = MM: I'm kind of scratching my head over this one, but hey, let's say I can understand how a very very careful ArbCom may arrive at that compromise statement. But the statement completely avoids the MM = GW issue. (or MM = GW's wife, GW's son, GW's dog or anyone else so close to GW that for all practical purposes MM = GW) The latter has been established beyond the shadow of a doubt and if ArbCom thinks otherwise, they should definitely say so. Because it's also a well established fact that MM has repeatedly denied being tied to GW, it's established that MM has used sockpuppets abusively in the past, it's established that he's been editing the Gary Weiss article without disclosing his conflict of interest, has systematically been involved in editing disputes concerning articles in which he has very personal reasons to edit tendentiously.

In its obsession to be fair to MM and SH and to avoid sanctions on these accounts without 100% steel-grade über-smoking-gun evidence, the ArbCom is forgetting that its prime responsibility is to make decisions which, all in all, will
 * a) help Wikipedia grow as a NPOV, quality encyclopedia,
 * b) help safeguard Wikipedia from the growing pressure from pseudo-editors who are interested in promoting their personal agenda and
 * c) ensure that the Wikipedia community can continue to self-regulate effectively.

Fairness? We, the community of responsible editors, are not asking you to be fair. We're asking you to help us. And your answer is "look, this is too delicate for us to really make a definite call, so why don't you handle it?" Well, gee, thanks a lot, but we're kind of sorry we asked your opinion.

In the process, you are setting a precedent which will make it almost impossible to impose sockpuppet blocks without going to RFCU and actually getting the smoking gun. You are refusing to acknowledge the fact that, regardless of the irresponsibility of WordBomb, Byrne, Bagley and co, and regardless of the harassment that MM, SH, GW (all three of them...) may have been the target of, the contribution of these accounts has been overall quite negative. Speaking as an admin who has never been involved in protection of these articles or blocks on the various parties, I believe it will be difficult for the ArbCom to dispel the impression that this case has not been treated in a transparent way and that who you know actually matters on Wikipedia.

I think it would be interesting for individual ArbCom members to say whether they agree with the following: "I believe that keeping the accounts of SH and MM unblocked will make Wikipedia a better place in the long run". This, we can all agree, is the real question. So why are you voting on absurdly convoluted statements such as "It has been alleged that editing of these articles may have been affected by abusive sock- or meat-puppetry, and/or conflicts of interest" and "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."?

This case is extremely disappointing and I can only hope that very very few wikipedians will be made aware of it, because the little faith that they may still have in structures of authority on Wikipedia will vanish. What ArbCom is telling the community is "come to us if the case is sooooo simple that you could have handled it without coming to us". Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: in light of Dave4h's comment below, I've just added a few line breaks to (hopefully) help in reading. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Immediately above are fantastic comments by Pascal.Tesson. It could use some line breaks, but it's very good nonetheless! I suggest anyone interested in this case read it.  (Incidentally, many good comments are lost in the shuffle on these talk pages—I find wiki talk pages a very difficult system in which to communicate with more than about 10 people, but that's another issue entirely)  Thanks for your thoughts, Pascal.  --daveh4h 08:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Editing content
In response to numerous comments, I created another section in evidence here on why the socking is relevant. The main point is that this is part of a long pattern of using alternate accounts to push POV, before asking that only the edits under the main account be considered. I think this is why the socking issue would ordinarily and should be addressed. Mackan79 (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Mackan's post makes for essential reading.


 * An important thing to realize here is that while traditional forms of sock abuse have occurred (double-voting, false consensus, etc.), examples of these are limited because there was a sort of baton hand-off to the SH account just as the MM account was leaving the articles in question – having been, as we now know, warned off of them because of the appearance of COI. Unacceptable as vote-stacking and so on are, the larger pattern of abuse here was one of gross POV-pushing by multiple socks, backed up by an implicit argumentum ad baculum.  In light of strange comments by New Lover Etc. about "mind control" and so on, I want to stress here that I absolutely do not join him in conflating such a systemic failure of encyclopedic neutrality – even one as apparently total as this – with some kind of "conspiracy."  There are many reasons admins backed Mantan so solidly, despite his occasional deceptions and regularly awful editing.  Widespread concern about off-wiki harassment was a big factor, obviously, and was to some extent justified, and certainly deserves our understanding; strategic alliances MM cultivated seem also to have been a factor, and these deserve our cynicism – or better, our self-scrutiny.  But in general I think it would be fair to say that a zealous institutional culture developed around the Bagley-Weiss wars on Wikipedia, attributable to both of the above factors and probably others, but not at all to any conspiracy, or to any top-down problem, Jimbo's "shoot-on-sight" episode notwithstanding.  The fact that the block against Cla68 in the wake of Jimbo's comment – a block that in my view epitomized the institutional culture that had taken hold – was carried out by Durova, who has in turn been one of the most sober, circumspect, and assiduously fair-minded voices in the present investigation, is itself an excellent piece of evidence that the issue of systemic bias does not mean bad faith, and has no taint of "conspiracy," whatever New Lover Etc. might say.


 * I had planned to add an evidence section of gross POV-pushing, which would overlap significantly with Mackan's, but wondered (and continue to wonder) if anyone needs it? I have organized diffs if anyone wants them, but as Mackan says on the evidence page, the best thing to do is go and read the articles, especially in the state they were in before this case opened, and look at their histories.--G-Dett (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree very much with Gdett's comments here. I think for many editors it is exactly this lack of acknowledgement of good faith but wrong actions by a number of folks that is lacking from the proposed decision and a lacking of a specific pov/coi finding about both mm and sh if the committee cannot find it in their hearts joint the two accounts.  The acknowlegement doesn't mean desysopping anyone, or other sanctions, but just acknowlegement that folks were wrong in the way they protected mm in the offsite dispute that has festered here.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To the extent I've been able to observe, that has been fueled by a mix of disbelief and surprise. We're all human beings and it isn't easy to back away from a position that one has acted upon for a while.  Some individuals honestly doubt the strength of the circumstantial evidence, and others who have been persuaded maintain public silence because they still have a strong distaste for the methods that had been used to pursue this case for so long.  This isn't a black and white situation.  People who know that the "Wikipedia cabal" conspiracy theory is false have an understandable reluctance to attach their names to a position that might lend credence to other conspiracy theories they seriously doubt.  Durova  Charge! 01:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, nobody would blame the ArbCom for noting that some of the harassment that went into pursuing this case is unacceptable. But the unacceptable behavior of one party does not prevent us from recognizing that the other party has also acted way beyond what is considered acceptable. Sure, it isn't easy to back away from a position that one has acted upon for a while. But if anyone here is acting to save face rather than to help the project, shame on them. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) This issue was another reason I chose to introduce the enabling meme to this conversation back on the Workshop page. In reality, it can take some enablers years to realize that they are helping someone to abuse them - and some never realize it.  Once we understand that people really thought they were doing the right thing, we also realize that for various reasons different people will take longer to realize that their actions were not actually helpful in effect, despite the good intent.  To the committee, I will point out that you can't successfully lay these peripheral issues to rest without first solving the central issue.  Putting dealing with MM back in the community's court will inevitably lead to the community also discussing the enabling again.  GRBerry 04:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a single one of us has exercised the wisdom of Solomon throughout this situation. Some remedies do need to be enacted, yet it's also gracious to look inward and ask What did I contribute to this mess?  How could I have acted better?  The more people who step forward with that and state their own role candidly (on both sides), the more likely we'll be to learn from it and avoid a similar mess in the future.  Durova  Charge! 04:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the Arbcom ruling is
I have lost all faith with the way Wikipedia works over this. For me, as soon as the Varkala evidence was shown, it was clear that Mantanmoreland = Gary Weiss. Before all of this I had no idea who Gary Weiss was. Random US financial journalists do not register on my radar, to be honest. But an encyclopedia that is meant to offer a real and neutral view on the world did once hit my radar. That a person can clearly game the system and use it to further their journalistic career is a disgrace, and shame on everyone who has allowed it to happen. I don't care if I am banned for this or whatever. But I will take to my grave the knowledge that Gary Weiss used Wikipedia to further his career. And I think everyone involved in that case knows that. Thanks for building a project we can all use as a resource, but no thanks for building an infrastructure that people can use to enhance their careers. Whit stable  02:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I can sincerely understand where you're coming from, and your frustration all over this. All I can say is, the fight will likely continue, no matter how ArbCom works out. It sucks, but that's the way it is. The project needs more editors to stand up and say "no, that's not right.. and I won't stand for it". Illegitimi non carborundum, Whitstable. SirFozzie (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand whitstable's frustration (though I wouldn't go as far), and I will say that this has cut into my enthusiasm for the project pretty substantially. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the Nth time I've seen the "...W used Wikipedia to further his career...". I still haven't seen anyone put forwards a good theory or evidence of how doing these edits would, in fact affect the career in any way.  Will someone making the claim please explain how you feel this is so?  I don't dispute that it's possible to advance off-wiki interests on-wiki, but nothing I've seen or seen alleged here seems to do so.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * George, did you see the comments from the Gary Weiss AfD discussion I posted in my evidence section? The Weiss article was so obviously being used for publicity by the article's subject that most of AfD participants commented on that.  Cla68 (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ...And? We knew that.  There's a (again, presuming the ID / sock conclusion) COI there, but the article's been under extreme NPOV review pressure for some time by uninvolved admins and editors.  If there are specific diffs of MM or SH making non-NPOV edits there and so forth, present them.
 * It is not evidence to point to controversies that these accounts were involved in. Evidence is "They were involved here, and did this, linking to a diff or a specific comment or so forth which shows a specific policy violation.
 * Don't be lazy. Make the case.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The case has been made in the context of Naked Short Selling, where a marginal theory unsupported in academic literature was aggressively pushed on the page. Do try not to be lazy and do some reading. Relata refero (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree that there has been substantive NPOV work by "uninvolved admins and editors" on the articles that are the locus of dispute. Cla68 was blocked for a reasonable attempt to work on NPOV of one of the articles, not that long ago.  And the founder said to shoot on sight anyone who esentially disagreed with mm/sh's pov.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There have been a truly ludicrous number of Wordbomb socks involved over the last few years. Those, we are nuking with prejudice and without formal reading of charges, yes.
 * Normal editors are not being sanctioned for getting involved.
 * The specifics of the Cla68 block were, as I recall and without going back to the complete discussions, Cla68 repeatedly reinserting stuff which had been inserted originally by Wordbomb, after being warned not to. That's not NPOV review - that's the specifically prohibited acting as a proxy for banned user meatpuppetry abuse that we can and do regularly block people for.  Cla68 does not come to this with clean hands.
 * I have seen other editors and admins edit those pages, who haven't been involved on or off wiki with SH or MM discussions to my knowledge, who appeared to be working on NPOV stuff. That said, I have tried to stay out of the content disputes, because I neither care about the Journalist's career / biography nor the technical financial topics involved, and it's all been rather unseemly.  My knowledge on the specifics of who's done what is mostly "what perked up to ANI or I happen to have seen on a quick article history review?".  This is part of why I'm asking for the specific diffs.  In the past I've looked at claims of COI or other abuse, and not been satisifed that the claims were well founded.  But I am not living and breathing this incident, and if one accepts the posited identity / sock conclusions it's worth revisiting.  So, I'm asking for diffs.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an absurd interpretation of Wikipedia's banning policy. You seem to be saying that anything put in by a banned editor must be taken out, no matter what. Suppose WordBomb found a blatant copyright violation on Wikipedia and blanked it, marking it with the standard copyvio template. Would we be obligated to restore the copyright violation, and block anyone who restored the template or tried to delete the infringing material? What if a banned user fixes a spelling error &mdash; do we keep the bad spelling in place permanently to spite them? How far does this go? No, banned users don't get any say in how the encyclopedia is written, but Cla68 is not a banned user. He, using his own independent judgment, decided (correctly, in my opinion) that The New York Times was a reliable source for the article and that keeping it out on the grounds of "Bagley memes" was a clear violation of WP:NPOV. I don't care if the original edit was by Satan himself. To interpret the banning policy in the way you want is to institutionalize the ad hominem and Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacies into Wikipedia. <font color="#11A"><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt> 04:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Crotalus, for this excellent summation of what, to many people, is one of the core issues here. Achromatic (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cla68 was blocked for acting as a proxy for a banned user. Anyone who'd spent time to discuss on the talk page and justify the action, as opposed to merely and promptly reverting the banned users' edits back in when they were removed, would have been treated differently.  The same action preceded by consensus-building on the talk page would not have resulted in sanctions.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * he was blocked because the normal consensus building procedure of a content rfc was responded to by archiving and shoot on sight comments from mm/sh protective folks. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cla68 and others including you are still quite grumpy about this. But we still have mountains of evidence of actual CU confirmed WB socks and IPs and meatpuppet accounts, and a number of other editors who behaved in a similar manner and timeframe.  When you walk like a duck and talk like a duck in the middle of a duckpond, in duck season, you get quacked from time to time.  Wordbomb and Byrne's ludicrous actions at the time required a ludicrous amount of response from a wide variety of editors and administrators.  There are something like 100 known socks with thousands and thousands of edits.  If someone wants to set up a side Request for Arbitration on it, Cla68 can lay out the case that they were sanctioned by an evil secret cabal, others can lay out the case for Cla68's proxy edits for banned users, others can lay out the context of the number of blocks, bans, reverts, socks, and so forth we've been dealing with, and Arbcom can determine who was misbehaving, who stepped in front of shitfans by accident, and who stepped in front of them on purpose.  That's not this case.  I'm still waiting for more diffs here in this one.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, WBsocks have nothing to do with this case, which is about/Mantanmoreland. WB is banned, cannot give evidence, and everyone agrees, probably, that WB is not the "elephant in the room". I really do not see what point you are making here. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that it's not the normal pov pushing nut job stuff, but when I read the talk page of GW, it looks alot like sh or mm scolding users for being wb socks/meats/following the lead of evil people. I have not studied the articles, as I don't give a crap about the subject, I'm concerned with abuse of the community.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC) And as far as normal editors not getting sanctioned?  see User:Piperdown.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur with SirFozzie, Whitstable, and I'd encourage you to stick around. While this particular case may be pretty blatant, I'd venture to guess that many, many Wikipedia editors have enhanced their careers in some form or other by writing here. I personally know of two editors who have only ever written here for the pleasure of writing and sharing information, but who have been offered paid writing jobs in the real world based on their Wikipedia work. Hundreds of students have honed their writing and researching skills, indirectly boosting their grade point average and thus their marketability. I've become a better copy editor, a skill that's translated into heightened esteem for my work in my field of employment. We're all here for our own personal reasons, some of which are more altruistic than others. Wikipedia is not a utopia, no matter how hard some people try to make it that. The current emphasis on "civility" (which seems to be defined as "behaving like me, except when I'm being a jerk") has overridden some of the other behavioural norms within the project. This is probably a temporary situation, and the pendulum will swing again. Sadly, despite all of the other evidence people have or could come up with in respect of this case, SamiHarris and Mantanmoreland haven't been particularly rude to anyone, so it may be impossible to sanction them in this current climate where social niceties are of prime importance. Again, stick it out - in a few months, there will be a bigger issue - probably COI or something similar - that will become the focus. (And George - I think I have answered your question here as well.) Risker (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Again presuming the conclusion, but how would someone already established as a professional journalist and book author gain experience with writing, research, etc by contributing pseudonymously or anonymously here?  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, I feared precisely this interpretation. The main event is not whether or not Gary Weiss used Wikipedia to further his career. That is incidental. The main event is that Wikipedia is being used as an instrument of mass mind control in the cover-up of a financial crime that, just today, the SEC denounced in a public hearing while proposing a change of rules to address. Wikipedia is now downplaying a crime that even the last-to-get-it regulators are now pursuing. ArbCom has reinforced Wikipedia's hermetically-sealed version of the truth so that the gap between it and reality grows wider every day. If you want to make sense of this whitewash, see more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PatrickByrne/Whitewash_essay PatrickByrne (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You have contributed nothing to these discussions that did not violate our policies WP:BATTLE and WP:SOAP. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * George, did you read the above section? I had your concerns specifically in mind. Mackan79 (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Which above section by whom? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The section immediately above; it references the evidence section added here. As to Byrne you might also consider that he's speaking not as a standard Wikipedian but as an affected individual, which should come with different expectations. Mackan79 (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as violating Wikipedia policy - regrettably it is likely true. I have not, in fact, mastered the intricacies of Wikipedia policy. Once all of this is over, and I have a better sense of the standard oeprating procedures around here, I would love to come back and edit the articles relating to Daoism and Zen. However, in the meantime, I am trying and, as someone points out, for better or worse, I am at the heart of this controversy. If you folks promise not to hold my neophyte errors against me I will promise not to rely too much upon that indulgence. PatrickByrne (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (ecx2) George, advancing a career also takes other forms than merely gaining experience, though I can see how Risker's post misled you to think that was what was going on here. Beyond a certain point in the career, knowing the basics of a field pretty much becomes taken for granted.  Making more money by promoting a book (GW's explicit reason for starting his blog), moving from C list to B list blogging by spamming links to the blog and gaining peer prestige, being seen as good at understanding controversial areas because a reference work backs you up...  All of these are ways of advancing a career.  And MM did all of that here for GW.  GRBerry 04:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ...And all of which should have easily citeable diffs for specific COI / NPOV violations. Why are we not yet flooded with diffs?  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * GeorgeWH, this is classic diversionary tactics. If you truly just do not want to know, despite anything, why not just put in some ear=plugs and be done with it? I don't know whom you are trying to represent here, but it is not any set of editors who have actually read the evidence. Are you off noah's Ark, or a visitor from the fairies at the bottom of the garden? Either way, between your posts and tony's, there must be some prospect of an ig-Nobel prize being awarded here for the advancement of pseudo-scientific theories. Have you really not seen enough evidence? This page alone takes over a minute to load to my computer. Best of luck,Newbyguesses - Talk 05:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a little harsh. GWH is one of the folks who has been involved in the constant blocking of wb hosiery.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That rather badly broaches WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Uninvolved admins / clerks?  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Newbyguesses: this page is almost entirely populated by people arguing with each other. People arguing with each other is not evidence of MM / SH / GW Conflicts of Interest, sockpuppetry policy abuses, etc.
 * This case was alledgedly brought not because MM / SH are sockpuppets, but because they were violating sockpuppet policy abusively. The evidence for the abusive behavior is being posted in bits and pieces here and there.  There are some votes, some bad hand / good hand, some reinforcing each other / making it appear that more people support a position.  But there have only been... eight? total diffs posted along those lines last I looked, which actually showed something which might be abusive.  Why are we not buried in diffs?  If they've been abusively sockpuppeting for years, why are there not hundreds of diffs?
 * We cannot possibly have spent all this time and effort for eight specific point policy violations. Can we?  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whilst determining violations of NPA and CIVIL, do be sure to cast an eye over this assertion: "You have contributed nothing to these discussions that did not violate our policies WP:BATTLE and WP:SOAP". Achromatic (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I put a motion up on the Workshop page, with diffs, to support that statement. Patrick Byrne has admitted such above in a civil and constructive response.  Whether the motion is taken up by Arbcom is up to them, but I did not make the statement without having appropriate backing evidence.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In reverse order, I see no such admission, indeed, no comment from User:PatrickByrne above, but perhaps I'm missing it (Struck after reading it - that being said, I don't think it invalidates the following point, and even a "regrettably likely" isn't a "confession"/admittance). Perhaps also worthy of consideration is that your motion was almost universally opposed - perhaps this means that other editors are unconvinced that any such violations took place. Definitely not as clear cut as you make it out to be. Achromatic (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Georgewilliamherbert, my personal apologies for the ill-considered post, which I struck. One thing, I do know for sure that yourself has been following this case closely, from the start, since I have read your#Evidence. I meant no disrespect, as you say there is a lot of wasted argument on this page, which is frustrating, it takes too long to load, and to read, so I lashed out.
 * Now, I would urge people, whether new to this case or not, to again review the material on the/Evidence page, and the/Workshop page, that material is superior to this page for finding facts, and DIFFs. maybe it's a big ask, TERaBytes of stuff, i don't know, I am no giant brain and i have read it over; I cannot claim any clever understanding of what is going on here, but I try. I know you are trying too, User:GWH, thanks, I urge others all respected, to review those pages, that's where it's at. Newbyguesses - Talk 07:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * George, it doesn't appear that you are listening. I have never seen it required to provide a list of 50 difs that are completely absurd on their face.  That isn't how POV pushing happens.  It happens through a large number of subtle problems, and then every now and then something extreme that jumps out of the rest.  I am sure that I could find many more examples, but frankly it would seem you owe it to give a better response to what has already been provided if you'd like to keep demanding more evidence.  People don't have limitless time to pull up difs for every new person who comes along and doesn't appear to be reading what is already there. Mackan79 (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet they do have time to write a half-megabyte of argument here? I am listening.  I see some stuff in evidence.  I don't see a slam-dunk case, the sort of thing we instaban people for.
 * People are alleging the slam-dunk case. Over and over again.  But won't provide enough or more evidence?  This makes no sense.  People have spent what appears to be many man-weeks on statistical software generation and analysis, on correlating real-world activities with on-wiki edit patterns on times and dates.
 * Why is the same standard not being applied to the "...and it was abusive..." clause of the "abusive sockpuppetry" suggested finding?
 * I want to be convinced one way or the other. Evidence has come to light regarding identities which If ind decently convincing; I can quibble with bits of it, but some pieces are unanswered and pretty strong on the face of it.
 * I want you and everyone else to step up to the plate, and convince me that beyond that assumption, enough actual serious abuse happened that I should support a community ban following this, even if Arbcom doesn't impose one.
 * So... ? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "[C]onvince me that [...] enough actual serious abuse happened" Here's a start: Double voting -- Lastexit and Mantanmoreland. Yes, this is not SH and MM, and yes, the matter apparently was dealt with by Fred Bauder to Fred Bauder's satisfaction (not to mine, and I hope not to anyone's), but it's abusive sockpuppetry and helped Mantanmoreland get in the habit of further abusive sockpuppetry. More to the point, take a look at votes #24 and #73 at this Mongo RFA. And there's more at SirFozzie's investigation page. I'm not sure this goes so far as to say "asked and answered", but it's abusive sockpuppetry, if you accept the evidence given that there was sockpuppetry, and it doesn't rely on deciding whether or not the two accounts were POV-pushing.Noroton (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC) (rewrote last sentence to expand and clarify Noroton (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC))
 * I don't think you see how your tone is coming across. You claim to be listening, but I don't see that you have spent more than 10 minutes between your various posts here to actually review what has been presented.  You come back instead with the number of difs that you claim to have seen.  That tells me you aren't listening. Mackan79 (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Part of this discussion hinges on why Cla68 got blocked. So I'll clarify: he did not get blocked for adding a New York Times citation to an article. The reason for blocking was this: JzG had archived the article talk page because the talk page contained looser speculation than the article itself. I endorsed that decision and so did Jimbo, who added the shoot on sight statement. Cla68 followed up with a post which, in my opinion at the time, amounted to turning on the gas stove beneath the frog in the saucepan. I didn't want the page to degenerate into a free for all. Obviously there were flaws in that decision, but that was my thinking at the time, and that's why I was obligated to look into this situation more thoroughly later on. <font face="Verdana"> Durova Charge! 05:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Reviewing Cla68's edits at the time, I find Jimbo's statement and the block utterly incomprehensible. It's notable that Samiharris thought Cla68 was blocked for suggesting the New York Times. Cool Hand Luke 05:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The context is WB sockpuppets and ongoing abuse. Assume potential for overreaction or mistaken targeting in the immediate vicintity of any WB sightings.  As further context - the offsite harrassment campaigns which were going on and being discussed offsite contemporaneously.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also assume what was in fact the case: that the failure of legitimate editors to explicitly distance themselves from problematic behavior raised questions about their judgement, and that pushing the envelope at that particular juncture was not a good idea. At the time, I had trouble imagining why Cla68 was tarnishing his sterling reputation over the matter. <font face="Verdana"> Durova  Charge! 06:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because NPOV matters. It's Foundation issue #1 - not just a core principle, but the core principle of this website. And he clearly thought (and I agree) that excluding an article from one of the US's most respected newspapers that makes two people both look bad from one of their articles while including it in the other's article is as clear a violation of NPOV as you'll find. Having an article on someone who's such a "non-public figure" that we can't even include criticism of him that appeared in one of the US's most respected newspapers, is a NPOV violation. I guess some people care more about our core principles than their own reputation. —Random832 17:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a cogent argument. It would have been much clearer at the time if so much drama hadn't been surrounding it. <font face="Verdana"> Durova  Charge! 18:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There did seem to be, on the part of the side you were on at the time (the side I sometimes referred to as "the Clique"), a pretty thorough lack of assuming of good faith, in that you seemed to assume that anybody who didn't quickly fall in line with your own reasoning on the "drama-producing" issues was clearly a troll, a sockpuppet, a meatpuppet, a jihadist, or some other unsavory character involved in a harassment campaign... instead of it even entering your mind that somebody on the "other side" might actually have valid principles they were attempting to uphold. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You can see how skilled Mantanmoreland was at encouraging people to paint with a broad brush. At the time when I started encountering this set of issues he had a lot of material to work from.  It is very easy to assert that argument and make it stick when some people are doing things that are really over the top (such as Slashdotting the conspiracy theory about SlimVirgin being a spy) and others who ought to have more clout don't distance themselves from it.  That dynamic played right into his hand. <font face="Verdana"> Durova  Charge! 02:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have thought about this point for some time, user:Durova, but I am not sure if I grasp it. If someone were to post at CRAPDOT.com that Newbyguesses was a SSHHH! (spy), would newbyG care, and would (I) care,? Not a bit, it is a pseudonym. Just as SlimVirgin, she/he is using a pseudonym, and BettyBoop/WordBomb used a pseudonym. What is the total harm, of that particular instance? Before shooting me down, I will admit that I came late, I have no direct experience of ALL, the specific abuses that WBsocks done, or did, over an extended period of time, and if any editor did suffer genuine distress from some outing, somewhere, which I haven't taken into accout, I of course apologise for seeming dismissive. If I have a point, Durova, or even not, I know your response will be most well-considered, thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 23:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)