Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland/RfC

message: Should I have a separate outside view section? I'm not really "outside." Cool Hand Luke 04:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Durova's section suggests that I'm fine. Cool Hand Luke 07:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wait, how does this work?

message: Is a run-on. "There has been concern that User:Mantanmoreland, who had previously been warned by former ArbCom member User:Fred Bauder for using an alternate/additional account, User:Lastexit in ways that violated Wikipedia policy was using the account User:Samiharris to violate Wikipedia's rules on multiple accounts." Not sure whether it would be considered appropriate for me to edit this, so I'll note it here. Achromatic (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually is a parsable grammatical sentence, as would be more clear if a couple of commas were added, but I don't think anyone could object to some copyediting. (Not commenting on the merits of the dispute.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think long, Faulkner-esque sentences that explore an idea completely and exhaustively before any periods are encountered are underrated. Cla68 (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try reading Henry James while you're stuck in a hospital bed.  I swore the man needed to have his semicolon surgically removed.  Three cheers for Hemingway (subject-verb-object-full stop). ;) DurovaCharge! 05:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks around, wondering if he's got his head stuck in his semi-colon.. (sorry, couldn't resist the joke there). Seriously, if folks want to copyedit me in an attempt to make me look brighter then I am, please, go to it with a vengeance. I could use all the help I can get. SirFozzie (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence, statement

message: Not sure if it matters, but in reply to this evidence:
Either Mantanmoreland or Sami Harris always edits from an open proxy.
Samiharris seems to admit that he uses an open proxy and explains why.  Just thought I'd poin tthat out, dunno if it matters.  daveh4h 08:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing it out. DurovaCharge! 20:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Durova's statement

message: Posting this at Jimbo's request:
"I have asked SirFozzie to quote me on-wiki because I am traveling a lot this week and will not have time to visit the issue directly until Friday.  I support that this investigation continue, and request that it be done in a kind, thoughtful, loving way, and that any trolling be dealt with firmly.  An investigation is not a negative mark against the
accounts involved, and the best possible outcome is a firm confidence that the charges are not true." SirFozzie (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad Jimbo supports the investigation, but I must take rather strong issue with his concluding thought. The "best possible outcome" is for the community to come to a firm (and accurate) conclusion about the charges - the outcome itself is only important in as much as we get it right. I hope (and would hope that everyone hopes) that we can establish the truth one way or another without fear or favor. Thus I personally don't care for Jimbo's (rather unsubtle in my opinion) cheerleading.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 03:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Email From Jimbo Wales

message: I've been following this situation but am somewhat wary of getting involved as it seems anyone who takes a view on this is in danger of being accused of being a Wordbomb sock. But I agree that, having read all the evidence, as wide a view as possible is needed from the community. One question I have is, as the sub-heading suggests, are we just treating this as a standard case of sockpuppet abuse or are we concerned about who the editor (if it is just one) behind the accounts may be? Yes, this is a Wordbomb/WR issue that they'vep had for a long time, but let's not ignore the elephant in the room just because a "badsite" keeps telling us it's there. Whitstable 17:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that we're restricting this RfC solely to the question on whether or not Mantanmoreland was socking with Samiharris.  The possible COI issues concerning Mantanmoreland's real life identity may be addressed elsewhere. Cla68 (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we not also commenting on possible other cases of sockpuppetry involving the Mantanmoreland account, when evidencing previous alleged examples to establish a possible pattern, than Samiharris? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The investigation at SirFozzie's user space included discussion of two accounts: one that was checkuser-confirmed and another that was possible per edit summaries. There's no BLP problem with exploring that here. DurovaCharge! 21:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous incidents help deflect commentary as "So-and so would never sockpuppet", or "Why would so-and-so need to sockpuppet in the first place?" If this was a crime show or court show (yeah, I'm reaching here), it would be considered A) Establishing motive and previous modus operandi. SirFozzie (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes. I believe this RfC is for the narrow factual inquiry into sockpuppeteering. Possible remedies may be discussed after this is established. Cool Hand Luke 20:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)First of all I assure you nobody has accused me of being a Wordbomb sock. ;)  And with regard to the rest of your question, there are BLP issues here.  It was my idea to ask the Foundation for advisement about whether to explore possible real world identities behind these accounts.  About a year ago I was dealing with a different situation and was starting to prepare a case to request a siteban.  The vandal had a particular affinity for a biography article and was, for various reasons, very likely the subject of that biography.  Yet he had never disclosed his identity onsite.  I received a request to take down that draft and reconstruct it without reference to a particular real world name.  So this is just following precedent. DurovaCharge! 20:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The consequences of a possible conclusion, per Bigtimepeace's outside view and my endorsement, should be very apparent to interested parties and needed saying. However, consequences should not have any impact on the conclusions and comments drawn by review of the evidence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you all for the replies and clarification - and apologies for not replying sooner. I will have a think before commenting further, if I indeed do Whitstable 22:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One good point was raised here...should Tomstoner and Lastexit be added to the list of parties? Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone give me a quick answer related to that point - Lastexit claimed here that he was Mantanmoreland's uncle and they sometimes shared a computer. Was that ever actually disproved or proved (explanation for the sock tag also in that diff)? Whitstable 23:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim was never properly followed up on. Lastexit and Tomstoner both stopped editing, (Lastexit about a week or so later), and thus the problem of multiple accounts was avoided. SirFozzie (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The previously-mentioned Mantanmoreland correction of a Tomstoner quote, without any explanation I can recall, would make me want to include the Tomstoner account, at least Whitstable 00:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  So purely a SOCK issue here? 

message: Just a question about English: The description of SamiHarris and MM´s editing pattern (That is: nr 1 starts, nr 1 stops, nr 2 starts, nr 2 stops, nr 1 starts...and so on)...isn´t that called "dovetailing" in English? Named after the Dovetail joint?  Just curious... Regards, Huldra (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would an appropriate use of the word 'dovetailing'.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, thanks! I guess we can say that dovetail-editing by two editors indicate sockpuppets -Regards, Huldra (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn´t the word "dovetailing" used in English? (Just trying to expand my vocabulary!) 

message: What is this all about? Well, for Wikipedia it is all about NPOV articles. For people trying to push a POV, it is all about making articles consistent with their preferred POV. In this case, there are two POVs that clash at many points and neither are NPOV. So what are those POVs and how do they clash? For that we need to know a little about some real-life well-connected people who pay others to influence on-line information. Some third party that disapproves of the manipulations by both sides might have a suggestion or two. Perhaps this letter published by the SEC might have a useful guess or two. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on a "community" RfC (here) that hopefully will explore the entire issue completely.  Anyone is welcome to join in and help in building it. Cla68 (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Jimbo had better come clean on this one.  I've never been angrier about something in Wikipedia than this. Cla68 (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out." WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to play semantics here, because that quote has annoyed, but "I believe" is not enough. Whitstable 12:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this all about? 

message: Ok, this RfC has definitely diverted onto a tangent and I want to address that tangent. That is in regards to a supposed Real Life identity of all the four accounts at the core of this issue. Yes, there is a common belief about the real life identity of the accounts Mantanmoreland, Tomstoner, Lastexit and Samiharris. I actually share that belief, due to evidence I've seen. But what you believe and what you can prove are two different things.
Does it matter what I believe? To a point, does it matter what Jimbo believes? If we can't prove this, it doesn't matter what our beliefs are... if they have a Real World ability to hurt and cannot be proven conclusively, then we shouldn't be saying it. That is why Durova and I asked the Foundation for guidance starting last week on this.(Unfortunately, other then the statement by Jimbo, I have not received that guidance). That's why we are focusing conservatively at the moment on linking the two accounts to each other, and disregarding for the moment, off-Wikipedia evidence or RL identity evidence.
I can't demand, but I certainly hope that we do apply the utmost care in linking these account to a real life person. SirFozzie (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: My comments

message: Having added one last section based on a suggestion from Wikback, I rest my case. A few days ago, I wasn't sure these accounts were sockpuppets, although I strongly suspected that Samiharris had a COI based on my experience at Gary Weiss. The evidence gathered is overwhelming to the point that I can't imagine any words that would explain it away.
Mantanmoreland's a sockpuppeteer, period.
I hope that Mantanmoreland stops trying Wikilawyer out of this. I hope that he posts a forthright response that begins with the words: "I have intentionally deceived the Wikipedia community over the last year because..." And I hope that he has a damn good explanation.
I remain optimistic that Mantanmoreland will still have a place editing here—he's done some good work in areas where he isn't pushing an apparent agenda—but he should immediately and fully accept responsibility for all of his past and present sockpuppets. We should impose restrictions that will end this POV war between the user and WordBomb. We should also launch an inquiry into how we allowed this to happen for so long. If the user will not admit to his abuse and aid in our inquiry, he should be banned. Cool Hand Luke 08:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm done gathering evidence

message: He claims he's never been blocked or warned about using multiple accounts.
, ,  should prove that incorrect very quickly. SirFozzie (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true. I was never received any sock warning, public or private, in September.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You were warned in July 2006.  Diffs are listed above.  Jehochman  Talk 17:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: SlimVirgin also says she told you to stop in November 2006, a couple of months before Samiharris was set up. You calling her a liar? Drop the wikilawyering, please. Cool Hand Luke 17:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not true and Sara has not said that. She suggested at that time that I stop editing certain articles at that time because of off-wiki harrassment.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: User Ptmccain was indef-blocked for restoring the info from the above diffs on Mantanmoreland's user talk page... perhaps he's another one who's owed an apology by the admins involved? *Dan T.* (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rebuttal to Mantanmoreland's response

message: The concern that the Requests for comment formalities don't really fit the nature of this debate is well-taken, I think. This really strikes me as something that belongs to one of the administrators' noticeboards, and in fact might as well be converted into a subpage of that. Related discussions have sprung up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and I have proposed there that Mantanmoreland/Samiharris be blocked, with the option of proceeding under only whichever account wasn't using open proxies. --Michael Snow (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments there, Michael. If this goes anywhere, I think it's straight to ArbCom. SirFozzie (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The locus of discussion is not an issue.  This is going to ArbCom, unless by some magic, no administrator opposes the block.  Jehochman  Talk 18:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt if there's a block it can be submitted to the arbitrators should that prove necessary, but I encourage people to review and respond to my proposal first. --Michael Snow (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Also agree. The non-proxy account was Mantanmoreland, incidentally. Cool Hand Luke 18:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the avoidance of doubt, we have reason to believe this because Samiharris said that he began using open proxies.  GRBerry 19:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to administrators' noticeboard? 

message: Head up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that this dispute has proceeded to arbitration, can we close this RfC, or are there outstanding issues here that won't be addressed by ArbCom? --Muchness (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I have delisted this RfC from WP:RFCC, as the ArbCom case has closed (see final decision). Please feel free to relist this RfC if there are still outstanding issues that need to be addressed. --Muchness (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ArbCom accepted