Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop

question from User:Whitstable

Wasn't sure where to include this but are we free to use a specific real-world name, if the need arises? I note that Jimbo did in the statement he emailed within the past 24 hours Whitstable 23:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure Rlevse will correct me if I'm wrong, but it's better not to use blp names if avoidable. That said, be clear with your presentation. If it requires names, then use them. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't use real world names. You can state you know it and are sending it to the arb com mail list (arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org) if you feel you have a legit reason to do so. I'm sure Jimbo had an extra valid reason to do what he did. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue that Mantanmoreland is claimed to be someone who in real life has a manifest COI on the articles in question is germane, but it's obviously just disruptive to give a name unless there is extremely good evidence for it-- better than what we've seen in the past. Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems the evidence is stronger now than ever before. Whitstable 19:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's really better to email specific details to the arbcom mail list. Onwiki it'd be good to say you have evidence on such and such and am emailing to arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment on order

I think it best to lay out and review evidence before proceeding to workshop. That includes allowing a reasonable interval for others to present evidence and you to review it. I know that this practice is rarely followed, but I still think it a good idea. GRBerry 14:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there are some pieces of the final decision that are known from the beginning, particularly principles and facts that are unlikely to change (such as checkuser findings). Entries that require more detail or a higher level of synthesis should wait until evidence is presented, of course. Avruch ^T 14:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

COI, pseudonymity, and assumption of risk

CharlotteWebb asked a question about the risks of undisclosed COI. A good example of that would be last year's Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS case. Checkuser had concluded that some accounts were sockpuppets, and the editors in question argued against that, and also argued that they didn't have any conflict of interest because they were unpaid volunteers for a certain religious organization. In fact they were using official Church of Scientology computers to edit Wikipedia, and sometimes forgot to log in and revealed their underlying IP addresses, and were editing the topic of - you guessed it - Scientology. I was trying to explain to them how they were running a public relations risk, but all they seemed to hear was that I was a jerk who was telling them no. That arbitration case dragged out for three months and before it was over the WikiScanner came out. And headlines and bad press actually happened. Durova^Charge! 23:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether you were referring to negative real-world publicity and/or loss of the community's trust for doing something which, while unethical, doesn't actually violate policy. The other possible interpretation is that it does actually violate policy, but 9 times out of 10, other users either will not realize what's going on or will have some practical reason not to acknowledge it, making actual enforcement rare. It's an obvious gamble in either case, and I suppose these these interpretations are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive (except for the overwhelming question of whether policy is actually being violated, or at the end of the day, whether it even matters). Thank you for clarifying here, but perhaps you could also expand the "proposed principle" to make it clearer, because I feel like I've been trying to solve a riddle here even though it sounds like you didn't mean to create one. Also it looks like at least one other user interpreted the principle differently than you intended [1]. — CharlotteWebb 12:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It really works both ways. Too often, people take a myopic view of conflict of interest. When it comes to COI, site processes matter, yet they pale in comparison to the related real world consequences of exposure. And when people have acted deviously, they look worse then the exposure happens. Durova^Charge! 12:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The trust of the community is of utmost importance. Publicity, whether for WP, or for individuals, and whether positive or negative, is simply to be bought and sold, is then a tawdry thing, of dissembling and unctiousness, and is no substitute for integrity. Chasing publicity, or trying to manage it a la some totalitarian regime is unsuccessful, in the long run. Newbyguesses - Talk 14:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Voting

I've noticed a trend of people saying they support or endorse or oppose each proposal - I'd like to point out that there are only 14 people whose vote counts, and they have their own page in which to do so. —Random832 20:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

People are allowed to comment on participant proposals. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly comments are more helpful to the Arbitrators than simple votes, though. Why do you support/oppose? Thatcher 21:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought that was weird. I haven't used it in previous ArbComs, but I noticed others using it so picked it up a little. It helps readers size up the positions quickly, at least. Cool Hand Luke 22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if i may have been one of those, but I think i put reasons for all my comments. The arbitrators sum up ,after parties and others give input, is my understanding. Did not mean to step on any toes.Newbyguesses - Talk 22:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think editors get in the habit of starting their comment with a support, oppose, or comment/neutral because that's what we do in other project forums. We state our opinion on the matter at hand then explain why we feel that way. Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support! Weird or not, I like the way it makes it easier to distinguish comments when you're looking over the mass of gray prose, and when you see a slew of "oppose" or "support" words in boldface, it gives you an idea that there's a consensus among interested Wikipedians (or not). Yeah, we all know it's what committee members think that counts, and they're certainly free to laugh at the rest of us in private, but it still feels comfortable to me, and that's why I do it. I like the bullets, too. Noroton (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with noroton, though I'm haphazard about using the convention. Sometimes proposals cry out for support or oppose sometimes they don't. I would also like to commend everyone involved so far, this is the least editorially contentious arbcomm hearing I've paid close attention to. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw it used in the first couple of ArbComs I participated in, and generally follow the practice. It does establish the platform on which subsequent remarks made. In those cases where I neither support or oppose I generally use comment to distinguish that that is what it is. Here, I just follow the convention of the proposer of first respondee. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The content of the comments is more important than any particular verbal formula that may be used. If I am reviewing a proposed finding of fact, one "oppose" citing a diff proving that the finding is incorrect will outweigh ten unreasoned "supports." On the other hand, if I am working on the wording of a principle, the fact that a number of well-informed users support a given formulation can be very helpful information. So, editors who have taken the time to study up on a case should please provide their input in whatever format strikes them as reasonable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

JzG's statements

I would like a check on whether I am overreacting, but it seems to me that JzG's recent statement should at the least be refactored along with either a stern warning or a request that he stop posting in this arbitration. I understand emotions, but this follows on his adding evidence which consisted of a number of similar attacks as well as a link to a clearly unreliable source for evidence that Bagley is a "vile agenda-driven troll." That issue was then discussed in detail on the evidence talk page,[2] before JzG removed it with the statement that "User:Cla68 makes the case against Bagley far more powerfully than I could. It's very subtle use of irony, and tyook me a while to spot." Following this, he has now added a statement that WordBomb should not be allowed to comment in this arbitration because he committed "blackmail." To be clear, I don't see why WordBomb needs to present evidence in this arbitration and am not aware that he has asked, but these statements from JzG are making a mockery of Wikipedia's principles. I regret suggesting this, but it seems there is a very significant disconnect here that needs to be addressed. Mackan79 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• For crying out loud! Ask user:SlimVirgin for the original email. WordBomb attempted to blackmail an administrator when his attempt to abuse Wikipedia to promote his agenda was rebuffed. This is a simple statement of fact! I can think of very few banned users whose ban is more unambiguously correct. If you want to make a mockery out of Wikipedia's principles, unblock WordBomb. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem is that throughout this, people have kept making completely unnecessary allegations about a person that can't even be addressed. You say without any sourcing that he's committed blackmail, and now this is a fact? The last time you did this, you even went on to acknowledge that it wasn't relevant and thus that nobody needed to respond.
  • At least if we are discussing it, I have seen the email that you are talking about and that you linked to earlier; I think this can be discussed without making categorical statements that someone committed blackmail. For that matter, I can also see how someone would have been offended. Unfortunately what we haven't seen is any of the context that led up to it, or any of the other background. WordBomb suggests that the email followed him sending her unequivocal proof of Mantan's sockpuppetry in the form of the mistaken edit as Tomstoner, and yet that SV still claimed the evidence lacked substance. It's also evident from WB's talk page that she specifically said he was wrong about his claim when she protected his talk page. Is there any evidence, for that matter, that he was trying to get her to do anything illegitimate? At this point I think we can say that his actual claim was correct; is there any reason to think he wanted anything more than for this to be acknowledged? I am no expert in blackmail, but at least the Wikipedia article tells me that a statement is not blackmail if the person believes it is a legitimate action and a legitimate demand. If he had what he considered strong evidence that SV was at the least trying to protect a friend, and evidence of wrongdoing that he felt he was entitled to share, it seems to me this could very well be true.
  • Of course all of this is extremely tangential, and a discussion from no real evidence. This is part of why I think it's clearly the type of accusation that shouldn't be made unless we are actually going to discuss it. On that, I'll let you or anyone respond. Mackan79 (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To JzG/GUY/ : re Ask user:SlimVirgin for the original email. :wrong, it is not a matter of asking, if the email is not supplied here, it is not evidence, and proves nothing, except that you continue to make unsupported allegation and attacks.

and re This is a simple statement of fact! :Wrong, if the email is not supplied here, it is not evidence, and proves nothing.

and re If you want to make a mockery out of Wikipedia's principles :Please dont, just stop it. Do you understand even the simplest concept of evidence, and fairness? Newbyguesses - Talk 00:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

To everyone: The ban of wordbomb is not at issue, yet. One thing at a time, please. The issues around wordbomb deserve their own arbcomm hearing separate from this one. Let's finish with mantanmoreland and what ever administrative slaps on the wrist others should get, then look at wordbomb's ban and if it should be lifted. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that we are considering he-who-might-be-GW's identity as presenting a COI problem, I cannot imagine why we're worrying about Wordbomb all that much, seeing as how it is established fact that he has a huge COI on the disputed articles and has been blatant in applying his bias to them. Mangoe (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Point of order

Evidence sent directly to Arbcom is evidence, too, and can be done to protect the privacy of people involved. One does not have to out ones email address here on Wikipedia in order to show evidence of receiving harrassing emails - they can be sent to admins, or in the case of an arbcom case in confidence to Arbcom.

The assertion that evidence must all be posted is just wrong. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Any evidence regarding "blackmail" or other allegations of grave misbehavior, quotations from e-mails whose publication has not been authorized by the sender, and the like, may be e-mailed to the Arbitration Committee and will be considered as appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's up to the persons who received it to submit it or not, but... is it necessarily even relevant, given that it's misbehavior by Wordbomb, not Mantanmoreland or Samiharris?

Wordbomb isn't a named party here, and really shouldn't be - regardless of what he's done, the questions here are about what Mantanmoreland and Samiharris did, whether they're both GW and whether they're socks. If someone wants to claim that abuse justified hiding a COI issue behind a pseudonym, then they have some burden of proof to show Arbcom that they had reasonable fears of or experience with that abuse. Nobody has publically claimed that to my knowledge, but could, or could have directly to Arbcom. Tu Quoqe (spelled that right?) would still apply of course. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't about WordBomb, although I continue to strongly disagree with the characterizations that are applied only to one side based on inadequate and unreliable information. Mackan79 (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Apropos recuse

This gives reason to serious concerns imo. An arbitrator who cannot even maintain the basic decorum while having a strong opinion should most definitely recuse themselves out of respect for the process and the community. User:Dorftrottel 06:58, February 20, 2008

I'd say that the proposed decisions and resulting votes are going to be very interesting. Too bad we don't have a read-only view of their (presumably) ongoing case discussion. There seems to be some emotional investment in this case with at least a couple of the arbitrators. Cla68 (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WordBomb is not a party to this case. Bias against him is not grounds for recusal. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe this may be one of those cases that involves a lot of private discussion among the ArbCom members before they start posting their decisions so we need to just be patient, wait, and not bicker among ourselves on the case talk pages in the meantime. Cla68 (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If I read that right, JPG said that people are being paid to write for WB? Who is doing that? R. Baley (talk) 07:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WB is an openly acknowledged PR department employee of Overstock.com, and operates a website (now aledgedly hosted elsewhere, but for a while hosted on Overstock.com servers) that contains personal identifying information and various stalking of Wikipedia admins. WB is not paying to edit Wikipedia - (at this point, mostly harrass from afar rather than edit directly, though no doubt there are some undetected socks or meatpuppet associates out there somewhere), he's being paid to bother Wikipedia as part of his job duties, by the president of Overstock.com , who is a longtime Wikipedia critic. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I tire of this nonsense. Find a reliable source that says precisely that or I redact it from this page per WP:BLP. Can all you people not back off a bit? Or learn to moderate your language or hedge your bets? Relata refero (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Relata refero. I'll also say I have seen no stalking on any such website, nor have I ever seen the statement supported in any way. I am not sure why these statements continue to be made or for that matter permitted. Mackan79 (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I have not advocated the unblocking of WB. (redact my own comment. 09:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)) That there may be other socks 'out there' is not the issue (here anyway). On the project page, the unblock request reads, "Request that WordBomb be unblocked in order to be able to publicly present evidence with the condition that he only edit pages in this case. In response to this request JPG responded saying, "The people who have previously been acting as this banned user's amanuensis are certainly capable of continuing to do so" (italics mine). This clearly implies that people involved in this case are acting as paid proxies for WB. Surely he didn't mean to say that, but if he did who? And if they are, why are they not blocked? I hope that I am missing something here (it's happened before). R. Baley (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Bias against WordBomb is not grounds for recusal." — Maybe. How about bias and personal attacks against regular Wikipedia contributors in good standing? But ok, Cla68 is indeed right. User:Dorftrottel 07:45, February 20, 2008

This does not appear to be relevant to the stated scope of the case, which is "MM / SH / GW - sockpuppetry or not?". Either the case is as stated, or it's wider or another case needs to be filed for the wider issues, and the wider case has different conflicts of interest associated with it than the stated case. Asking people to recuse before the scope is determined to be one in which recusal might matter is premature at best. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The comment is still a point of concern for me. User:Dorftrottel 08:19, February 20, 2008

I think it's a metaphor - i.e. he's not actually claiming anyone here is being paid to edit on WordBomb's behalf. However, the comment is still absolutely unacceptable. I don't see that he should be recused from this case, but he should definitely be recused from any hypothetical future actions (including RFCUs and blocks) involving accusations that someone is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of WordBomb. —Random832 15:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought - I don't think he's capable of judging this case properly if he holds (as he has demonstrated) the false belief that this is all coming from a banned user. He should recuse. —Random832 15:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:GWH's statements this has nothing to do with this case: I think that taking an over simplified view of this case is a way of making sure this never gets settled. This is a very complex case. I note that there are a lot of eyes watching and waiting for a stumble and therefore a headline for their next article. Statements here are being watched by people with a real life stake in this. Off color statements that would normally be acceptable are going to raise eyebrows, much like the fact that arbitrators (which outsiders will equate with the "judges") participated in a support group[3] for parties to this case. This is going to be very confusing for some people. I say we should minimize the confusion of outsiders by taking an active role in minimizing the appearance of bias, but obviously those who "call the shots" disagree. We'll see how that turns out. daveh4h 18:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Question of bias

re- Georgewilliamherbert, Why are some editors (including yourself) being so coy about naming, and alluding to , Gar- Weis-, yet are taking every oppotunity to bag Bagley, call anti-societynet.com evil, and bash Bailey, and Byrne (Pardon if I spell some names wrong, will correct if necessary nbg).

This double standard is not helping to dispel the perception of bias on the part of a number of, or group of editors towards Mantanmoreland and his sock-farm, which is puzzling to understand. Can you explain this to me, why it is OK to make the most vulgar innuendos about wordbomb, trolling, rape and the like have been bandied about. Someone must have a wierd idea of BLP, or is it just bias?

Are you saying that all RL ref's or whatever it was that Crum375 objected to should come out of evidence, or are you saying it is OK for them to be there. User:GWH, you have them in your sections, you know. What do you think should be done?

Diffs

DIFF JzG's recent statement and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cool_Hand_Luke&diff=193190239&oldid=192989263 MM is a "damned liar". + + Please refactor that in a way that doesn't breach WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, etc. You can make the point without being rude or insulting. etc http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Newbyguesses/Sandbox&diff=193747019&oldid=193709461 DIFF

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cool_Hand_Luke&diff=prev&oldid=193667023 DIFF]

Revision as of 11:27, 24 February 2008 (edit) (undo)

Revision as of 10:41, 24 February 2008 (edit) (undo)

Revision as of 00:26, 24 February 2008 (edit) (undo)

re Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Revision as of 11:51, 22 February 2008 (edit) (undo)

Sign/Time

Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 19:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP policy being rewritten as we speak

====BLP policy being rewritten as we speak ====DIFF

Much thanks for your expertise, Benjiboi. I was surprised not to find such a policy as part of this project but it is good to know it is part of the Manual of Style. And thanks also for the clean-up of the article in question. TechBear (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

DIFF

02:53, 12 February 2008 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) (31,086 bytes) (→Reliable sources: questionable sources should not be used at all for living persons, not just handled with caution) (undo)

DIFF

05:59, 13 February 2008 Crum375 (Talk | contribs) (31,086 bytes) (No, we don't use questionable sources for BLP) (undo)

etc...... Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 23:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

from WP:BLP

Using the subject as a self-published source

Main page: WP:SELFPUB

Self-published material may be used in BLPs if written by the subject themself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published.

A blog or personal website self-published by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section if not used as a source in the article.

---

Entered into evidence, in the expectation that any portion of our policies that are relevant to this RfAr are likely to be extensively re=written duting the case, thus effectively changing the ground rules, which, I am sure the arbs are able to deal with. Newbyguesses - Talk 08:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Formatting request

Can we please delete the many unused templates on the workshop page? They are interfering with locating the substantive material. Mangoe (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As for the ones for injunctions and such: No. As for the ones in each participants section: It's up to that participant. As for the totally unused two, they're for new participants. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That is an unhelpfully legalistic attitude. Out of 194 headers, 53 are titled "Template", and a fair number of the rest are simply higher level headers for those. Even if it is up to the individuals, they ought to delete this stuff; it is simply too hard to read this page, because a significant chunk of it is not content, interspersed with the substance. Mangoe (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Our experience is that when there are no blank templates, newcomers to the arbitration process have trouble figuring out how to add new proposals. But if there is a very excessive number of extras, anyone can delete them or comment them out. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the misleading perception that I wished to delete them all. With your permission I will go through and delete some of the extraneous examples. Mangoe (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I will delete any unused sections in "my" spaces - I don't think the lightbulb is going to flicker further for me on this one. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Some comments

Quite a few editors are concerned by an appearance of favoritism or partiality toward Mantanmoreland and Samiharris. So here's a candid overview. I had nothing to do with the earlier Naked short selling arbitration case or with the Gary Weiss/Overstock.com disputes until quite late in the situation.

Some rumors about a particular editor supposedly being a spy reached Slashdot and got a lot of traffic there. And although I don't know that editor personally (and had encountered some difficulties working with her), that particular scenario looked like the most ridiculous thing that had ever come out of certain quarters. So I posted to Slashdot in her defense. Not too long afterward a cyberstalking mailing list got established because the harassment against certain volunteers really had reached absurd levels. It was in this context that I first encountered Mantanmoreland and Samiharris. As a latecomer to the issue, it did not occur to me to question whether these were separate people until Jimbo Wales did. Assume good faith is the default condition, and when his concerns were settled enough to accept good faith of these accounts as a working hypothesis my concerns were settled also. This description paints in somewhat broad strokes; I don't follow Jimbo's opinion blindly. Yes, some side discussions did occur around that time and I considered doing a sock investigation on the two accounts' edit histories. A lot of things compete for my time, though, and the surrounding factors just didn't rise to the level where serious research appeared likely to be worthwhile.

When I saw the checkuser report that one account always used TOR nodes, that changed my mind. I had implemented a userblock in part based upon the good faith assumption that both accounts were unrelated and had no conflict of interest, so that obligated me to raise questions once serious doubt came to my attention about whether that was accurate. Some people subscribe to the notion that an inner cabal runs Wikipedia. Well in my experience that just isn't so; it's not our function to take sides in other people's business disputes. Different people saw the same things I saw from another perspective, or weighed it differently, and I respect that. One significant factor in my decision to accept the sockpuppet accusations as at least credible was that I didn't rule out the connection on the basis of prose styles. That's a choice I made based in part on my own graduate school training in writing and most other people have a different education.

To the best of my knowledge, both Samiharris and Mantanmoreland have steadfastly denied all speculations of conflict of interest and meat/sockpuppetry. So far as I am aware, nobody who helped or defended these accounts elected to ignore positive confirmation of anything. We've each evaluated this situations to the best of our separate abilities and reached our own individual decisions. Durova^Charge! 06:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet another excellent comment from you. However, to reply to the specific point: The suspicion has been out there for quite some time now, and most of the evidence (including e.g. the Varkala situation) have been —theoretically, for someone determined to find out— available for a long time. In my humble opinion, this could and should have been reason enough not to defend Mantanmoreland's actions at every turn, let alone dismiss every concern (policy-incompatible as it may have been brought forth) as Overstock-sock/meatpuppeting. Occasional intervention by a large group of experienced users I could and would certainly ignore. But that's not how it looks. It's a very small group of very experienced and intelligent people constantly having intervened on Mantanmoreland's behalf. That is a whole lot harder to simply ignore.

That said, I personally admire the uncompromising neutrality with which you approach the matter. OTOH, it makes it all the more apparent and worrisome that there still are more or less entrenched camps. To the defense for the "prosecutors' camp" in this case, I have to annotate that at least some comments on the "other side" are still arguing in the Overstock-meatpuppetry direction, which —in the context of the above— is indeed shocking. I for one would appreciate if more people (who are certainly lurking on these pages) came out of the wikiwoodworks and provided neutral comments and assessment on the matter and their own past involvement as far as applicable. Everyone makes mistakes and they can be forgiven if admitted. Insisting on them through silence or continued argumentation/lawyering in the Overstock-meatpuppetry direction is what is primarily worrisome to me. User:Dorftroffel 13:56, February 22, 2008

Another thing. Regarding Evidence#Retaliation and personal attacks: Trying to be neutral or at least giving the impression of it is the minimum that can be expected of experienced admins, and as I attempted to outline above, I'm hard-pushed to believe either has been the case throughout the story. However, a whole other level is what I encountered when I first became aware of the entire thing (also including, ironically, all those attack sites) at Cla68's RfA. Some of what happened there goes far far up and beyond any possible excuses as to the appearance of not being entirely neutral. What happened there was aggressive retaliation. As it finally turns out now, Cla68 and others were indeed right and their concerns spot-on. And what happened there is nothing uncommon when someone dares to disagree. Things like that make it virtually impossible for me to assume truly neutral decision-making and according actions as based purely on good-faithed assessment of the available information. Far from it. User:Dorftroffel 14:53, February 22, 2008

Well said, Durova. When I first found this mess/noticed it in I believe late November I thought it was just a basic BLP matter. I'd found it either off of BLPN or ANI, I can't recall which. Up until this week I'd basically been on the "Mantan and Sami side" after some longer discussions with Sami. I think I had one prior discussion with Mantan--all encounters with both/him/whomever were very positive. It wasn't until I really looked at the mountain of compiled statistical evidence that everyone kept redoing and refocusing, and the finale (for me) of Ananlyst's 3000 edit comparison that led me to post my section. I want to believe otherwise, but, quack. The fact that Mantan's defense seems to be functionally, "Byrne is out to get me, Bagley is out to get me, Overstock is out to get me," and the fact that Mantan specifically went after Patrick Byrne himself on-Wiki, like he was Weiss, was the trifecta for my belief. 1) Volumes of statistical data that no one has refuted to my satisfaction yet combined with a history of abusive puppetry I was previously unaware of; 2) A defense by Mantanmoreland that is functionally a Scooby-Doo defense: "I'd have gotten away with it if not for you meddling Overstockers,"; 3) the ever-growing confluence of circumstantial or obvious evidence to point to Mantanmoreland = Weiss. On #3, before anyone reminds me that some of it was or wasn't gathered "ethically", I agree and understand. However, once a cat or open secret is out of the bag, we can't put blinders on about it. I really want Mantan/Sami to post a good defense on why he should be able to stay as one account only, because I think his/Weiss's fantastic knowledge of financial topics is invaluable to us. So long as he's kept off any and all articles to do with himself, DTCC, naked shorting, or Byrne's ventures, due to his history of using sockpuppetry to conceal COI, and advance his agendas. Lawrence § t/e 14:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Marseille soap is very useful for lovestruck French skunks. A clean approach always helps.

One of the problems when someone lets a cat out of the bag in an unethical manner is that, until the observers take the clothespins off their noses, there's no way to tell whether it's a cat or a painted skunk. When the whole thing stinks, it's only natural to react like Penelope Pussycat. There's a slim chance Pepé Le Pew might really be a great French lover, but she doesn't want to stick around and find out. If he'd just take a bath before strolling the Champs-Élysées, he'd have an easier time getting l'amour. Durova^Charge! 22:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, a painted skunk? Is that like putting lipstick on a pig? — CharlotteWebb 05:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Replyb to u:Durova re some comments

The clerks can't be online every minute of the day; nobody can. agree nbg

It's better to err on the side of caution where BLP is concerned, even regarding someone you don't like. hmmm nbg

the actions taken here are likely to set the tone for how future cases of that type get handled. complete bollocks says nbg

Please bear the big picture in mind. note

If you want this type of issue to get addressed effectively and consistently, then don't tank the effort over small stuff. note

Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 20:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few editors are concerned by an appearance of favoritism or partiality toward Mantanmoreland and Samiharris. (user:Durova, above)

Oh, yes, but how many is that? (nbg added) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbyguesses (talk • contribs) 23:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

AND RE: It's better to err on the side of caution where BLP is concerned, even regarding someone you don't like. hmmm nbg ,

This argument falls down if "one side' in the BADSITES debate consistently insist upon removing any so-called BLP violations from other sections of evidence, while continuing to make PERSONAL ATTACKS in "their" evidence. It is a question of bias or of percieved BIAS, or, in fact, of systemic bias. Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 20:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Urgent announcement

The primary purpose of the evidence, workshop, and talkpages for arbitration cases is to enable editors to present information that will assist the Arbitration Committee in reaching a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of the case.

Over the past couple of days, the percentage of comments falling into this category, on all sides, has been diminishing. Posts, from any point of view, which are primarily intended to score debating points are not helpful, particularly when they are reiterating the point for an nth time. My sense is that most of the relevant evidence has been submitted and points have been made. A reasonable degree of restraint on the part of all contributors is urged. (Please do, however, comment on my new proposed principles.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

page protected

My comment, that the /Evidence page was protected; lucky me, I was off-line, I think.

DIFF

If asked to withdraw, or correct

My brain hurts. Yes, i am happy to do a re-write, please let me know if there are any further concerns. Rather than strike or [redact] or <--! comment out --> i am inclined on this occasion to simply delete the comments. OK?

Wikipedia, a real encyclopedia

Is Wikipedia a real encyclopedia? Of course it is, but, as is the way of the world, it is a flawed one. The evidence presented to this Rfa supports that conclusion. however, the benefits of providing a free, on-line encyclopedia are enormous, and well worth the effort. Conceivably, in time, the veracity of information provided at the most prestigious and trustworthy sites (and WPwill be one of these trustworthy sites) will approach that of book learning and scholarly journals.

Publicity is a curse

It is a simple equation really.

Integrity and Publicity are simply incompatible.

Where money is, there hypocrisy will surely be found.

The love of money is the root of all evil. Newbyguesses - Talk 06:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Question to clerk, arbitrators, concerning DIFFs

When a DIFF is added either to /Evidence, /Workshop or talk/Ev. and talk/Works., it is evidence, then, considered as entered and forming a part of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland, which the arbitrators are then entitled to consider in their deliberations, resulting in findings, etc. DIFFs are indeed the most trustworthy evidence, I think. (That is, if the DIFF is pertinent to the issues under consideration.)

Now, (Q1) is the EDIT SUMMARY of that DIFF considered as entered into Evidence?

If the contents of that diff, as is quite usual, consists of, among other things, more DIFF(s),

(Q2) are those DIFFs, and their edit summaries (if pertinent to the issue, etc.) also considered then as enterered into Evidence?

And, finally, {for now), if the ORIGINAL, or subsequent pertinent diff(s), contain a LINK(s) (internal, or external) to a page, whose contents is either generally or specifically pertinent to the issue(s) at hand

(Q3), is the contents of THAT PAGE also, in some way, to come into consideration as Evidence?

Thankyou, Arbitrators, clerk, and respected editors, may i commend one and all for the level of civility and co-operation which has been exhibited to date at AfAr/Mantan ? Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a formal judicial proceeding where we obsess about what is or is not "part of the record." The purpose of these pages is primarily to provide evidence and views that the arbitrators can utilize in reaching a fair, well-informed, and expeditious decision in the case. Evidence should be formatted for the primary purpose of being easy for the arbitrators and other participants in the case to understand, especially in a case where there has been as much input as this one. For example, we can read any page or link or diff on Wikipedia that we think is relevant, but we aren't necessarily likely to do it unless someone asks us to and suggests why it may be important. In other words, if an editor posts a diff, it's not realistic or sensible for us to expect that we are going to read the whole history of the page that was edited if no one suggests a reason to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou, that is quite as I expected. The first comment made, This is not a formal judicial proceeding where we obsess about what is or is not "part of the record." as usual, by arbitrator User:Newyorkbrad is the most telling point. Thanks, again. Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 00:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Wikipedia has a fairly liberal view as to what constitute a reliable source. In the case of on-line (External) links, sources for BLP articles can include self-published material by the subject of the Article, and then other BLOGS, and postings to obscure sites, get included as "reliable sources". Folks, as SBHarris has pointed out, when the person on whom an article has been created is only semi-notable, ie Weiss, Byrne, and etc. then there will be a lot of chat about them, maybe, on BLOGs and such, but very little or none in what would ordinarily be classified as reliable sources. Such as, commentary by established writers in mainstream media, national newspapers, and of course, any book, whose publication by a reliable source, unconnected with the subject or the subjects opponents at least indicates that neutrality, and scholarship may have been employed. Whether the material is generally "positive" or "negative" is generally irrelevant, unless the insult be totally egregious.

It seems that the desperate attempt by some nobodies to achieve an undeserved high profile, carried out ON-WIKI, has led to much of this present drama (BADSITES, and whether links to "naughty words" are allowed, not the MM/LE/TS/SH sockpuppeting, which is well-established); and the reason for most of this drama is that the original instance, of banning and then silencing Wordbomb, by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs), was carried out poorly, and exhibited quite bad judgement. And this poor judgement was permitted to prevail, or rail-roaded through, up to the point where the general community revolted against the BADSITES failed policy, since the gist of the BADSITES policy was an ill-conceived attempt to ignore honesty, decency, fairness and natural law. Why?

That a respected admin might have gone right out of their way to protect an obvious sock (it is obvious if you take the time to look, and it would have been obvious at the time, I dont think it took Fred Bauder long to work it out) instead of just going BANG block, on gut-feeling and/or either bias or collusion with MM/"Weiss?" is unfortunate. Poor judgement so long ago would of course be no reason for present sanction, except if the error continues to be committed, and ordinary editors unjustifiably be exposed to ridicule, or censure, or threatened, as Cla68 (talk · contribs) was, and these personal attacks left to stand, and spoil an editor's chances of succededing at Rfa, (which happened to Cla68), because a particular admin is incapable of admitting mistakes, and has a posse of compliant editors to back up their otherwise unsound position. This type of thing, if proved to have occurred, would be an obvious breah of WP:Sockpuppets, which includes the concept of meatpuppets.

Under those circumstances, someone may have to look at inposing blocks on editors who conspire to create a false sense of consensus on articles or on any WP:talk page, as seems to be a strong feeling among those editors providing and commenting on evidence here to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland. And, seeing as the MM/SH sockpuppeting finding is pretty much "done and dusted", beyond doubt, the arbs are in a position if they choose, to address the other significant matters raised at this forum, in particular the personal attacks made against Cla68, and any other editor who was treated poorly, and suffered as a consequence.

In terms of building an encyclopedia, the mis-treatment of editors ON-WIKI can have a devastating effect; in contrast the OFF-WIKI outing of some thin-skinned person's dress size, or hair colour or irrelevant personal details such as maybe denying to own a business, are totally minor matters, not within the jurisdiction I would think of the Board, although i absolutely assert the right of other editors to believe otherwise, and rationally argue the point, and of the arbs to consider evidence and state their own conclusions, certainly to be far more well-reasoned and authoritive than the personal views i have expressed here. Which I, or others, can certainly back up with DIFFs. Indeed i think such DIIFFs have already been supplied in evidence for the Arbs. to consider. Thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly urgent -- need Arbcom/Clerk clarification on BLP

Is the investigation angle and evidence involving Weiss, Varkala, highlighted by the various forms of public evidence on the Evidence page, and sections such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop#The Varkala situation a violation of WP:BLP as now asserted by User:Mantanmoreland? Lawrence § t/e 18:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not quite what's happened here. You've said that I've committed "BLP violations against Byrne" in discussing the widely publicized Overstock harassment campaign. Since there are blatant BLP violations against Weiss all over these pages, my feeling is that if my Evidence section violates BLP, all those many sections, some authored by you, that use OR (such as user-generated charts) to make accusations against Weiss must be revisited and dealt with consistently.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And I'm explicitly not disputing that possibility, but it is not your decision nor mine. This needs to be answered by the AC or Clerks ASAP so we can move past this issue in some direction. Bickering over it between users not in any position to decide (regular users, nor regular admins) is pointless. Lawrence § t/e 19:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: "...widely publicized Overstock harassment campaign." Widely publicized by Arbcom? Is there evidence stating that Weiss did something like harassment? Or are you suggesting that evidence against yourself as a party to this arbcom is a BLP vio? Remember, you're not Gary Weiss! The argument is confusing me. I think you need to be very specific about the BLP vios about Weiss (or BLP vios against yourself, whatever you are contending) if you truly want attention to this matter. If I am misreading your words I apologize. daveh4h 19:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom has already addressed that point in a previous arbitration. The operator of a site that harasses Wikipedians, banned User:WordBomb, is acknowledged to be Judd Bagley, director of communications for Overstock.com. He acknowledges it right on his site. "This site is maintained by Judd Bagley."--Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat that ArbCom's finding was a reduction of Mantanmoreland's own proposal, before the evidence in this case was presented.[4] I'd also suggest that citing circumspect comments from ArbCom as support for bold allegations in subject headings is problematic. If MM wants to present this as his defense for apparent sockpuppetry (while claiming not actually to be Weiss), I think that's up to him, but at some point it does get out of hand. Mackan79 (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My own proposal? Excuse me, but I think the Arbcom had a whole lot more to go on. To clarify, this is not being brought up as a defense against sockpuppetry, as mitigation, or anything like that. It is relevant to Arbcom's job of examining the behavior of all parties.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not clear on what the complaint is or what the desired action is. Is there another thread somewhere that this was spun off from? I think it is very likely that the entire case will be courtesy blanked to history once the voting is over, but what is the concern at this time? Thatcher 21:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• In this mess of a section, Mantanmoreland repeatedly asserted that the "original research" investigation into ties between himself and Gary Weiss were a BLP violation against Gary Weiss. If true, that would mean that no COI or abuse investigation would (in theory) ever be possible for this sort of thing on anyone. That seems to be the crux of it. Lawrence § t/e 21:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See my reply to Lawerence above. This is his baby, his drama. He was upset that I engaged in "BLP violations" concerning Patrick Byrne. My response was that A) I did not and B) If I did, then all the obvious BLP violations on these pages, including the ones that Crum just got blocked for removing in Evidence, need to be dealt with.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not clear to me what exactly is being said here. But one thing is sure. BLP is a policy that is quite a lot more defined than some have tried to interpret it. BLP does not mean "if it might be negative or discomfiting, delete it". A lot of negative material will completely meet BLP. So will many assertions that whilst implying negatively about a person, are in fact sourced, fair, and neutrally stated, for example. BLP means precisely what it says: unsourced and poorly sourced biographical material about a living person may be deleted. (Deleted can also include "rewritten to meet BLP".) It also says that we act conservatively if unsure. If anyone feels a specific statement, about an identified, living, person, is a negative, unsourced statement on these pages, then the first recourse for unquestionable cases is to remove it. For cases where doubt or genuine differing views may exist, another (almost as quick) option might be simply to identify the issue to its author, and ask its author to refactor it to address the point in question. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the evidence and workshop pages for 24 hours pending a determination by Arbcom. It is clear that both pages no longer serve their intended purpose, to assist Arbcom in assessing the case. I have to believe that both the addition of the link to Byrne's blog, and its removal, were intended to disrupt, since the committee has already announced that the link is known to them, and given the fact that most of what is there will not be acceptable as evidence per the Arbitration policy. Likewise the workshop is no longer a forum for reasonable discussion of various alternative proposals.

I strongly advise that no one other than an Arbitrator lift the protection. In the meantime I think the Arbitrators and clerks need to think about issuing some page bans for editors whose comments fall the farthest outside the expectations for the pages. If the Arbitrators feel that these pages may still serve a useful purpose they will likely lift the protection; I personally would have no concerns about leaving the protection indefintely; 600KB+ of evidence and argument seems like a sufficient foundation for a decision, and I have doubts about whether further interactions among the discussants will actually shed additional light on the resolution of this matter. Thatcher 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally support this action by Thatcher and his comments. As a side note, things were happening so fast I had trouble keeping up, so I truly appreciate the help. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I support Thatcher's action. It would be my preference that any signed statements by Wikipedians that are related to the case be left intact. This would be true even for comments that are only remotely related to the case. I would ask that editors consider that WP:LIVING is about unsourced derogatory assertions. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree about protecting these pages, indefinitely if need be, but I did want to add some more evidence to counter some of the misrepresentations that have been made about my editing history.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If the pages are indef prot'd, I'm sure there will be evidence submission alternatives. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I think protecting the Workshop was overdue and that it should be indeffd.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Thatcher's decision. If protection is necessary to maintain decorum, then so be it. Durova^Charge! 22:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This action by Thatcher has my complete support. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor comment - Just to say this on the record - I did not include the links originally with any intent to disrupt (I feel that it's legitimately related to the potential that there was manipulated or falsified evidence). I have completely avoided participating in the disruptive edit warring regarding the links in various sections since, though... Yuck. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand this action by Thatcher, but I am only a newby. I certainly support the arbitrators, and understand that the best course is to wait for their decision. But, Thatcher, if you are saying that 300K of /Evidence is enough to decide the case, then why bother having a workshop in the first place? I am only a newby, but I was taking this seriously. It is a great disappointment to me that BOTH pages have had to be protected, and I had nothing to do with either edet-war. As it happens, I still have further evidence, and proposals to make. But I am content to leave this up to the arbs. that is the correct course, so thankyou all for your help. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the workshop is to help the Arbitrators by giving them feedback and a sense of the community's view of the case (or, of how the community is divided). When the workshop breaks down into "Yes you are!" "Am not!" "Are too!" then its value in fulfilling that purpose is greatly diminished. I am considering whether to leave it protected, unprotect it with a warning, or unprotect it with some selective page bans. 24 hours is not all that long for an enforced time-out. Thatcher 02:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest a warning to the parties whose actions led to the page protection, to be followed by a block and a page ban if any problem resumes? Durova^Charge! 03:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly a viable option, but I'd like to see what the arbs do within the next day or so. I'm not ruling out the option of extending the protection if I don't hear from the arbs. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The only real solution here is for us to get the case into voting and closed. I hope to post a proposed decision within the next day or two. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The cordial scene of a typical Wikipedia arbitration case.

I hope that nothing interferres with working on it. I'm sure the "Board of Outerdarkness Where There is Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth" will also apprciate an end to this eppisode, so they can get back to their own concerns as well. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Piperdown unblocked

Just a note to point out that this arbcom case has already helped correct one injustice...Piperdown's account was just unblocked [5]. I hope someone acting in an "official" capacity for Wikipedia/Wikimedia will step up and apologize to him if the official who imposed the original block is unable or unwilling to do so. Cla68 (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)