Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:36, 19 February 2008

Lets get started

Just a note saying that I'm ready to start presenting evidence, but would like to give the named parties a chance to present theirs first. In other words, lets get to it. Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

my advice is that if you've got it ready, just leave blank sections at the top for the named folks to use....better to get it out there so there's plenty of time to look at it and refine it (IMO). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm going to assemble at least some of it on a userpage sandbox before I formally present it so it will be ready for primetime when posted. Cla68 (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence, especially if it is well-organized and not duplicative, is very welcome from any user. There is no need for any user to wait or particular order in which the evidence needs to be submitted. Our only request is that everyone submit his or her evidence or comments within no later than one week of the case opening so that our decision can be issued in as timely a fashion as possible consistent with a thorough review. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead

I am pretty despondent at this point.

I doubt that a committee that serves at the pleasure of Jimbo would disagree with him.

I used similar sorts of evidence as previous sockpuppet inquiries. I imagined that adding user comparisons would make the evidence more persuasive, not less. We've banned people on much less, but this case requires nothing less than a doctoral thesis for some reason—for the benefit of people who received off-site emails on exclusive lists. These emails supposedly demonstrate that they're separate individuals. (It's something about their style or tone, never quite defined.) They're staking everything on their estimation of their own hand—emails, which we can't see. They've already made up their minds and they're all in. I guess sometimes nothing's a pretty cool hand, 'cuz I'm about ready to fold. Cool Hand Luke 06:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please go ahead and present your evidence. I like to think that at least most of our current arbitrators are willing to respectfully disagree with Jimbo if they feel it's warranted to do so. Your evidence is very compelling and should be presented. Cla68 (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you should present your evidence. You don't need to argue its relevance, its proprietary, or even explain why you used the examples you did. Just put it out there for the Arbs to consider. Of course, if you really don't want to... you have released it under the GDFL and I have no qualms in presenting it myself! ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've re-read Jimbo carefully. All he's said is that he doesn't know. The passage comes across much more as "get off my back, I don't really know this guy, I don't like him much, I'm not protecting him, I've got nothing to hide, I personally haven't taken any action because I haven't had access to persuasive proof." I think that's fair enough, and he might change his mind when he sees the product of the SF-CHL-GDett-Durova Dossier. Relata refero (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not submitting evidence in the anticipation that the decision will go the other way would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. --bainer (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Any interpretation of my remarks which would suggest that I am instructing or requesting the ArbCom to come to any particular conclusion is mistaken. My testimony is just one person's testimony. I posted it primarily because there were some false claims floating around. Some people misunderstood a quote from me to mean that I had some kind of confirmation. I do not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC) (Jimbo added this then reverted because he mistakenly also deleted another post. Apparently he is having technical difficulties, so I am readding his comment WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for finding that, WAS. That makes Jimbo's position much more clear. Cool Hand Luke 18:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Remark

I've gone ahead and put some evidence down. If it doesn't speak directly to the sockpuppetry that caused this case to be initiated, it speaks directly to the reason why we should investigate this, and what negative consequences the actions of these editors, and any unacceptable collusion/puppetry, have had. If this is not entirely clear, I am open to reworking my statement to make that absolutely obvious. Relata refero (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Proxify.com

Thatcher's comments regarding Checkuser evidents state SamiHarris used Proxify.com. There is then talk about computer setups and how SamiHarris and Mantanmoreland had very different computer setups. Thatcher then comments that paid subscribers to Proxify.com can mask these setups. However, from a quick check ONLY paid subscribers can use the POST function anyway, so surely the SamiHarris account was a paid-for account?

Note: I just performed a test post attempt on se.wiki through Proxify and received the following message:

"POST access and interactive content are available only to paid Proxify subscribers. Subscribe to Proxify now and get special access to this and much more. Subscribers enjoy faster, ad-free access to all of Proxify's features. Please click here for more information."

So I think that may rule-out the computer setup argument? Whitstable 00:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Even assuming Samiharris was a paid subscriber, that indicates that user agent spoofing was available to him but does not prove he used it. User agents can also be spoofed by various other means. I am not offering an analysis of the evidence, merely providing a summary of my findings. Because proxies are involved and user agents can be spoofed, the value of my "evidence" may in fact be quite small, but I would not want other involved editors to think I was keeping information (pro or con) hidden. Thatcher 01:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that, and even if the evidence does prove to be quite small it is clearly crucial to have it included. But I think it should be made clear that to save an edited page through Proxify.com, a user has to be a paid subscriber. So even if SamiHarris did not use the Proxify.com option of agent spoofing, the option would have been available. It may only be a small point, but I would like it to be emphasised that "as a paid user, agent spoofing would have been available to SamiHarris" Whitstable 01:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the value in this is just how difficult any definitive statements that rely on technical evidence are going to be. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone doesn't already know, there are extensions for firefox that can change user agents and proxies - including proxify proxies - at a single mouse click. (Use this knowledge only for good, my children.) The pattern of edits between SH and MM, however, strongly suggests two different computers to me. Relata refero (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, may I just say I found the suggestion that WordBomb and Samiharris to be linked because they both used proxify to be.. humorous. It is one thing to suggest that WordBomb has used tactics that could be considered distasteful (I myself said that very thing to him.).

But to suggest that someone would spend over a year posting in the same general hours, agreeing with someone he so obviously dislikes with a passion, working with him on a whole class of articles to make it reflect the near-complete opposite of what he believes, and doing this while posting similar conversational tics and never crossing over with this editor? That requires a Guiness Book of World Records level leap of faith. SirFozzie (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of personal opinion and analysis, I agree that it is an unlikely suspicion because (a) Wordbomb seems to use strategies with a much faster payoff and (b) if Samiharris was a Joe job I would expect some degree of edit time collisions, as I would if they were completely and innocently unrelated. However, it is a suspicion raised by more than one checkuser and by at least one non-checkuser admin, so I felt it was worth noting as one element of the uncertainty involved in the technical evidence. Thatcher 21:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Warned IP

This edit is that IPs only edit. I've warned him. Thanks to CHL for reverting it. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

While I'd rather we didn't blanket revert stuff, that was irrelevant, unless the ip has a whole lot of on wiki information to add to it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It was inmaterial to the case as I saw it. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Unseen off-site emails

Jimbo has made reference in his evidence to off site e-mails received from Samiharris and Mantanmoreland. I know JzG has referenced these also and I believe others have as well. I find reference to evidence that no one else can take a look at extremely problematic in a case like this. There is a lot at stake in this case and transparency is extremely important in my opinion. As much of the evidence as possible should be evaluated by the community, rather than just Arbcom and/or Jimbo and a select group of users who received e-mails from the users in question.

As such I highly recommend that someone - probably Jimbo - contact Sami and Mantan and ask if they would be okay with a significant number of these e-mails being released (of course it is entirely up to those users). Significant identifying information and comments made in the e-mails which the users would not want others to see could of course be redacted (probably by someone like Jimbo or JzG who has the original e-mails in their possession, or by members of Arbcom). If even 20-30 such e-mails were released (the more the better though obviously) this would provide a means for editors (particularly those that have developed much of the evidence to date) to see for themselves if the assertion of Jimbo and others that these are two different users seems likely to be true. Personally I remain very much open to that possibility but so far have just seen no evidence that convinces me. If these e-mails are really a smoking gun that absolves Mantanmoreland of the sockpuppetry allegations and wraps up this whole mess then I think it is in everyone's interest for them to see the light of day.

Obviously I understand that this is a dicey matter since these were private e-mails. In no way should the users in question be forced or even heavily cajoled into allowing members of the community to look at them, and a refusal to do so should not be interpreted in a negative light. However if the community cannot see these e-mails then I don't think they should have much bearing on this case (if Arbcom members can look at them that would be a little better, but even that is not advisable in a case like this). I would hope that the committee (and Jimbo) understand that "secret evidence" that is highly determinative of the outcome of the case could have a real deleterious effect on community trust, and that a number of editors will not be convinced by the mere assertion that a number of private e-mails prove these are two distinct users (largely because evaluating that kind of thing is quite subjective and open to different interpretations). Rather they will understandably want to see that evidence for themselves.

I don't think this is at all an unreasonable request, but as I said it is entirely up to Samiharris and Mantanmoreland.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In practice ArbCom can review evidence presented by email; that is, not seen by the rest of the community. I would prefer that some mail content be made public to back claims that they are seperate individuals, but I would accept ArbCom as being sole recipient if that was the only alternative. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and just to clarify I think having Arbcom review these e-mails would obviously be better than nothing. I just think giving some of them a wider release would be advisable and that's a possibility that should at least be explored.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of common convention and respect for privacy, emails between two people should not be made public without the consent of both people. Thatcher 16:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I might be misunderstanding your point, but I would think that anyone can freely release e-mails they have personally written at any time. Therefore if Sami and Mantan want to release e-mails they have written (whether to one another, Guy, Jimbo, or whomever) I don't see why that would be a problem so long as their e-mails do not include significant text from a previous e-mail by someone else, references to personal information about anyone, etc. (obviously they would need to be carefully vetted). However I would not be averse to erring on the side of caution here and running those e-mails by whomever was on the receiving end if others feel that is important. If I misconstrued your point let me know.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be both the recipient and the sender as it is often possible to determine what someone else has said by reading the response. Sam Korn 19:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I think the e-mails would need to be "carefully vetted" as I already said above. However if Sami and Mantan can/want to release e-mails they wrote which would absolve them of sockpuppetry, I don't think we should make that dependent on the approval of users who received the e-mail (though if they approved it would be better). I don't see why it would be difficult for the two parties in question - working with Arbcom - to release a significant number of relevant passages from e-mails (including times stamps as LessHeard vanU suggests below) while excising private comments, information, etc. that other users might not want released. Anyhow I'm not seeing any interest in doing this from Mantanmoreland, though I know Guy has offered to forward e-mails to Arbcom which I think would be better than nothing (I assume he would need Mantan's and Sami's permission for that though).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested in whether Jimbo or Guy would allow the publishing of the timestamps of these emails, so they can be reviewed in the same manner in which the editors contributions have been. This would mean there is no disclosure of content, since the stamps are produced by whichever mailing service that was used. Again, we would be looking for disparity between the two sets which may provide for the argument that the two respondents are different people. Although this falls very short of being able to compare content, which requires the permission of the sender, I don't see why any recipient should refuse to provide this information. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on sockpuppetry observation

The counterpoint to Cla68's observation might be to ask why others have had such different treatment than Mantanmoreland? That is, why has "much less scrutiny and analysis than is going on here" been considered sufficient in the past? --bainer (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it would be possible to get the community involved to the degree it has in this matter on a regular basis. In this matter I think all of us just want some closure, which is why the normally uninterested have put a lot of work into studying the diffs. Relata refero (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with bainer - basically, the fact that previous cases have had an even lower level of methodological confidence doesn't argue for allowing that same problem in this case, it argues for using better methodology in all future cases. I haven't been involved in duck test sockpuppetry cases previously, but if its true that cases with no "smoking gun" are decided based on evidence like this I think that is a mistake. Remember that there is no direct or individually compelling evidence here of socking, and additionally no evidence that either accounts acted disruptively alone. Avruch 14:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero pretty much says it all right there. When I took this up, and then after the first discussion on AN.. I realized that due to the history involved, personality wise... the normal level of detail was not going to be anywhere near enough. Therefore, I brought up my Investigation page, and others chimed in as well (basically blowing my report away in amount of detail, etcetera). Was it way over the top of the amount of work normally needed for a DUCK test, oh yes it was. In fact, one CheckUser (User:Lar, endorsed the findings, but worried that this would set a precedent, stating The minor issue I have is that the community cannot afford to do this every time, it is too labour intensive, and now any future suspected sock who is clever enough to evade CU detection can say "unless it's as thorough as this one was, it won't count" and will perhaps get some sympathy..

But it was necessary in this case? Almost definitely. Due to the long-standing nature of this issue, and the level of ill-will on both sides, it had to be completely as airtight as possible if it was going to prove anything. The community consensus on the RfC part of this makes me think we did a damn good job of that. SirFozzie (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The committee should absolutely deal with both sides of the coin as articulated by Cla68 and Thebainer. The first question to ask would be: is the amount of evidence presented more than that which has been presented in the past for the typical "duck test?" From the answer to that a series of possible outcomes and further questions would follow:

1. The answer is yes, the evidence is more than that presented in the typical "duck test," and the committee decides Mantanmoreland has engaged in sockpuppetry with the Samiharris account. In this scenario it would still probably be useful for the ArbCom to explain how the evidence here went above and beyond the normal standard and opine on whether less-detailed evidence can still pass the "duck test," or whether that test has been applied based on too-flimsy evidence in the past.
2. The answer is yes, but the committee does not find the evidence sufficient to conclude that there has been sockpuppetry with these two accounts. If this is the case the two key questions would be A) What kind of evidence is necessary in order for the duck test to definitively demonstrate sockpuppetry, and should a standard be formalized in some fashion? B) Have socks been blocked in the past on the basis of far less evidence, and should something be done about that retroactively?
3. The answer is no, the evidence is not more than that presented in the typical "duck test," and the committee thus probably decides against the sock accusations. This seems the least likely end result, but it would still seem useful in this case for ArbCom to explain how and why the evidence did not measure up and what more should have been done.

I do hope that these questions are part of the case, since the end conclusion about the sock accusations will be controversial regardless and will have ramifications for future sockpuppet cases whether we like it or not.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What is this really about?

Is this Arbcom about Mantanmoreland socking or the real-life person behind those socks? Because Jimbo's evidence jumps into the real-life debate early on. I would also like to express my disapproval at Jimbo adding his evidence as soon as he did. Rightly are wrongly, there are those in this community who are scared to go against the views of the (co-)founder and I cannot help but feel having his evidence smack bang at the top from an early stage will prevent contribution from others. Whitstable 14:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if they're the RW person they're claimed to be or not, as Jimbo seems to think. They're tendentiously defending his interests on-wiki at the cost of the quality of our articles, and that's that. I'm sure Jimbo would be equally disturbed by that. Relata refero (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Relata, the actual blp is less important than the allegations of sockpuppet abuse and POV pushing by mantanmoreland. Others feel differently, but until that issue is resolved the rest is too contentious to make any progress on, in my opinion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The POV pushing is, from my perspective, the central issue. Accusations of sockpuppetry get tossed around on Misplaced Pages with abandon, well outside of the original sense of the word, and I really don't want to see banning or other discipline here based simply on the basis of multiple identities. In this case the accusation is that the classical use of the term is being applied, and that requires action. But even were Samiharris's departure to prove long-term, the tendentious editing of the particles in question is a persistent problem, regardless of who (in real life) is doing it. Mangoe (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I would wait until Jimbo comes back from his trip, and takes the time to fully review the evidence that has been available at the RfC (and which has been transposed to this arbcom). Whatever belief he may have held from review of emails should be set against the findings viewable there. I have some points to make regarding those mails, which I shall do presently. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The appropriateness of Jimbo's statement

I am an uninvolved but interested editor and have been reading copiously regarding this current Mantanmoreland saga. I've yet to form a concrete opinion. That said, I was personally surprised at Jimbo's statement as evidence and his decision to become involved in this particular forum (arbcom) with such a statement. I see no actual evidence provided by Jimbo. Jimbo must understand the weight of his statement here and his personal analysis of evidence—being part of the evidence section—appears to be unfair and, well, inappropriate. Had Jimbo made statements that his emails indicate Mantanmoreland and Samiharris are the same person, that would also be highly inappropriate without offering up the actual textual evidence, the emails. I am not suggesting that he does so, for obvious privacy reasons, but I can’t believe he would use his singular analysis of personal email exchanges to make such a sweeping statement, and include it as evidence to consider. The purpose of my post here is not to be accusatory, rather I feel I have never been so concerned with how something is being handled and I would like an explanation for myself and other interested editors. Is Jimbo’s statement of evidence appropriate? Gwynand (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

To the last question, yes. Statement such as that have a place on the evidence page. While it would be even better for him to also post on-wiki evidence that support his statements, it is not crucial. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Statements and evidence are welcome from any editor and all will be reviewed in full, though of course concrete evidence is the most useful form of input. The question whether a given presentation constitutes "evidence" that belongs on the evidence page, as opposed to a "statement" that belongs on the case talkpage, is generally not worth worrying about. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but I sure hope that Jimbo's statement, without supporting evidence other than his word will be treated as such. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What, do you think people have read and taken to heart Misplaced Pages:Argumentum ad Jimbonem. I think there are plenty that haven't. GRBerry 18:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I sure hope so, but I think we all know that a statement like that made by Jimbo is bound to influence the case more than when the statement had been made by a random other editor. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope that when an editor posts the equivalent of "I looked into his soul and don't believe he's a sockpuppet," that the arbitrators will take that for what it means: very little. Cool Hand Luke 19:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

At one time Jimbo thought maybe MM was a specific real life person (that for some weird reason we are being coy about naming; but we all know who, so it doesn't matter). He looked into it and decided he did not have proof, and his editing didn't seem a problem. That was about who he was in real life and not if he was sockpuppeting. He is making his statement here before the evidence has been presented here, so it is not a comment on the evidence now being prepared and in the process of being presented. In short, he is doing his best to not influence this process. He is only saying "I don't know; please proceed without me." In fact, this is what I think. But I don't have proof, so don't claim I said it was a fact :) WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thank you. Cool Hand Luke 01:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same statement? I quote: "Regarding the specific claim at issue here, whether Sami Harris and Mantanmoreland are the same user, I can say quite firmly that I do not believe it to be true". This is not someone saying "I don't know", this is someone saying "I think these allegations are false". Hence, this statement might and unfortunately will influence the case. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

See also Jimbo's clarification in the section above. Cool Hand Luke 19:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point, there's a tripod of supposition that forms one of the core reasons this case is before the ArbCom.

That being

1) Mantanmoreland="GW" 2) Samiharris="GW" 3) Mantanmoreland=Samiharris.

You can believe none of the three steps above are true, one part of 1 and 2 is true, or both 1 and 2 are true and thus 3) is true. You can even believe that neither 1 and 2 are true, but 3 IS true. (if neither of them were "GW").

Jimbo has stated in the past, leading up to this ArbCom case that he believes 1 IS true, he just does not believe 2 and 3 is true. Guy has told me previously that he considered whether 2 was true, but does not believe 1 and 3 are true.

Again, this is why we're here. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence generated pre-ArbCom that suggested that the third leg of the tripod is true. Now, during the evidentiary phase of this ArbCom, we're seeing evidence (again, circumstantial, but strong) that the first leg of the tripod is true.

We still need to continue to search for, and post evidence that prove or disprove our theories. But at no point should we point fingers at the other side and castigate them for believing differently then we do. Instead, we get back to Misplaced Pages's core theorem of interaction: AGF, and DISCUSSION WITH each other, not ACCUSATIONS OF each other. SirFozzie (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: JzG

Perhaps Cla68 can identify a case of a long-term user in good standing who denies the puppetry but has been banned anyway, since that seems to be what he's calling for here.

Piperdown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - maybe not quite so long-term, but prior to the allegations of puppetry he doesn't seem to have not been in good standing. It is, at least, absolutely clear that C) he denies it and D) he is banned anyway. —Random832 16:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wants to read the whole sorry history of Piperdown's unblock request, it can be found at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive123#Review of indef block of Piperdown. Make sure you have a pot of coffee handy, because it's a long read.

I have to agree with JzG that Piperdown is unlikely ever to edit constructively again, but I would also suggest that the reason for that is because he was treated abominably. The vast majority of his edits are reasonable, constructive copyedit and cleanup stuff; edits to the contested articles are a small percentage of his output. However, the fact of those edits attracted attention, and in April 2007 he was accused of being Wordbomb by User:MONGO (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/WordBomb). The checkuser was refused, but then on September 11 he was banned anyway by User:David Gerard . I have looked all over the AN and AN/I archives for that period, and I haven't found the slightest trace of any discussion of the block at the time. Piperdown immediately fled to WR and has assumed an increasingly hostile stance ever since.

Piperdown made circa 2000 edits in about six months; the fraction of these on the contested articles is small compared to the whole, though it is not insignificant. As far as I can tell, he was slapped down for editing on the wrong side of those articles, and then banned permanently because he took it poorly. In the unbanning discussion there was no consensus reached as to whether the editing on the contested articles was sufficient proof of identity. Personally, have reexamined matters, I think they fail the WP:DUCK test in a big way: what I see is someone who carried a pattern of copyediting into the wrong place and ran afoul of a group of people who were monitoring that article and who had the power to apply admin actions to those who edited the article against them. The DUCK principle relies on us all being able to recognize a duck when we see one, and one can read in the extensive discussion of the block that editors do not see the incident that set this off in the same light. The only additional material I could find was an exchange in the talk page of Short and distort which is masked by a redirect to Talk:Short (finance) put in by JzG exactly a week ago . Looking at that, I see a typical kind of content dispute, but no intimations about anyone's identity-- and a pair of familiar names.

What is particularly depressing is how the AN/I argument settled out along wearyingly familiar lines. I imagine that people people with any knowledge of the greater history of this case can guess the names of those that argued that Piperdown was an alias for Wordbomb.

As I said at the beginning of this, I don't think Piperdown can come back and be constructive. But I think the reason for that is that we made an enemy out of him. Mangoe (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What is User:Cruftbane doing?

Unless I am very much mistaken User:Cruftbane has been adding to Guy's section without signing. Whitstable 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is an alternate account of JzG and he forgot to check which account he was under. I'll leave him a message. SirFozzie (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

An arbitration centred around sockpuppeting with people giving evidence via sockpuppet. You couldn't make this up! Whitstable 18:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)When I saw it, I googled the name - its quicker than navigating to a redlinked user's talkpage with this nifty extension I have - and noticed that according to the Board of Outer Darkness Where There is Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth, its generally known that it's Guy's alternate account, so I guess he didn't bother being careful.

It is a technical violation of the evisceration of WP:SOCK that Guy argued for and ArbCom legislated, though....Relata refero (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In this case, there's a difference between sockpuppetry and alternate accounts. What Mantanmoreland and Samiharris are accused of is sockpuppetry.. they would be double-!voting, consensus, et all. Cruftbane (sounds like a weapon you get in Final Fantasy, don't it?) normally is used ONLY for completely opposite things, it's used for Guy (who everyone will admit is involved in high drama, regularly), to relax and still improve the encyclopedia without getting targeted when someone sees his signature. He even mentioned that he was going to be doing a lot of editing under his alternate account on his /wp-stuff page. No harm, no foul here. SirFozzie (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree there's not a problem here - we might even do well to blank this section as a courtesy to Guy as I assume he would prefer that as few people as possible know the name of his alternate account. Perhaps a clerk could do this assuming that such an action is kosher on Arbcom pages.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please. There's no intent to deceive, it's my quiet wikignoming account for those stressful times. Everyone who needs to, and has expressed an interest, knows about it, I think. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

But using it to post to discussions related to internal wikipolitics is just the sort of thing you vigorously block others for doing. Somebody who's an enthusiastic proponent of the "Zero tolerance, shoot on sight" faction shouldn't expect any slack cut for his own errors. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that I didn't. I made one edit clarifying a comment. Nice try, though. Guy (Help!) 00:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It is only common sense that we should see there is no problem with these edits. However, "zero tolerance" ≡ "zero common sense". As someone who takes such a hard line elsewhere, you should expect a bit of good-natured laughter when you slip up yourself. —Random832 04:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As JzG/Guy lets this be known, there is no reason to delete any of Cruftbane's edits. Legit alternate accounts are not socking. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you, and think its completely OK. Please tell the ArbCom that we all disagree with them when they say, in principle 3 of the PrivateMusings case, "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates." Sorry, but that absurd ruling is something of a hobbyhorse of mine. Relata refero (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no conceivable reason for PM to use at least eight separate accounts, including one registered for the purpose of forcefully advocating a contentious opinion in policy space, with allusions to long editing history to get reputation benefit without allowing accountability and confirmation. I suspect you might have spotted by now that there are one or two people who follow me around provoking me. Sometimes I want to be free of that for a while, for various reasons. And anyone who wanted to know and asked, was told. And I volunteered the information to several people anyway. There's a difference between using a user with a long history of blocks, sockpuppetry and tendentious editing using a sockpuppet to argue for the holy right to link to external harassment, and an admin of some years' history using one for a bit of quiet Wikignoming when they want a quiet life - my alt account has not, I think, engaged in policy debate at all. It has, however, created a number of articles and got a couple of thinks on DYK (whicih process amounted to a bit of research into the user experience, incidentally). Guy (Help!) 09:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I'm not comparing your quiet-account to PM's behaviour, because that would be ridiculous, as you correctly point out. I'm actually saying that ArbCom's silliness in that ruling could, if you were not who you were, be used against you. Which means its a silly, silly ruling. Did I mention it was silly? Relata refero (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

La dii da

Thanks to those who took care of User:La dii da. I was at work and unable to keep an eye on this during that time. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

gah. that person undermines a real point in this proceeding with disruption. no wonder this broader conflict has made no headway towards resolution. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It happens, quite often. Just WP:RBI. SirFozzie (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

oh, I know it, but it's still frustrating since it so clearly does not help. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

He's got to be a sock of someone. Any ideas? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the kind of sentiment that is behind one aspect of this case. My immediate reactions are, "Who cares?" and "If you really want to know, why don't you hang around at WR and see if anyone there owns up to it?" It's hardly likely to be the work of any of the case participants or hecklersonlookers. Mangoe (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Tor. Just ignore it and move on. Thatcher 21:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

600 emails-

600 emails are easily analysed using grep. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Diff

Cla68, The diff you are looking for from JzG dated 07:49 13 February is .

To easily find diffs of signed comments, you can set your timezone offset to 00:00 and browse the user's contributions. —Random832 22:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am officially declaring that Most Useful Tip of the Day. Relata refero (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

To JzG

Perhaps Cla68 can identify a case of a long-term user in good standing who denies the puppetry but has been banned anyway, since that seems to be what he's calling for here. I'll answer that one: Runcorn/Poetlister. Durova 22:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that JzG will regret the tone of his question, as it will encourage folks to dig them up and there will likely be many many users found to have been banned similarly and for the good reason of being on the wrong side of a debate. There are also a few I can think of right off who have been driven away by snotty admin attitude towards their concerns (regardless of the policy aspects, that are sometimes vague) such as badlydrawnjeff, and gianoii. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa there. Let's keep this topical without editorializing. Runcorn/Poetlister was banned for the good reason of vote stacking. Durova 23:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for striking through. Durova 23:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, not really. "the good reason of vote stacking" is only a good reason after it is concluded that someone is a sock. The reason for identifying/suspecting the user as a sock is quite separate from that. I recall reading a blog post from the checkuser who analyzed the data for Runcorn/Poetlister saying that she felt pressured into delivering a particular conclusion, and the question therefore also exists of why that pressure was applied. —Random832 04:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom compiled information from several sources and I was on one of the teams. Having seen that share of the evidence (and having stayed up until four in the morning helping to assemble it) I consider it very safe to say the following:

• Neither I nor the person I worked with were under any pressure whatsoever.
• Vote stacking issues played a significant role in our research; this was not an afterthought.
• The issue of vote stacking was quite serious.

Durova 05:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you enlighten me as to how "vote stacking issues" can be something that _establishes someone to be a sock_, rather than, it having already been otherwise established, shows that a sock was used abusively? It doesn't seem to me that research into vote-stacking issues could possibly, alone, establish someone to be the same person as someone else, or could even significantly contribute to such a conclusion. —Random832 06:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take this to your talk pages. Let's focus on the case at hand here. Cool Hand Luke 06:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)