Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

Other statements

Statement by Rocksanddirt

While I had hoped that the Rfc and related commentary would go on a bit longer prior to this, it was always headed here. The conflict at the root of the issues is one of the defining items of the current en.wikipedia community. Even quite new editors such as myself have been exposed to the dhrahma of it out of proportion to the article disruption. As with Cool Hand Luke, I ask that the committee be slow on remedies, long on findings of fact. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

comment - I do not feel the Morven's statements require that he recuse from the case. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

comment - I do not feel that the participation of wordbomb would add to this proceeding, his behavior after his initial proper block requires that any proceding he's involved with be only about him. After the serious allegations against mantanmoreland are evaluated by the committee (as looks likely now) than a case involving others and others actions might have value. Until then, it is putting the cart before the horse. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Dorftrottel

FWIW, I'd support a thorough investigation with particular emphasis on item C) of SirFozzie's initiating statement and CHL's suggestion to reserve remedies for the community, if applicable. User:Dorftrottel 21:10, February 13, 2008

• Also, I echo the calls for Morven as well as FloNight to recuse themselves from the case. User:Dorftrottel 01:33, February 14, 2008
• As to Jimbo's "not a smoking gun" comment regarding his earlier statement: Nevertheless, Jimbo Wales must have had good reasons which led him to making such a rather strong statement in the first place. I for one would appreciate further, detailed explanation by Jimbo what exactly those reasons were, and also who else can reasonably be assumed to have had those same reasons available to them at or around the time Jimbo made that statement. User:Dorftrottel 11:56, February 14, 2008

Statement by Whitstable

I would support a thorough investigation and I feel that unless we get as close to a definitive answer as possible on the Real Life issue, we are not going to resolve this dispute. I believe it is time to go deal with the cause - the person behind the accounts, if there is one - rather than the symptoms of any number of socks. Whitstable 21:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Lawrence Cohen

Please accept the case. Massive disruption, spanning years, involving a user who was confirmed to be abusing various socks by the Arbitration Committee in the past, who has evidence against him here showing that he has gamed Wikipedia still with more socks since then, including on RFAR, and RFA, and who even Jimbo Wales per evidence on the RFC believes is the very subject of the BLP various editors have accused him of being. Taken in whole, Mantanmoreland appears based on currently available evidence to be Gary Weiss, and has gamed Wikipedia to absurd degrees. Scope of arbitration should involve investigation of those who enabled this to happen, up to and including Jimbo Wales if that is the case. Lawrence § t/e 21:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to Viridae: Support. Morven can't be an arbiter here. Lawrence § t/e 21:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Struck per Morven's response. Sorry, that makes sense. Lawrence § t/e 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

I request that the ArbCom accept this request, this venue being now the only place with sufficient impartiality and gravitas to allow the evidence, interpretations and responses to be thoroughly and dispassionately considered, the conclusions drawn, and judgement rendered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, in the light of the suggestion of expediency by NewYorkBrad, Flonight and others, countered by the comments ofby thebainer, I also suggest that review of the evidence already published may be considered expediently, but that consideration of how to address any findings be given the utmost care and all the time that is necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

With apologies for jumping in here, my comment was that this case should be "expedited," which is to say, given a high priority and resolved as quickly as possible consistent with the need for an informed study of the evidence and workshop proposals. I would never propose that a case be dealt with "expediently" nor that any ruling be made without appropriate study and consideration. All parties to cases are entitled to a fair, expeditious, and well-informed decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I in turn apologise for inadvertently misrepresenting you and Flonight, and have amended my comment accordingly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Viridae

Morven should be recused from this, he has already expressed strong opinions on the RfC. Viridae^Talk 21:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by semi-involved GRBerry

I blocked Lastexit and Tomstoner because I believe there is no room to doubt that they are sock puppets of Mantanmoreland that were used abusively in 2006. I refrained from acting today with regard to Mantanmoreland or Samiharris because I wanted to give him (or maybe them) an opportunity to explain the behavior. Frankly, the duck test seems quite conclusive here, but I remain open to the possibility that there is another explanation for the evidence that I can't imagine. I note that at this time no editor has endorsed Mantanmoreland's view of the situation.

However, I don't see this as ripe for the Arbitration Committee. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland#Community ban Alison and I have argued fora delay in deciding, Jayron32 has asked if altenative form of community editing restriction might be better, and no administrator has argued for not imposing any restriction. I think it very likely at this point that the community can successfully deal with Mantanmoreland without committee involvement.

Nor do I see any advantage to having ArbComm hold a case about the involvement of the various admins that have defended Mantanmoreland in the past. Unless someone presents evidence that they in fact knew Mantanmoreland was engaging in unrestrained and abusive sockpuppetry, then WP:AGF says we should assume they really thought Mantanmoreland and Samiharris were different accounts.

Nor do I think that there is a point in having the ArbComm make a finding about whether or not Mantanmoreland is the particular BLP that many of us believe he is. Frankly, any finding that he isn't that is not based solely on public evidence won't be credited by many. And I can't imagine the ArbComm issuing a finding that he is that BLP absent a public admission. So, in conclusion, I recommend that the committee decline to accept the case at this time. GRBerry 22:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Acalamari

I was hoping this wouldn't come to ArbCom just yet, and that the community could handle this issue on its own, but I suppose it's now necessary at this point, and I do encourage ArbCom to accept the case. I hope (and am sure) that the Arbitration Committee will do a thorough investigation here, in the chance that Samiharris is not a sockpuppet of Mantanmoreland at all. Acalamari 22:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Krimpet

I too really hope ArbCom can investigate this case thoroughly and fairly. The most distressing part is that either has Mantanmoreland has misled and abused the trust of a lot of prominent Wikipedians, or a lot of people knew about yet tolerated his abuse of multiple accounts, if not some degree of both. krimpet✽ 22:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I would really hope that in the interests of transparency, participants in the notorious "WpCyberstalking" list, of which Mantanmoreland participates and it seems his abuse was an open secret in, would recuse themselves as arbitrators in this case. krimpet✽ 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Sean William

Per the precedent on sock/meatpuppets set at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood#Who's who, I don't see why a case is needed. A community ban would do just fine, but a case designed to come to a definitive up or down decision regarding a sockpuppet is bound to be inaccurate on at least some level and would probably end up with a principle similar to the one I linked to. Sean William @ 22:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Cla68

I believe the scope of this case should also include the actions of admins who protected Mantanmoreland and his socks from scrutiny, protected the articles that Mantanmoreland favors from attempts to remove his POV, and who retaliated against editors whose actions they apparently didn't approve of during this episode. I'd also like to add that I find it shocking that FloNight did not recuse herself from this case. Please look at this diff [1]. FloNight is one of the admins that I'm going to ask be scrutinized and considered for formal sanctions for her role in this affair. I pointed out some of the ethical concerns involved in the situation to FloNight afterwards [2]. Unfortunately, FloNight elected not to respond. Perhaps she could respond now? Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

One other comment...I think evidence now shows that the indef block of WordBomb may have been improper and done under a bad-faith motivation. I request that WordBomb be unblocked for now pending a review of it under this ArbCom case. Cla68 (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

WordBomb, in this thread [3], promises only to edit as a participant in this case if unblocked. On another note, WordBomb in that same thread provides evidence that Morven may have a prior opinion on the matters under examination here. If so, Morven needs to recuse himself or at least provide a full explanation. To Morven and FloNight, did you notice that Thatcher and Kirill have recused themselves from this case? That's called integrity. Morven, if you didn't actually have that exchange with Samiharris quoted on that WR thread, then say so and I'll apologize. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Dtobias

There may be quite a few blocks and bans that ought to be reviewed, given that some of them were given for running into the third rail of inquiry into the allegations of sockpuppetry and COI that are possibly turning out to be true after all. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Neil

It is absolutely necessary for the ArbCom to take this case on, and come to a speedy and definite decision. I have little confidence in the community's capability to deal with this case, as there's a small hardcore of administrators who refuse to accept the obvious facts and will defend Mantanmoreland no matter what happens. I second Viridae's opinion that Morven should recuse from this case; he has an clear bias (as expressed in the relevant RFC) in favour of Mantmoreland, and to maintain proprietry, a step back at this point (rather than an insistence on participation) would be prudent. If an ArbCom member feels the need to justify their participation, that's a pretty good sign they should not participate. Neıl ☎ 01:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I also endorse the suggestions elsewhere that User:WordBomb be unblocked, solely to contribute to this ArbCom case, with the understanding that a single edit outside this case will result in the indefinite block being reimposed. If Mantanmoreland can put forward his side of the argument, his "opponent" (for want of a better term) should have the same opportunity. Neıl ☎ 01:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Sarcasticidealist

This is a very important case, and I'm pleased with the emerging ArbComm consensus to accept it. Given the importance of this case, there are a few things that I believe need to be done:

• the scope of this should be expanded to consider, in addition to allegations of sock puppetry and conflict-of-interest in the affected articles, improper actions by admins at earlier junctures of this episode.
• User:Morven should recuse himself. While I believe that he is truly confident of his ability to look at this with an open mind, any resolution favourable to User:Mantanmoreland will lose a great deal of its credibility if User:Morven participated in formulating it.
• User:WordBomb should be unblocked to allow participation in this case. I do not echo User:Cla68's suggestion that he be unblocked entirely pending a review of his block - I think his overall conduct on Wikipedia speaks for itself - but I don't think that anybody can deny that he will have important contributions to make to this case. If he participates on Wikipedia in places other than on this case, he can be re-blocked. If is disruptive in his participation in this case, he can be re-blocked. But for the sake of this case's credibility, he should be allowed the opportunity to participate in it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree strongly with User:Thebainer when he says "an expedited approach may not be feasible". Given how long this has been brewing, I'd support ArbComm taking a great deal of time to examine this thoroughly. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Georgewilliamherbert

It would be a better case in many ways if the original spark for this investigation hadn't come from Bagley on Wikipedia Review. One of the more corrosive suggestions coming out of it is the one Cla68 states above, that there's something wrong with WordBomb's block, or that Bagley has been some form of "right all along".

Sockpuppetry vs Abuse - It is important to separately and clearly delineate between evidence of sockpuppetry and evidence of abusive editing.

I am certainly not the only admin who's ever thought that it's possible that Mantan or Sami are the same and are a certain reporter. I have wondered so on and off. On occasions that it came up, I would go look at the edit patterns, and conclude that if they were the same person, or if one or both was that particular person, there was at most a moderate COI disclosure issue, but that the edits were fundamentally good and policy compilant. Events around Mantan and Sami have been disruptive, sure, but their actual editing has generally been solid and balanced. The detailed investigation has shown up a few cases of double !votes and some other issues, but it appears to have been a tiny sliver of their total editing and without general deleterious effects.

While this may be shown to be otherwise by further examination, the evidence as it stands is that at worst this was a moderate abuse of WP:SOCK.

Bagley's fundamental premise is therefore wrong - Even if Mantan and Sami are the suspected reporter, that hasn't harmed the encyclopedia or the Overstock.com related articles.

Bagley's historical behavior remains despicable - Even if Mantan and Sami are the reporter in question, and even if they had been abusive (taking the whole conspiracy theory at face value as true), WordBomb still unambiguously should have been permabanned. Assertions to the contrary raise questions of editor good faith in this.

Questions of proxy editing for banned editors should be addressed - While a number of admins and editors are concerned about this and clearly investigating a suspicion that is reasonable in good faith, others are parroting Wordbomb content and input from other sites, and acting in support of him. Even if the accounts have been lying through his teeth to many of us, Bagley's input still is not welcome here, by policy and Arbcom decision, and several people participating in this have been effectively acting onsite in concert with Bagley offsite. The scope of this issue is narrow (most of those above clearly aren't in any way) but important.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Lar

I realise I may be swimming upstream saying this, but I'd rather this case NOT be taken just yet. (or perhaps, taken but put in abeyance?) I'd rather see the RfC (which is a bit different than the usual RfC in focus) run to conclusion first. THEN, yes, take it, and investigate the larger issues. Note, I can share my CU findings (inconclusive as they are) with any other CU on request. Alison did much more of the work though. Lar: t/c 02:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please forward a summary of your findings confidentially to the Arbitration Committee. Alison should kindly do the same. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sent. Lar: t/c 19:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Achromatic

I believe several things need to be done here both for justice to be done, whatever that outcome may be, and for the perception of justice being done. Per SarcasticIdealist, I would also suggest that Morven recuse.

(this para edited for clarity from original revision) Re the comments of others, I am not in support of allowing WordBomb to participate - whilst his treatment may have been unfair in the sense of (assuming the findings are upheld) the proxy war, his other actions have struck down his ability to be able to freely participate here - see below for my reasoning - this issue, to my eyes is "Are these users sockpuppets?" not so much "why?" though that may come out in the course of things.

Georgewilliamherbert posits that "others are parroting Wordbomb content and input from other sites, and acting in support of him", and that "several people participating in this have been effectively acting onsite in concert with Bagley offsite". I would query GWH to "name names". If the very crux of this issue is disclosure of who is who, what motivations people have, and so forth, then you should make statements to that effect, specifically. The two posits are very little more than a smear on of a perceived "side" of an argument, including accusations of sock- and meat-puppetry, and GWH should either provide evidence to support his accusations or strike his comments to this effect as personal attacks. It is disturbing, too, that he is so quick to say "Well, I can see that they've done these things, but it doesn't seem to have done much harm".

To me, the issues of support are as much as important as any others - the double !voting in RFAs and AFDs, and conversations to build the perception of non existent consensus. The issues of whether other editors or admins have been blackballed/hounded as a result of their support or opposition for the protagonists and antagonists in this (complex, messy) affair should, by virtue, only be considered if findings in this specific arbitration are upheld. Hypothesizing on downstream effects at this stage would only serve to increase complexity and messiness by an order of magnitude, and not be immediately useful to answering the questions at hand. Achromatic (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Alison

Per Newyorkbrad's request, I will forward a copy of my checkuser findings within the next two days to the Arbitration Committee. Privacy policy forbids me from publishing them, needless to say - Alison ^❤ 04:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:WAS 4.250

The important thing, is to deal with, as best as can be done, the fact that, because of our ever increasing real world influence and importance, COI is increasingly turning Wikipedia into a battleground. This two year struggle between forces pro and con a variety of positions related to Wall Street, has entangled our internal decision making with lies, truths, positive and negative reinforcers, and promises and threats of real world consequences.

I suggest that we can lessen the degree to which we are a battlefield through two changes:

1. Enforce the fact that "A similar view is not by itself evidence of violation of any wikipedia policy or guideline."
2. Enforce the fact that "Admins have no extra power to decide content."

The first would prevent the banning of people who disagree merely because they disagree which was a pattern in this horrible affair. The second would prevent looking at the content of a COI case by an admin and their concluding that because they agree with the content that the COI is ignorable.

In this case admins looked at one side decided they agreed with his content and therefore they suppressed information relevant to COI. The community must decide COI, not a cabal. Because otherwise, the cabal is deciding content. So let there be no content deciding cabal. WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jimbo Wales

My saying at one point that I believed Mantanmoreland to be Gary Weiss is not a smoking gun or anything like one. They are apparently trying to spin this was me "knowing" and "lying" about it. The truth is that I do not know, I have my suspicions like anyone might, but there is no proof and I have tried (hard) to get proof.

Posting per e-mail. Jimbo doesn't onsite access atm. Will revise/modify per instructions if needed. Durova^Charge! 03:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

This case could have been initiated before or after admins made highly controversial use of sysop tools. Luckily it has come here before that happened. After reviewing the evidence, I was prepared to block Matanmoreland for sock puppetry, but instead proposed a community ban because I thought other sysops might disagree with a block. There is no chance of placing any community sanction, and a great risk of wheel warring. Arbcom needs to confirm or refute the finding of sock puppetry, then fashion an appropriate remedy, if any. Who knew what and when is beyond the scope, unless there is actual evidence of a coverup, which I have not seen yet. The axiom upon which this case turns is that all editors must be held to the same standards of conduct, regardless of their popularity. Jehochman ^Talk 09:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved User:Random832

I do not think WordBomb should be unblocked. However, User:Piperdown should be unblocked and added as a party - this is a very recently addressed case of someone being accused of being a meatpuppet for little else than raising these same issues. Dan Tobias said above "There may be quite a few blocks and bans that ought to be reviewed, given that some of them were given for running into the third rail of inquiry into the allegations of sockpuppetry and COI" - it seems quite clear to me that Piperdown's ban tops that list.

This makes it quite clear that Morven has pre-judged this case, and that his prior opinion of one person who is only tangentially involved is going to colour his perceptions of all the issues involved.

—Random832 15:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Fred Bauder

As this edit shows, Matanmoreland was warned about using sock puppets about a year and half ago, and quit using the accounts Lastexit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Tomstoner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Fred Talk 19:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by completely and utterly uninvolved Relata Refero

I have looked over one of the disputed articles, Naked short selling, for the first time a short while ago. My comments are detailed at the bottom of Talk:Naked short selling. There is little doubt in my mind that useful information has been kept out of the article and that a skew has been introduced towards journalistic references; a perusal of the talk page - without even any extensive digging through the archives - suggests that one or more of the accounts being investigated were involved in this. Given that, I submit that any claim that the quality and neutrality of the project has not suffered as a consequence of any (as yet unestablished) collusion, false consensus or CoI should be viewed as incorrect. Relata refero (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Outing of wordbomb's real name

Can everyone please stop outting wordbomb's real name. It makes you no better than the outing stuff you don't like him doing when you out his real name. Samiharris's last contributions also outed wordbomb's real name in the edit summary and when someone outs a wikipedian's real name in an edit summary ordinarily someone takes care to get rid of it. 4.242.132.121 (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You can only "out" a secret once. After that it isn't outing anymore. Use Google and then tell me you are talking about something that's still a secret. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That is illogical when compared to other users. There is a person who has a website of administrators' person information. Aside from that, there have been many news reports outing Wikipedians based on user name and real life identity. In 2007 there were many news reports about a wikipedia administrator being an intelligence agent and those all had lots of outing information. But in all those cases, outing information on them has been removed. While the long term abuse pages on banned users do contain their real names on rare occasion, usually people still do not use these real names constantly on wiki no matter how much trouble they cause. 4.242.132.42 (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a valid point here - when we have a perfectly viable alternative, no purpose is served by using his real name except to use this case as a venue to publish "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source". I think that because of this, any clerk should replace all instances of "J*** B*****" with "WordBomb" in all pages related to this arbitration (and references to "G*** W****" should likely be obscured somehow too, to be fair) —Random832 20:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI sometimes requires discussion of real world identities. That is the case in this case. Further, confinement of that discussion to a select group means that that select group determines the content of the relevant articles. NPOV requires that content not be determined in back rooms, cabals, or private mailing lists. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Mantanmoreland

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Jehochman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Coren (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Doc glasgow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• David Gerard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mantanmoreland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Samiharris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notifications

[4][5][6][7]

Statement by Jehochman

We have incipient wheel warring and widespread controversy over sock puppetry blocks and tags that were applied to User:Samiharris and User:Mantanmoreland. This needs to stop immediately. Please state clearly whether sock tags and sock blocks may be applied to these accounts, or not. (I believe that there is a community consensus to do so, as established by the discussion on WP:AN, but some uninvolved administrator can make a final determination.) Some users feel that the arbitration case precludes community action. Please answer "yes" or "no" as to whether the community can act by consensus in this matter. Jehochman ^Talk 13:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has asserted that there was a consensus to community ban. Coren had blocked for sock puppetry, based on a strong consensus demonstrated multiple times that there was blockable sock puppetry. It is possible for a user to be blocked but not banned. We really need to unscrew Wikipedia:Banning policy and Wikipedia:Community sanction because until we agree on what these things mean and how they work, we will continue to suffer unnecessary drama. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, this request has nothing to do with a community ban. I agree completely that there is no community ban, due to the very high requirement we have for community banning that gives every administrator veto power. Assuming for the sake of argument that the community decides there has been abusive sock puppetry, can an uninvolved administrator tag and block the accounts, or does the arbitration decision preclude that? I am not asking if this is a wise thing to do. I am asking, whether you prohibit it. Jehochman ^Talk 14:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, if you are going to cite number of votes, please tell us also how many supported the block. Jehochman ^Talk 14:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment

Sorry for starting this before the case even closed, but the decision was being overtaken by events, potentially bad events. At least we have prevented wheel warring and been able to discuss this disagreement civilly. Thank you to all for that. Jehochman ^Talk 15:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Coren

Indeed, I feel the primary point of contention at this point is whether the ArbCom declined to act on the allegations of sockpuppetry has precluded the community from doing so itself. Some administrators feel that the AC not having decided on a remedy on the allegations of sockpupettry means that they feel they are not warranted, whereas my reading (as the blocking admin) is that the AC left that decision to the community (who has shown very strong and unequivocal consensus). — Coren ^(talk) 13:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Note to the "vote counters"; I count sufficient unequivocal supports for banning or blocking MM that, were this an RfA, it would pass. Consensus does not mean unanimity. — Coren ^(talk) 14:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Lawrence Cohen

The Committee needs to say point blank if they endorse the ability and right of the community to follow through and make decisions above and beyond, or in place of Committee decisions by consensus. There seems to be a concerted effort on this case by a very, very small minority of long-time users, who seem hell-bent to not allow consensus to stand on this case. Consensus has been established repeatedly now across RFC, RFAR discussions, and AN three times, that Samiharris=Mantanmoreland. Consensus has now formed twice on AN that Mantanmoreland should be blocked--both before he was blocked, and after he was blocked with endorsements. How much more consensus is needed? Notarized statements from all of us, and photocopied drivers licenses mailed to the WMF office in San Fransisco? Does the community have the right to enforce consensus on a three-time caught sockmaster in this case? Lawrence § t/e 13:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Brad's Wikiconstitutional crisis conundrum

This very exact scenario actually came up last month I predicted this very situation here in discussion on this very case, in the archives. I predicted then basically that this scenario would happen if push came to shove. From Brad's own words last month:

Again, we have not discussed this aspect as a committee at all, but to me individually there is a clear difference between deciding not to take an action as an arbitrator, and deciding to affirmatively overrule that action if taken by the community. I would say that if a community ban were imposed on some user, the ArbCom overruled or reduced the ban, and then the next day it were proposed to reimpose it, then a problematic situation would arise. But that is not this case. Personally, I do think this committee's judgment is sufficiently valuable that if we vote that a particular set of remedies is sufficient, it might be in order to give those remedies a reasonable opportunity to work before reopening the discussion. That may be more a matter of community discretion than a fixed rule. The bottom line is there are no precedents on point that I can think of at this late hour; the Archtransit situation last week, which I mention above, is the closest. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We are now inches from this scenario. Is Mantanmoreland with his distinct lack of valuable article edits really so special and important that we will let this level of absurd disruption erupt over him, where this is possibly about to head? Is it that important to not give Bagley and Byrne any satisfaction? Lawrence § t/e 16:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As a minor point, I thought I wrote "conundrum" rather than "crisis." Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Lawrence § t/e 17:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Doc

Wow, talk about beggering the question. I'm actually neutral on the facts/evidence, but whether there is a community consensus is disputed. There is significant objection from some experienced admins. There's a bunch of people that are saying that evidence that didn't compel arbcom is compelling. Well, obviously it isn't, or you'd have been compelled. When the community don't find something blatantly obvious, we send it to arbcom - that's the community's chosen mechanism for dealing with it. And arbcom decided what, if anything, to do. In this case, you decided to do nothing. Whilst that may be regrettable to some (perhaps even to me), that's where it is. We settle incessant debates by sending them to arbcom - that's *final* step in dispute resolution and the alternative to endless argument or wheel warring. Any other way lies chaos, "votes for banning" and lynch-law. In another case, if the mob don't like an arbcom decision, can they take a vote to overturn it? Any community discussion is not the whole community, and has the potential to be influenced by good organisation and loud shouting (it may not be thoughtful, and may not be representative), I contend that the 15 thoughtful people elected after careful consideration, whilst they may be wrong, are far more likely to represent the voice and sanity of the community than a AN thread. Arbitration may not be the final word "for ever and ever amen", but it needs to have some degree of finality if it is really to function as the last part of the deletion process. What's the alternative?

Statement by Theresa Knott

I Pretty much agree with everything Doc says but would like to add that our standards for a community ban has always been that once blocked no admin was willing to unblock. In this case the user was blocked before the ban discussion had finished yet apperently that was merely a block not the ban itself. Then accusations of wheel warring fly once Doc undoes this block. I'm sorry but that isn't on. If someone is willing to undo a block then there is no concensus for the ban! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Sam Korn

The claim that there is consensus for this banning requires a radically new definition of consensus. When multiple respected users oppose an action of this magnitude (and there can be no doubt that banning is a big deal), there is not consensus. We do not do votes for banning. We do not have some numerical system by which we determine who is to be banned, as we do to an extent at RfA. We have a system for sorting out banning in complicated cases: it's called the Arbitration Committee. The block of Mantanmoreland is not justified or permitted by some arbitrary number of people supporting it on ANI. There must be outstanding support. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree entirely with Lar about banning SamiHarris for sock abuse and don't think there is a great deal of opposition to this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, as Daveh4h has completely misread my above comment: when there are several established users who advocate against a course of action, then it is inappropriate to find "consensus". It isn't some balance of "these guys have so many Respected Editors, these guys have so many Reasonably Respected Editors, how do they quantitatively balance out?" I did not say that people who want MM banned are not respected users. I quite honestly don't know how you got that impression. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

Sixteen administrators, including two bureaucrats, and another two editors in good standing, have objected on WP:AN to the block, so there is clearly no consensus for it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Jay*Jay

Well, I suspect this is a first for ArbCom - the need for a clarification before the case is even closed. I want to endorse a couple of the comments above - I think the talk pages of the case have made it abundantly clear that some ArbCom members would like to have gone further; others believe that enough has been done and the rest can be cleaned up by the community; others think that sock puppetry has not been established. Without commenting on who believes what, the case pages seem to indicate that the committee's consensus was sock puppetry was likely, but that the community could act independently if it chose. This needs to be clarified, explicitly, and not by individual ArbCom members speaking. It needs a straight vote to endorse or not endorse a statement such as "The decision in Mantanmoreland does not preclude the community from establishing and acting on a consensus that further action should be taken. Nothing in this declaration limits any editor from appealing that action to the committee." If the committee chooses not to make the position in this area crystal clear, they should anticipate a further case in the immediate future, in my opinion.

I would also like to add a couple of observations on the statement from Doc, as several assertions should not be left unchallenged.

• I'm actually neutral on the facts/evidence - this is clearly disputed - see the WP:AN discussion.
• There's a bunch of people that are saying that evidence that didn't compel arbcom is compelling. Well, obviously it isn't, or you'd have been compelled. - compelled to come to a conclusion about the sock puppetry is one thing; compelled to act on that conclusion is quite another. The case pages indicate concerns about being definitive, and concerns to present a decision that all could support - such concerns may compell some not to act on their conclusion as to the evidence of sock puppetry.
• Any community discussion is not the whole community, and has the potential to be influenced by good organisation and loud shouting (it may not be thoughtful, and may not be representative) - this exact argument can be used for tossing out consensus on any decision at AN, ANI, RfA, XfD, DRv, ...
• I contend that the 15 thoughtful people elected after careful consideration, whilst they may be wrong, are far more likely to represent the voice and sanity of the community than a AN thread - but ArbCom have explicitly indicated there were other considerations here. Concern about legal exposure is one that may force them to move away from representing the "voice of the community". Further, ArbCom isn't elected to be a de facto government to decide issues for the community - the notion that, the community can't act once ArbCom is involved, is both offensive to the notion of consensus and dangerous. ArbCom are not the rulers and the community is not the ruled. There needs to be some rapid action to squash this notion.

Jay*Jay (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding comments from Morven:

Morven: The Arbitration Committee could not find a consensus to block in this case. Applying the unanimity version of "consensus", maybe not - but I still think a banning vote would pass, and that it wasn't held because of a desire to avoid showing the division within the committee (and particularly who would oppose). Certainly the allegations finding of fact makes it clear that a majority is at least willing to go as far as sock puppetry being likely (and I suspect this is an understatement, given the much stronger views that a couple of committee members have expressed). Then, there are jpgordon's comments on the 'majority' formulation of the finding: "what would it actually mean if I voted against it? That I didn't believe that the majority felt that way? (I'm pretty sure the majority feels that way.) Certainly the plurality feels that way." I think the majority were comfortable declaring "sock", but there was debate over banning and a couple of strong dissents - UC and JPG, to judge from the opposition to the sock puppetry principle - and that this is about preventing disclosure of any more information about the internal division.

Morven: Concern for legal exposure was NOT stated or discussed as a reason by any Arbitrator in public or as far as I know in private. Newyorkbrad, on the talk page of the proposed decision, talking about drafting (emphases added): I also reasoned that it would be highly undesirable to write anything in an "official decision of the Arbitration Committee" that was likely to be used, or misused, in the context of off-wiki disputes. Contrary to some speculation, I personally am not aware of any legal threats against Wikipedia from anyone involved in this matter, and no such threats influenced how I drafted the decision. On the other hand, given the real-world background to the on-wiki dispute, I did not desire through the decision itself to create evidence that could be used someday by any side in some other and very different kind of proceeding.

When the drafter of the decision states, on-wiki, that he considered the use of the decision in a legal case (and that is clearly the allusion here - and it was even clearer the second time he said this), it is clear that potential for litigation did get some consideration - maybe not litigation against the Wikimedia Founddation itself - but legal concerns played a role. Then, there is proposed principle 8: "Arbitration decisions should be read with these limitations in mind and should not be used, or misused ... [in any off-wiki] proceeding". No comment...

Morven: Distrust of the statistical methods used WAS discussed as a reason not to support a block. Only UC has made concerns about statistics clear - and on his talk page, not on the case pages, as far as I recall. There were a few vague comments made, but nothing with anything like the necessary detail to make addressing any concerns possible. I don't understand why questions like this were not put directly, so they could be addressed. Surely the committee members didn't want to avoid providing an opportunity for editors to address their concerns about the quality of the evidence?

Morven: We did not prohibit a block of MM but neither did we endorse it, thus the normal standards for a community ban apply. This matches previous statements from Newyorkbrad, and also FT2: "But the above case may indicate that non-mention is no bar to action if circumstances change, which is the main concern of this thread. (For avoidance of doubt, it's also not a bar to usual decision-making based upon usual norms and standards and such.)" Whilst we can't indefinitely block because the consensus standard is replaced by the absurd unanimity standard, we (the community) appear to be able to use consensus to ban (and thus block) for (say) a year, with a review to be conducted in 11 months to decide upon a renewal. Jay*Jay (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by David Gerard

• Everything Doc glasgow says.
• Also, would anyone be safe even being exonerated by the arbcom if enough of a lynch mob could be gathered?
• Also, saying "it's wheel-warring to unblock because it isn't the community ban we wanted, it's just an unrighteous block" reeks of rules-lawyering - David Gerard (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie

There is a consensus for this. It's on the AN thread. Consensus doesn't mean unanimous. That's ridiculous. The vast majority of folks on the AN thread are in agreement that a sockpuppet master (whose been caught multiple times over several years, mind you) deserves to be blocked. This is pure obstructionism. The last refuge of scoundrels is no longer Patriotism, apparently, it's "Take it to ArbCom" instead.

The ArbCom was well aware of the fact that there was going to be a community effort, and specifically said things like "It wouldn't surprise me; given the nature and volume of the evidence, the community doesn't really need our help to make that decision." when asked if they thought a community ban would be affected. Instead of sorting this, we should be considering the wheel-war unblock WITHOUT the vast majority consensusm that existed in that thread, and without even attempting to discuss it with the neutral administrator who applied the block. SirFozzie (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(reply to David Gerard) Once again, you show that you think you're above the community. First the IRC page thing (which you got dinged for), and now this. You'd be wise to stop referring to the vast majority of even UNINVOLVED folks on that discussion as a lynch mob, including the neutral administrator who applied the block. SirFozzie (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Supplemental statement by SirFozzie

I'd like to thank FT2 for spending a couple hours with me last night, trying to explain why ArbCom did what it did to tapdance around the core issue from the community, which is the link between Samiharris and Mantanmoreland. I've had time to think about it, and while I can't go into the arguments presented, I can say this. I can understand where ArbCom was coming from on this, but I do NOT agree with them.

I'm trying to do a little tapdancing around the issue of my own. But let me say this. ArbCom has chosen to view the off-WP consequences of this as much as they have for a reason. But that means they deprecate the core issue. That Mantnamoreland, nee Gary Weiss, has imported a real life, real world financial controversy onto Wikipedia, and should not be shielded from the consequences of his actions.

We are an encyclopedia. We have rules. If someone wants to come in and break the rules, they risk the consequences if their actions become known. ArbCom is trying to do no harm... but the harm is already done. I fully expect to see this in the press, quickly, and every caricature, every barb thrown at us will have been proven true. I'm disgusted with what this means for the encyclopedia anyone can edit. SirFozzie (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

There is obviously no urgency to block the Mantanmoreland account. It is under some of the most stringent socking remedies, with indefinite effect, and the most swingeing enforcement provisions I've ever seen, and is likely to be under permanent scrutiny. There is no justification for an immediate block. The block by Coren was reversed by Doc and discussion continues, which I think it the right thing. The possibility of a community ban, or an alternative community remedy, is being discussed and should be permitted to continue without prejudice. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that, from examining the edits of Mantanmoreland carefully, I find the suggestion that he imported a dispute into Wikipedia improbable. He certainly socked, but otherwise his edits put me in mind of a fellow who breaks into your home and doesn't take anything but fixes the microwave and replaces the toilet paper. If he's been pushing some agenda, it's far too subtle to register on my radar. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

not quite on topic Statement by User:Rocksanddirt

The question is of double standards for some users v. others. If we continue to allow the double standards and not take action against them, the project suffers greatly. We enjoy our fantasy of equality here, but it doesn't ring true regarding mm/sh/wb/gw/pb/investors in their shorts. The committee can endorse equality of users or not through a clearly worded clarification or endorsement of one position on the community sanctions discusion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Another off topic comment - Mackan79 appears to have been blocked yesterday for sounding like wb? Will we face the double standard on this issue or not? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Lar

Most of what I wanted to say has been said. A key point is found what Matthew Brown says below, and the interpretation I make of it is that ArbCom did in fact remand this back to the community. I can find more specific diffs if it really matters. If we hold to the standard that a community ban means that not one admin is willing to overturn it, there is no justification for a community ban of both accounts. If we hold to the standard that a community ban means a consensus to ban, it's arguable... I don't want to shade over into votes for banning to be sure, but the numbers do indicate a lot of support, and also a minority, but fair number of opposes. I'd call it consensus, but perhaps others would not.

I have to say I find it hilarious (in a sad way) that this case got a request for clarification perhaps before it technically closed... (and maybe I jumped the gun starting the discussion by making a proposal, although it seemed a good idea at the time)

I'd also like to see the question of whether a block of Samiharris is a good idea separated out from the Community Ban part. An/Tony put forward that a block of Sami on sock grounds was a good idea, at one point. That seems prudent to me even failing to endorse the rest. Lar: t/c 15:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Relata refero

• Why is the block/unblock being discussed here? What do we expect ArbCom to do? It has been made quite clear on the proposed decision page that ArbCom does not intend to stand in the way of any future community action, which has always been the case.
• On the subject of consensus/unblocking/"counting": Will SV, David Gerard, etc., etc. please note that blocking policy currently reads "uninvolved" adminstrators. SV, please feel free to update your figures till they comply with policy. DocG, please feel free to alter your statement till it complies with policy.
• Morven, I note you said "consensus to block". I didn't know ArbCom was working on internal consensus these days, rather than the more normal majority voting. It certainly explains the wording of PFoF 2.1.
• David: "being exonerated by the arbcom" - did not happen in this case; "if enough of a lynch mob could be gathered" - no, nobody ever was safe from that. Which is why people worried about private mailing lists and Other Controversial Locations for Off-Wiki Co-ordination.
• Everyone please take a moment to go over their statements and check that they aren't talking about "ban" when they mean "indefblock". This includes Morven.
• I'd rather that DocG not have stated a weak rationale when unblocking against (uninvolved) consensus, and even more that that weak rationale not be based on inaccurate facts. Not that that is relevant, and now Morven has pointed out that DocG was wrong in his assumptions.
• Tony: your "examination" has been, at best, a little careless. This has been pointed out already. Note to self: resist the urge to make crack about "too subtle for me", resist it, resist it :)
• Coren has pointed out that he was willing to unblock in the normal way if contacted, but he wasn't. If you want to talk about irregularity and consensus like a lot of policy-wonks, include that bit. Relata refero (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Neil

Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_of_Mantanmoreland_and_Samiharris.

• Clear:
  • 31 firmly in favour of ban (Lar, Lawrence Cohen, SirFozzie, Jehochman, Naerii, Durova, Alanyst, Amerique, 82.19.1.139, R. Baley, Wizardman, WAS 4.250, Rocksanddirt, Krimpet, Mackan79, GRBerry, JoshuaZ, Sceptre, Hmwith, Noroton, Daveh4h, Achromatic, LessHeard vanU, MPerel, Crotalus horridus, Neil, Eleland, Pascal Tesson, Bigtimepeace, Cla68, Viridae)
  • 12 against (Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, Sam Korn, Theresa Knott, David Gerard, Doc Glasgow, JzG, IronDuke, AGK, Dmcdevit, Blueboy96, Wjscribe, Addhoc)
• Others (7):
  • 1 comment that block may not solve issue (Kingturtle)
  • 2 prefer topic ban (Random832, MastCell)
  • 1 "wait and see" (Carcharoth)

Unfortunately, it's a flimsy consensus to indefinitely ban someone, even Mantanmoreland. Lar probably initiated the discussion too soon, Coren probably acted too soon in blocking, Doc Glasgow unblocking without discussion with Coren while warning that anyone who dared overturn him would be wheel-warring (simultaneously flouting policy with one hand while quoting it with the other) didn't help in calming things down. Neıl ☎ 15:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this take into account the people that endorsed after Coren blocked? Lawrence § t/e 16:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Note for avoidance of doubt - Coren and Doc G have apparently now spoken completely amicably on this, and all's sorted out there, for anyone who wondered. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by daveh4h

• Theresa knott says: I Pretty much agree with everything Doc says but would like to add that our standards for a community ban has always been that once blocked no admin was willing to unblock. That may be true. But I would guess, or hope, that the admin unblocking would have to attempt to get consensus for the unblock, as did the blocker.
• Sam Korn says: When multiple respected users oppose an action of this magnitude (and there can be no doubt that banning is a big deal), there is not consensus Is that your hook now? People that are supporting a ban of MM aren't "respected" enough? Perhaps you should file an arbcom to rid the site of users that are not respected enough, then the community would be ran exactly to your liking!
• Sam Korn says: We have a system for sorting out banning in complicated cases: it's called the Arbitration Committee. Yes, and it failed to act! You would know more about why than I, since you have access to the arbcom mailing list, but not for a minute do I believe that you do not see the huge pile of shit that the arbcom dumped into the community's lap. You realize that.
• SlimVirgin says: Sixteen administrators, including two bureaucrats, and another two editors in good standing, have objected on WP:AN to the block, so there is clearly no consensus for it. This is an appeal to authority. Or is this a way of saying that the majority of people asking for a block are unimportant, since they do not have those permissions on a website? This argument carries zero weight with me, perhaps I am arrogant.
• David Gerard says: Also, would anyone be safe even being exonerated by the arbcom if enough of a lynch mob could be gathered? As long as the arbcom decision does not radically go against community consensus, as it did here, I think they'll be ok. This is an unusual case and one that has been left to fester for two years. You know that this is a complex and unusual case; however, if you do not believe this is a complex case, then I get a better feel of where you are coming from with your comments. Please let us know if you think this is a simple case.

More on appeals to authority (respected users, admins, crats): How many different levels of consensus have to be acheived, now? Must we get a consensus among stewards to issue a block/ban now, too? Lar is one, maybe he can speak for steward consensus! Since two bureaucrats stating that they did not support a block/ban is carrying weight, then maybe my statement should read something like: Lar is a steward. Case closed. I'd at least like to pretend I'm a little bit intellectual honest, though. It is overall community consensus that matters. Remember, it was respected admins that protected MM and his socking in the first place. The community followed their judgment because we had no reason not to. They are respected users! This time we have an abundance of reason to not follow the judgment of certain respected users. There is no need to apply more weight to someone's opinion simply because they have an extra permission on a website--That's counter to the ideals that are set forth in this community. That a few respected users with a history of protecting MM are opposed to a ban of MM should not be surprising; moreover, it should not carry more weight than any other opinion--in fact, quite the contrary.

Dave, you're reading more into one comment above, than I think Sam intended. When he says for example "multiple respected users" he's more likely to be meaning "people with reputations for judgement" as opposed to "those with status". (Inevitably some of those with good judgement will also have been given additional trust by the community too.) Rewrite the words you quote: "A community ban is not a vote. When it is opposed by a significant number of users in good standing, then there is de facto doubt if it meets our norm for a community ban." FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Random832

Since the discussion did not take the form of an "up/down" vote, it is unclear how many users are on each 'side', and various numbers are being advanced. Would those who think the numbers are relevant please enumerate which users you are interpreting as support or oppose, with diffs for each? I would like to also take this opportunity to explicitly state that my own remark was intended as neutral, and I am concerned that it may be being counted as an oppose. (EDIT: Based on Neil's analysis, I gather that I am indeed being counted among the "sixteen") —Random832 16:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that there should also be some analysis of who opposed on solely process grounds, as compared to who opposed because they're not convinced of the evidence or because they don't think that MM's actions, even when they agree on their nature, were bannable. If no-one else does this analysis I am willing to do it tomorrow. —Random832 16:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Amerique

I've got an idea. Instead of arguing over whether to block MM or not, why not edit WP:SOCK and WP:COI policies to allow sockpuppeting in pursuit of COI, as long as someone has a good reason for it, like say "off-site harassment," as this is the position the committee effectively stands for? Works for me, if the committee does not care that this guy double voted in the last ArbCom election nor that he socked to create a false appearance of consensus in the BADSITES case, why should any of us care about this anywhere else in the encyclopedia? Clearly, at this point, policy is way out of line with permissible practice as determined by the committee. Amerique^dialectics 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You might benefit from reading and considering, rather than assuming a misrepresention of others' words and views this way. If you had read statements, you will find indications why this stance is taken... including assessment of norms for handling alleged (and even confirmed) abusive puppetry that suggest your concept of sock-issue handling is not in fact on track. Your points are each about COI/puppetry, but you haven't considered that our norm on these is much more usually that where possible and positive contributions may be made in other areas, we deal with the potentially abusive conduct going forward, and then let the editor edit if they wish subject to any needed restrictions related to the area of dispute, if there is a chance their other edits may yet be constructive. Your contention that somehow people "did not care", stated in a parodying superficial manner that WP:POINT calls "ineffective" and "designed to provoke", is grossly distorting of this, and an example of the kind of "more heat than light" so often referred to in this case as a major problem. Please don't in future. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth

For the record, my position was not one of support or oppose, other than to say that we should wait and see what happened (ie. give the arbcom remedies a chance). I would not have stood in the way of a community ban if that has been the result. I was also highly critical of the process and timescale, as well as one of Coren's blocking rationales.

• The second blocking rationale - "the very magnitude of the drama above is the perfect illustration on how immensely and irremediably disruptive this editor has been, and how much strife he has caused" (as stated by User:Coren) - I strongly disagree with this. The day that we start to block merely because the community is having one of its periodic dramafests is the day that the community is finished as a coherent entity that can be respected and its decisions seen to have any worth outside that of mob rule. In any large community, there will always be disagreement and differences of opinion. That should not result in a general principle that 'drama in the community' = 'disruption by the editor being discussed'. That veers dangerously close to the often unprovable accusation of trolling. Stick to the facts and discuss those and come up with a process to reduce the drama and allow the community to express itself in a calm manner.
• Process - Community ban discussions at AN are, at present, chaotic and poorly structured affairs. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Community sanction for discussion on how such community ban discussions could be better handled. For now, I'll repeat what I've said before:

  "I think the process of community banning could be improved a lot: (1) Clear start and end points and no closing early; (2) People declaring their interest and article and/or editor involvement (or uninvolvement) up front (ie. have they been involved with the editor before and how - anyone failing to declare this gets their comment discounted); (3) Clear presentation of the latest evidence and links to previous evidence; (4) Giving the editor in question a chance to defend themselves; (5) Such discussions not being a response to the "latest incident", and hence not decided in the "heat of the moment"."

  Things like "saying what alternatives are available and why they wouldn't work" are other possibilities. RfC is very structured. RfArb is very structured. Is there any reason why community ban discussions need to be so dramatic and ad-hoc?
• Timescale - Compare the timescale of the three processes people have cited so far. The RfC opened at 16:52, 12 February 2008 and the last edit to date (which was also still part of the discussion there) has been 03:43, 16 February 2008. That is over four days of discussion. The RfArb opened at 22:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC) and will effectively close at 11:49, 13 March 2008. That is nearly a full month of discussion. This thread was opened by Lar at 17:13, 12 March 2008, and Coren blocked at 03:05, 13 March 2008 (I know, a block not a ban, but still). That is just under 10 hours of discussion before the block was placed (though discussion appears to be ongoing). I think allowing only 10 hours for the discussion, however long or heated or drama-filled, is a travesty of process.

Apologies for importing great chunks from the AN thread, but that pretty much sums up what I have to say on this matter. Carcharoth (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Cool Hand Luke

It's suggested that ArbCom "exonerated" these users, but they did nothing of the sort. This confusion is precisely why I asked for an explicit finding that the community is free to decide. If the Committee has any interest in quelling the drama, they would take this opportunity to decide this once and for all. I will probably respect any decision they render.

Remember, ArbCom is the path of least drama. And if you actually do "exonerate" them, that's fine. It lets users make an informed decision about whether they want to be part of this project.

Otherwise, ArbCom should quickly reaffirm that this case is in the community's hands. Cool Hand Luke 20:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony claims that David Gerard only hypothetically said that ArbCom might exonerate people in the future. If that's the case, then I wonder why Gerard would want to bring it up in a case where ArbCom did not exonerate anyone. Cool Hand Luke 21:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

Whether or not the idea of running a community ban discussion was endorsed by the entire Committee, it was suggested by members of the Committee on a proposed decision talk page. Those individuals offered the Archtransit precedent and interested editors discussed the matter with them there. Lar's proposed ban was not a farfetched interpretation of some passing comment. In fact, no member of the Committee objected to the idea until a ban discussion was already underway.

This was not well done. It raises doubts about how closely the Committee members read arbitration talk pages. Whether or not the Committee alters any part of its decision here, the ban discussion also demonstrates that the consensus of the Committee is seriously out of step with the views of the community. This is not the only recent occasion when the Committee's own actions revealed such a discordance. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman, the Committee moved to voting twelve hours after the case opened and then postponed its decision for a month to run a user conduct RFC on an administrator. Although the RFC was run on the most prejudicial of terms--with an active desysopping proposal moving toward approval--the community provided more than enough support for the sysop in question to reinstate him immediately at RFA. The only effect that input had upon the case outcome was that the Committee retained him under its own control when it went ahead and desysopped him anyway. Rather than submit to that, he exercised his right to vanish...and the whole case had been undertaken for the sake of an account that had less than 50 edits. This was the worst of several recent cases that were not conducted well.

Being an arbitrator means making tough decisions that displease people. That's the nature of the beast and the Committee is entrusted with considerable powers and autonomy so that its members can act without fear of retaliation. Yet the Committee has been inviting demonstrations of community opinion that show just how unpopular its own choices are. Today an editor in good standing invited me to review a draft RFC on the arbitration committee. To see that idea seriously entertained should give pause. Durova^Charge! 23:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

I would request that clarification is given to the wording of WP:BAN#Decision to ban - Pt.1 as invoked by both David Gerard and Doc glasgow in (potential) unblocking (putting aside that Coren blocked with a rationale that did not invoke community ban criteria) in that the wording "propose an unblock" specifies an intent and not the action, and that by unblocking that a violation of WP:WHEEL may have occurred - albeit in good faith. This may not be the correct venue, but also clarification that in the matter of a community ban being in place that the unblock proposal itself requires consensus before being enacted may be useful; even as part of notes and comments rather than any decision on the other matters. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

re Consensus; as mentioned, it is not a vote count - it is a determination as to which arguments carry the most weight and best reflect policy and practice. Many of the opposers cite the apparent lack of agreement at ArbCom to impose a block/ban as reason enough for the community not to "usurp" that decision. Plus, in the absence of good precedent as well as reference to policy/guideline it seems that those opposed to a ban can only refer to the experience of those so inclined to oppose. I have yet to be convinced that consensus has not been reached, and that the opposes are based either in a misunderstanding of ArbCom's position regarding a block/ban or simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT couched in a spurious appeal to authority. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Recused. — Coren ^(talk) 13:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Some threaded discussion on this has been moved to the talk page. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

As I see it:

1. The Arbitration Committee could not find a consensus to block in this case.
2. The reasons were varied.
3. Concern for legal exposure was NOT stated or discussed as a reason by any Arbitrator in public or as far as I know in private
4. Distrust of the statistical methods used WAS discussed as a reason not to support a block
5. We did not prohibit a block of MM but neither did we endorse it, thus the normal standards for a community ban apply
6. The convention is that a community ban does not hold if there is sufficient dissent that a single administrator is willing to perform an unblock, which has occurred.
7. Claims that the block had consensus don't hold water when approx. a dozen admins have opposed it.

(I may add more to this later, but that's my current opinions.) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Long post
First thoughts

This was always going to be a controversial case. There were always going to be people uncontent, and here's what some forget: dispute handling is not a decision process based on popularity alone. If it were, then we could all have a happy-happy vote and be done. No. Arbcom exists in large part, because there are sometimes voices that will not listen to a more calm perspective, and believe only 1/ nuking or 2/ ignoring "the problem as they see it", solves it. There are many voices saying "ban these users" - that's a given. With deep respect, I have to put it simply. A few users' posts have at times come across somewhat as a demand not only to ban the user/s concerned, but equally, to damn or accuse anyone who dares thinks otherwise.

No. That is not how we do it here. From where a number of others see this, a number of users are risking presenting themselves as hot headed and over reactive in this, and not considering (or wishing to consider) the change of circumstances that a ruling like this creates. They are treating this almost as if we were back in 2006/07 and no arb case had been held. They would benefit from slowing down. Traditionally and factually, Arbcom is de facto the end of the line for problematic editing from editors brought to its attention. (Too much attention, too much light, end of line for most problems.) In fact, stridency to the point of disruption, as some have done, is precisely what has made the entire case so difficult in the past. More than one person has said that those shouting were their own worst enemies. They were, in my view, 100% right in that assessment.

We have never run Wikipedia by emotionally drive heat. This was a block to obtain good conduct in the presence of strong AN debate, although some sought to build it into a ban. However both of these conflicted with an incipient Arbitration view. Had we felt a ban was needed, we are more than able to rule one, and as a Committee, we do so regularly. In this case, complete prevention was likely achievable by lesser means, and it is a norm of Wikipedia dispute resolution and has been for years not to use more force than necessary to obtain good conduct.

The block was clearly by an uninvolved admin in good faith trying to best judge a heated area that had enveloped the whole community, and which absent an Arbitration case would have probably been useful. The view backing a block, or a conversion to a ban, was communally supported by a significant number, but also contested by a significant number of well respected users, and lesser measures were already in place to deal with the issue requiring an indef block; hence Doc G's unblock was also done correctly. I note in this context, that we only recently (CSN) had an MFD to kill off the growing edge of "vote driven bans" as a direction we did not want to go in.

In this case, a number of users who are 1/ voted by the community, and are 2/ trusted to examine the most complex cases and 3/ to examine past cases where significant information was considered, spent a lot of time, and concluded effectively just the same day as to appropriate measures. Unfortunately a number of people looked to Arbitration not for "the" verdict, but for "their" verdict. That is never an excuse. In every Arbitration case, there will be some who heatedly, angrily, confusedly, indignantly, feel it must have gone their way, and wax heated when it does not give them everything they hoped for.

The case went to Arbitration, a lot of people don't like the decision or see it as a lack of firm statement. But if dispute resolution is to work, people need to learn to live with decisions they don't like, including that sometimes, the better question is not "who is wrong" so much as "what protection is needed".

I have significant respect for the people shouting, as individuals, and for their concerns. SirFozzie and I have spoken on more than a few occasions, with never a dispute, and have done so last night and today. But this anger has to end. The aim of arbitration is to address the issue, and believed or not, the issue is actually addressed. None of the parties or their supporters or opponents is going to get a golden medal of who was right, who was wrong; we can all drop it and get back to content and normal stuff. The articles warred over will be watched by many, as will the parties, and any suspect new editors.

Those who clamored endlessly here, are not, as they might imagine, heroes or wiki-vigilantes. They actually got in the way and disrupted, and in my own opinion, over reacted badly. They showed a gross misunderstanding of the very basics. We are an encyclopedia... and we do not act as was done.

Further to the point, in most cases where puppetry is alleged, the remedy is traditionally to remove the ability to engage in concerning behavior, and then leave the user with the chance to show their intentions. This has been the case in numerous instances where socking was effectively considered proven, not merely alleged. Such users routinely have had as recourse, their actions restricted -- and then been allowed to edit as normal to a high standard if they choose. A ban is not the norm, unless there is a lot more than just sockpuppetry at issue. Even double (or more) !voting has been allowed to fall into the past in other cases. If the user is a sysop, the adminship is usually revoked, is the other result. Beyond that, we let them show how they will act subsequently. If it's unrepentant, then the end of the line is inevitable. But we let them choose to return to the community in good faith, or show their intentions by editing. Their choice after arbitration.

Specific comments

1. Blocks and bans exist mostly to protect the project going forward. (Exception: It is rare that a ban is placed for gross breach of trust, and when this has been done it is usually an arbcom action and/or very high level of consensus.) In this case it is my view that recent case decisions mean there is little risk to protect the project against.
2. The community can and does act on its own. Witness Archtransit. However in that case it was made clear that the admin tools were being withdrawn, but that no further remedy was proposed to deal with the puppetry. In this matter however the driving force is heat, not light. Not one person has shown that there is a real risk of editing abuse going forward, and a cold hard look at the remedies, niche focus of the disputants, and communal awareness of the matter, will show that indeed, there probably is not. Further, when the senior dispute resolution panel has decided certain measures are likely to be sufficient, it is inappropriate for even established users to act in a way that does not respect that.
3. Samiharris - Samiharris has been handled exactly as any other party who ceases editing before the case on what appears to be a permanent basis. We often address them if/when they return to edit, and in fact have done so in cases far more egregious than this. We also at times block, and at times do not block, accounts where puppetry is possible/has some evidence/suggestive. Both are communal norms, so I am not going to give any view on this, except, ensure what is done is appropriate and fairly considered. (As an aside, note that a block would have negligible effect: SH's sole edits were via a proxy, which is independently blocked anyway I hope. But then again we know the areas of contention anyhow.)
4. Mantanmoreland - Both block and unblock were within communal norms; Coren confirms the block was to achieve good conduct of a communally suspected repeat puppeteer (a proper purpose) and would have been removed once assurances on future conduct were received. But in this case, specific remedies had already been provided for any untoward future conduct (and the block was also disputed by other users), making the need for this a bit redundant.
5. Tagging is probably unnecessary, and possibly provocative. Anyone who needs to know, knows already. There can be little doubt of that. A simple tag on SH's page "this is a suspected sock of..." might give vindication and rewarding feelings to some, but is actually pretty pointless really at this time. Feel free to edit war over it if needed. Usual sanctions probably apply.
6. I note that the blocks, and unblocks, were both done by relatively uninvolved admins. I am profoundly glad that this norm was followed, note the two admins concerned are both amicable to each other, and I glad that if any admins were to have acted, they were relatively uninvolved ones. Thank you to those who were involved, but held back. You did a good job there.
7. We don't run Wikipedia and especially, its sanction mechanisms, based on "I think that user is bad". We run it based on users' assessment of their disruption to the project going forward. We don't whip up heated emotional dramas around things, and I urge those who are persistently complicit in doing so, to consider desisting ("more light than heat"). The same names often keep coming up in this context.

Apologies for the tone. The user comments by some are genuine and emotive -- but as I see it, a number of views are also misdirected and misconceived. That needs saying and I lack the certainty that saying it tactfully will be heard. If anyone feels I have spoken wrongly of them though, please contact me, and I'll be glad to discuss. Specific questions raised I'll answer on the talk page in a bit.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(And note, there are some differences in perception between Arbitrators when it comes to the question of a site ban. Arbitrators, including myself, often speak individually as well as "as a committee" and are not shy to state personal views if they differ. Hence users will see different "takes" on this. That said, what we did agree on was that a topic ban was appropriate in our decision, but a site ban was -at this time anyhow - not.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I will try to say little, because there is so much that could be said. We have conflicting precedents regarding the threshold for community bans, as well as for how often administrators may undo one another's actions. The weight of the discussion on WP:AN suggests that a solid majority of participants support an indefinite block on both the Mantanmoreland and Samiharris accounts, but that there is enough dissension that the ordinary standards for a community ban have not been satisfied. Normally, administrators should not unblock against consensus, but it can be argued that unblocking to reflect dissent from a community ban is appropriate—at which point, if others support a ban, the matter can generally be brought before the Arbitration Committee—but here the case has already been here, and produced a decision regarded by some as insufficient, leading to the AN discussion in the first place. As the principal drafter of the nuanced decision that is now being found inadequate by many, I obviously have mixed feelings about every aspect of the matter: I thought the proposed decision was a good one, and was strengthened by remedies added more recently, and frankly I think that in writing decisions I generally know what I am doing and am entitled to a presumption to that effect, and I also would not want to devalue the deliberative process of this committee—but I am not a tribune, and I as a new editor once myself got a plurality of arbitrators to vote to reverse a remedy when I found it to be unjust, and I have no interest in shoving my personal opinions, even when joined by up to 14 colleagues, down an unwilling community's throat; and yet, the community speaks here not with one but with a multitude of voices; through a majority, but not with unanimity, nor even near-unanimity. We have here a more than a bit of a wikiconstitutional conundrum, which bids fair to rise above the level of attention to which the subject of the case should be entitled, and one that should be approached slowly and cautiously by all concerned to minimize the destructive impact of the tensions that have already occurred. While I and my colleagues and all of us ponder how it would be best to proceed, I would refer all concerned to Mantanmoreland's comments on his user talk page today, for whatever they might be worth, and I would urge him, if he has any additional information or statement to offer regarding any aspect of this matter, to post it to his talkpage without any delay. And I see that as usual I have failed in my vow to say little. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[email protected]

Thon Chanvannak 203.189.148.233 (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)