Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Closing Statement: Requests for comment which review Arbcom, project bureaucracy/governance and use of private checkuser information are an important meta task that we undertake in public. Typically these meta RFCs attract a lot of participation and strong views. Unfortunately this one has only had input from ~50 contributors, including seven arbitrators, one functionary, and user:Philippe (WMF). This RFC was started at the end of January 2012, and has run for two months instead of the usual one month duration, in part because a lot of new proposals were added as the RFC began its second month.

The scope of this RFC was intended to be broad, including any actions taken by ArbCom, however the only incident which has been the focus of this RFC is the ScottyBerg block by ArbCom.

In this RFC are some proposals to continue discussion at the Village Pump, or initiate other RFCs. Most of these proposals saw both support and opposition, however the numbers in each camp are low, so those wanting to initiate new, more focused, discussions should persue that after considering the opposing views.

The one meta view which has some support, and little opposition, was

“ Arbcom should get out of the policing business and back in the court of last resort business. ”

As the vast majority of this RFC has been about ScottyBerg, and there is no strongly held views in this RFC regarding Arbcom, I am renaming this RFC to reflect that it is an RFC about the ScottyBerg block.

Thanks to all who participated. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Summary

This RfC is to discuss current and, potentially, past incidents involving the Arbitration Committee, where actions were taken against users, usually blocks, that involved a lack of information and transparency and often oblique, extremely generalized statements to both the accused and to other community members.

The specific incident that this RfC is in response to is the recent block of User:ScottyBerg as a sockpuppet of User:Mantanmoreland.

A number of users were and are concerned about the block, as ScottyBerg has been a positive contibutor to the community and the encyclopedia. Concerns were raised on the talk page about a number of inconsistencies in regards to the block, the perceived reason for it, and the response from Arbitration Committee members.

With User:Reyk's permission, following is a numbered summary made by Reyk of some of those concerns:

• 1. Secret trials based on secret evidence are abhorrent to nearly everyone.
  2. ArbCom are sure enough of guilt that we should unquestioningly accept their assertion that it was a slam-dunk decision, but not sure enough to actually allow the accused access to the evidence against them. This is not fair play.
  3. ArbCom have now made it clear there is a way back for the accused if they're guilty but no possibility of return if they're innocent. Also not fair play.
  4. Ditching due process to go after the "bad guy" seems unnecessary since nobody has claimed ScottyBerg was disrupting anything.
  5. We feel we have not got satisfactory answers to our questions.
  6. In the event that we are accused of something, we feel we're less likely to get a fair hearing than we did before this whole ScottyBerg mess.
  7. This business of hanging on to CU info for a long time doesn't sit well with a lot of people.

In addition to these points, another point raised by User:Ken Arromdee was that the block seemed to have precipitated from the comments of a blocked sockpuppetteer on Wikipedia Review, a discussion that ScottyBerg's blocking admin, User:Alison, was involved in.

These concerns, and possibly more, have serverely marred a number of users' views on how the Arbitration Committee conducts itself and has raised fears that this process of "secret trials" could be conducted on any user without the possibility of rebuttal. This RfC is meant to raise, discuss, and express these concerns with the Arbitration Committee and to bring about some sort of change in how these processes are done.

Users certifying the basis for this RfC

1. Silverseren^C 23:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Reyk _YO! 00:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
3. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Gigs (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Statements

Statement by Silver seren

I am an individual who was heavily involved in the discussions on ScottyBerg's talk page. I was also in email contact with him throughout, in an attempt to help rectify the situation. Unfortunately, he has been extremely disillusioned with Wikipedia over this incident and has stated he will never be involved in Wikipedia again, even if proven to be innocent. Furthermore, he gave me his side of the emails he sent to ArbCom. Actually, he gave me all sides, but considering there was only ever one response from Arbcom, the one initially sent to him saying that they were looking at his case, it's really just one side.

He sent around ten further emails after that initial response, with info and questions, but received no further replies whatsoever.

As stated above in the summary, what very likely started this mess was those comments on Wikipedia Review. It has also been stated that Scotty's edits on Gary Weiss are one factor, but as thoroughly explained by him and others on his talk page and in emails to Arbcom, all of those were routine Huggle edits or the reversion of undue weight material to the article.

Furthermore, it was originally unclear where the CU information came from. The last Mantanmoreland sock blocked was a significant time ago, enough for it to have been already stale when Scotty was brought to an SPI back in September, where it was thrown out for plain ridiculousness. Arbitrator AGK then said to me that certain CU infor is kept on the CU Wiki for a temporary period of time, but I don't believe a year and a half fits into anything that could be considered temporary.

Are Arbitrators and Checkuser's essentially keeping CU info indefinitely on their Wiki? There are ethical issues for such a thing and, in my opinion, leaves the possibility for such info to be abused.

But what this all boils down to is that Arbcom is doing the same thing it has been doing before and pledged to stop, being obscure with their information, having a complete lack of transparency, and serving as judge, jury, and executioner without even allowing the defendant to present their case.

Something needs to change. Silverseren^C 23:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment from the WMF about the Checkuser wiki

The Wikimedia Foundation provides a wiki to users with the checkuser privilege for the express purpose of storing data on long-term abusers (of which Mantanmoreland was certainly one). This raises no ethical or legal questions, contrary to the statement above: this process was approved by the General Counsel, and is covered in the Retention of Private Data policy. The specific sections are:
It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, or through other non-publicly-available methods, may be released by Wikimedia volunteers or staff, in any of the following situations:

• Where the user has been vandalizing articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to a service provider, carrier, or other third-party entity to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers,
• Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.

So, without prejudice to the rest of this discussion, I did want to be very clear that there are no ethical or legal issues in this one object. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

@Silver seren, you say: I find it hard to believe that there are no legal ramifications for hoarding personal information on people, but I give up the point. There's no need to give up the point. If you think there's a legal issue, why don't you write up what it is (referring specifically to the types of data that are stored on Checkuser wiki) and I'll pass it on to the General Counsel. I think your use of the word "hoarding" is extremely leading here, regardless. If you truly do concede that point, may I recommend that you strike through or otherwise modify your statement to impress upon people that you no longer believe that to be an issue? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed the legal bit, but added to the sentence my concern regarding the possibility of abuse of it. Silverseren^C 18:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

So you're um...saying that you accept what Phillipe says but you don't believe it? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Huh? No, i'm saying that I believe him in regards to there being no legal issue with it (though I find that strange), but I do think there are ethical concerns, along with the possibility of abuse of such indefinitely kept information. Silverseren^C 21:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the hoarding of personal info: I think Silver Seren should be much more afraid of Google, Facebook, Apple, the FBI, the DHS, etc. etc. etc. than of Wikipedia. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Who says i'm not concerned about them too? :) Silverseren^C 06:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie

Silver seren has created a tempest in a teapot. He objects to every bit of the recent block of ScottyBerg as a reincarnation of a community banned user.

First: The way to come back from a community ban is not to create a new account in violation of the ban, and then to go on merrily editing, now matter how productive a user you intend on purportedly being.

Second: For some reason he intends to teach long term banned users on how to better evade CheckUser scruitiny, in defiance of the community's saying "no, the person behind this account is not welcome, Tracking behavioral evidence and similarities (as well as IP ranges) between accounts is somehow "secret witch trials".Instead, he demands we hand over evidence on how a user was caught sockpuppetting so they can better avoid being blocked next time.

Third: Alison contacted the Committee to alert us she was on the verge of blocking the user, and carefully and congently explained why she was about to do so. We told her that we had no problem with the initial block, but would carefully consider any appeal from ScottyBerg. When that appeal was made, Nearly a dozen checkusers and arbitrators carefully scruitinized the evidence linking the two accounts. A couple of this number provided background information only, but recused from any formal decision as they were involved in the original case that ended up sanctioning the user that ScottyBerg was linked with. However, every arbitrator and check user who reviewed this case concurred with the finding linking the two accounts.

Fourth: Going back to the second point, Silver complains that we have left a path back for ScottyBerg if he IS the community banned user but not one if he isn't. This point is now moot as the determination has been made (again unanimously) that yes, ScottyBerg IS a reincarnation of a community banned user.

Fifth: Silverseren demands we show evidence that ScottyBerg was disruptive. Again, his opinion is that an editor who the Community has told "You are not welcome here" is allowed to edit, as long as he is superficially not causing issues. This again, is not the case. Editors who are community banned have a way to get back in to editing, this was not the way. Also, ScottyBerg violated an Arbitration Committee violated the remedy from the original Arbitration Committee case that stated he is not to edit articles related to those brought up in that case.

Sixth: Silverseren, brings up, as a side show to this issue, that checkusers keep details on persistently sockpuppeting editor in an effort to better recognize and neutralize further attempts to disrupt Wikipedia in concurrence with their mandate from the rights granted through the Committee (and the WMF). This is not the place to discuss such things. There is already a place to bring complaints about use of advanced permissions, the Audit Subcommittee, and failing that, the WMF itself. However, he knows he will get short shrift from either, because he is again wrong on the facts and the issues. (Note: When I wrote this up, I had not yet seen Phillippe's statement. However, the point still stands, and is confirmed by the office's post. )

In short, Silver seren is either mistaken or deliberately wrong in all major facts of this issue, and this RFC is not a legitimate attempt to solve a dispute, but instead an attempt to cause drama and trouble. This is not the first time that Silver seren has attempted to stir up action against the Committee, In his past attempt (involving a user who was blocked and their administrator tools removed for misues (including suicide threats), he was again proven wrong on all points, but that has not stopped him from charging in, Don Quixote style, tilting at windmills yet again. If he has concerns about the way the Arbitration Committee runs within its mandate and rules, he can always run for a seat on the Committee at the end of the year.

Note for the record: Silver seren violated WP:CANVASS by attempting to "stack the deck" in commenting to all the people who spoke in the decision on ScottyBerg's talk page, but not the purported targets of this RFC. SirFozzie (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

@SirFozzie: The personal attacks aren't needed here and you should realize that the list of points and other information was taken from other people, like Reyk, and isn't just me. So your continued use of negative terms (complains, demands, ect.) and my name is both rude and wrong. Anyways, your points in order:

1. A number of us disagree that Scotty is Mantanmoreland. The point we're trying to make is that if Scotty is innocent, you've given him no steps to take to come back. He would have to falsely say he's guilty and use the standard offer, as that's the only option for him, even if he's not Mantanmoreland.
2. I have never once stated that Arbcom should give up specialized behavioral information that influenced their decision. What I have said is that it is entirely possible for a generalized explanation to be made that explains why the block was made, such as "Due to the editing made on such and such articles and through CU data, we have determined that so and so is a sock of so and so". Something like that doesn't give anything away, but explains where the decision came from.
3. The issue that a number of us have is that it appears what instigated Alison to this is a comment by a blocked sockpuppeteer on Wikipedia Review.
4. This, this is exactly the type of mindset that has upset so many people. You absolutely refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of being wrong and, likely because of this, have offered no alternatives for the accused if you are wrong.
5. See #1.
6. I have read Philippe's response. I find it hard to believe that there are no legal ramifications for hoarding personal information on people, but I give up the point. The CU issue is minor compared to other stuff.

And it's funny that all you guys have to bring up is always Rodhullandemu. That's the only thing you ever have and the issue there was the same issue as here, lack of any information given to the community whatsoever. At least in that case you replied to his emails, unlike what you've given to Scotty here.

And I discussed this on Scotty's talk page beforehand and other people were in support of me making this RfC. That's why I did it, your insults aside. Silverseren^C 02:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

@Your note: I hadn't even been done in getting it set up yet or added to any RfC places. You can't blame me for not notifying you when I hadn't even officially started the RfC yet. I notified all of those people to have them come certify this if they were interested, then I would have opened it and gone and notified you guys. This RfC is still not even listed anywhere, as I wasn't ready to do that before. Silverseren^C 02:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You had multiple hours between contacting Reyk, Mongo, etcetera so I find your comments less then accurate. Also: You may disagree, but you are not in possession of the IP and behavioral evidence that Checkusers are qualified to handle per the privacy policy. It's not that you disagree with it, it's that you can't see it, and you are acting like a gossip monger, demanding to know things only because you have a burning need to be "in the know". If you want to have access to private info, then put your name forward for advanced permissions, although I would have to state for the record that I, for at least one would not trust you with sensitive, private information, based on your past history.

It seems you are unaware of the history, in fact the issue that started the whole Mantanmoreland issue is that a checkuser requested by someone who ALSO turned out to be a sockpuppet of a banned user. However, what that checkuser found (that Mantanmoreland and Samiharris could not be authoratively linked, because one account (Samiharris) exclusively edited using open proxies. Despite this fact, the only hue and cry to sweep the CU results under the rug were amongst Mantanmoreland's greatest defenders, and as it turns out, they as well were proven wrong.

And to respond to your repeated talking pointthat "You've given ScottyBerg no way back if he is truly innocent.. again, he is not innocent. A dozen arbitrators and check users have signed off on this, that the two accounts are the same. In short, your reply to my response is no more credible then your original statement. SirFozzie (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

First off, can you please stop the insults? They're not making your argument stronger or you look better with your argument. In regards to the notifying, I was doing all of that at work. I notified them around three hours ago, in between setting this up, and then got off work and went to have dinner. And, again, this RfC isn't even technically open yet.

Anyways, I don't want to see the evidence, because that's not the issue here. The issue is how Arbcom acted throughout all of this. Scotty being innocent or not isn't important at this point.

The main problem isn't even just about this single case. It's with the fact that you, and presumably Arbcom, refuse to acknowledge the possibility of being wrong. If this is a mindset that all of you use for every case, therein lies the problem, because there's no way for you to be right 100% of the time. You have to allow the possibility of being wrong or you aren't the right person for the responsibilities handed to you. This is why I always felt that having just Arbcom is a problem. In a sense of a court case, since Arbcom is always compared to being a court, when you appeal a decision, you don't appeal it to the same judge and jury that made the decision, because having people review their own decisions is pointless. Who's really going to willingly change their own judgement without outside influence?

Not to mention that your last paragraph is a complete circular argument. "You shouldn't believe we made a mistake because we didn't make a mistake". It doesn't matter how many people in the group you had review it, not allowing the idea of having been mistaken or having overlooked something is a major problem. This is not a mindset that Arbcom should have, because they cannot properly represent the community with it. Silverseren^C 03:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the cogent part of the argument is "CheckUsers and Arbitrators are qualified and authorized to handle private data per the authorization of the WMF. As for categorizing my comments refuting your "statement" insults does not make them any less true. The last time you went tilting at windmaills, against the Committee, it was demanding to see the contents of oversighted edits so you could determine for yourself whether the Committee had made the right decision to block the user". Oversighters, and even those who saw the edit before it was oversighted tried to assure you that the edits were indeed oversightable and the reason who got blocked. You refused, and only when the mass of the community told you to stop beating the dead horse and drop it, did you begrudgingly do so.

While we ARE fallible, one of the reasons why so many people reviewed the evidence for ScottyBerg's appeal is to make sure that we WEREN'T making a mistake. To suggest all these people were simultaneously wrong stretches the odds to a point that only "I really have a need to see for myself" can explain it. And considering one of your major points of your creating this RFC was that you thought Scotty had a secret trial and was innocent, to now claim that "Scotty being innocent or not isn't important at this point" proves my point, that you don't really have a case to be answered here in this RFC, you are just upset that you aren't "in the know" and want to force the release of private information to satisfy your own curiosity. SirFozzie (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The private data has little to nothing to do with this. It's about whether there's the possibility that the conclusion this data and those that read it is faulty. No matter how many people you had review the data, there is entirely the possibility that the conclusion it represented was incorrect. And this isn't about this case specifically, but any case. There needs to be a way for those accused to represent themselves and prove their innocence. At the very least, they deserve replies from Arbcom, rather than continual silence.

And, again, I don't want to see the data. What it says is irrelevant to this RfC. The issue is how this and many other blocks/bans are conducted by the Arbitration Committee, and these other blocks/bans are continually pointed out by users to be obtuse in how they are presented to the community. That is the point of this case, to have Arbcom actually follow the pledge of transparency that they made at one point in time. Silverseren^C 03:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, now I don't understand. You don't want to see the data, but you think everyone who has seen it is interpreting it wrongly. You don't believe Arbcom has communicated with ScottyBerg, even though it says that it has. I presume you don't want to see those emails, you just don't believe that they exist. So what do you want? What is the outcome you want from this process? Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you implying that there are further replies from Arbcom beyond the one that states "The Arbitration Committee (or its Ban Appeals Subcommittee) will consider your appeal and inform you of our decision by e-mail or on your Wikipedia talk page. In the interim, I (personally) would encourage you to remain professional in any posts to your talk page - if indeed you find it necessary to make any at all."

You did "inform him on his talk page", I suppose, but just to say that it was denied. There were no replies to his other emails to the committee with evidence of his innocence, not even a little "We have received your email and will add the information to our consideration" or something like that. Silverseren^C 19:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

And you know there's evidence of his innocence because...? I take your point that it's hard to prove a negative, but other people accused of socking have managed it often enough. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You already know the emails he sent to Arbcom, including what he said in them. And i'm not saying it proves his innocence, i'm saying that he deserved at least some sort of response to his statements and questions. Also, was semi-protection ever applied to his talk page as he asked, because of that disruptive IP? Silverseren^C 21:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Alison semiprotected his talkpage for 24hrs on the 15th, and Newyorkbrad then semiprotected it until the 23rd. That's in the public page logs, so you can look that up for yourself. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jack Sebastian

As I've pointed out elsewhere, I don't actually like ScottyBerg; my few interactions with the user made me less likely to interact with him. So, it was with a bit of schadenfreude that I read about his being blocked. Unfortunately, I began to wonder if the basis of the block was a good one. There are too many crap users who become for all intents and purposes 'block-proof' (or at least extremely block resistant) because others inflated a charge at one point or another which never stuck, and I didn't want to see that happen here. I state this so as to make it clear I am not one of SB's defenders.
I haven't seen the evidence against SB that substantiates the claim that he is Mantanmoreland. There is no public checkuser that connects the two. I am extremely disturbed that the sole reason for failing to present this evidence seems predicated upon WP:BEANS - specifically, that making the proof known would compromise Wikipedia security (this from User: Mongo).
It seems to me that such an excuse is so ripe for abuse that some users have jumped on the bandwagon, sure that just such an abuse has taken place here as well as at previous times. ARBCOM's response to these concerns hasn't done much to calm people's fears, though AGK and another took the time to try and explain the matter, though I think they failed to appreciate the depth of these concerns.
I think that the idea of a secret deliberation about someone's block is anathema to the core ideas of Wikipedia,a nd certainly contrary to where ARBCOM has sought to protray themselves as desiring more transparency.
Clearly, this isn't happening. I understand (at least some of) the difficulties with aiming for complete transparency, and can clearly see the apparent problem here. I am not advocating we tear down ARBCOM and tar and feather the arbs before running them out of town on a rail; that is counter-productive. Also, I am guessing they wouldn't vote to do that to themselves.
That said, I think a little more than lip service needs to be paid to the idea of transparency; they do answer to the community, after all - or am I wrong about this. If so, then the problem is ever so much larger: who watches the watchers? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

To be honest Jack, checking the user's IP address only really confirmed that he was located in the right part of the world. The reluctance to discuss is because all but the best poker players don't realise what their 'tells' are. Hence there is always a general reluctance by the checkusers to openly catalogue 'tells', because they feel it gives them an edge in identifying serial sockers. However, most of the rest of the evidence is on Wikipedia if you want to go ferret it out yourself - you can read all the discussions about Mantanmoreland and his socks, look at the editing patterns of all the socks, run whatever wikistalk/editor compare tools you like, and see if you agree with the dozen and more checkusers and experienced admins who are/were familiar with his editing. Silver seren can do the same. Any editor can do the same. What they don't have a right to, as it goes at the moment, is to have all the evidence laid out in simple sentences, because in this case they aren't the jury. If the community wants to insist that socks cannot be blocked unless there is a community discussion, then that needs to be proposed in the usual way.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, Elen, and I am not advocating a dulling of the perceived edge that CU's feel they have. By the same token, it is unreasonable to ask us to trust that checkusers are using the Force or whatever to do their job, and we should just trust that they are doing their job.

Before the aforementioned comment gets taken largely out of context, I will point out that questioning authority is not the same thing as damning it. I have no reason to believe that cu's are abusing their community-entrusted authority. Then again, I have no proof that ScottyBerg is Mantanmoreland, either. There is an issue of trust which ARBCOM isn't engendering by its perceived actions, and it is pretty much the source of the problem here here. I typically don't believe in large-style government cover-ups, but with the details of Echelon and Watergate, there exists good reason to scout for abuse by those in authority.

I don't believe that treating the rest of the users as if you have to "dumb down" the evidence for the community (suggested by the "have all the evidence laid out in simple sentences" statement) is fair. Likewise, suggesting that we can wade through the - if not mountain, than certainly a large-type hill of - evidence or IP search tools is not beneficial to the community's view of ARBCOM's openness. You are effectively asking us to listen for one harmony in the cacophony that is Wikipedia. Bluntly, if you've done the work, share it with us, and save us the time. If MM has been outed, then the privacy issue isn't on point. If ScottyBerg is indeed MM, then - being connected - he also has no expectation of privacy - especially since you are all unanimously convinced that they are connected. There has to be a better middle ground than what currently is in place. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you should trust that they are doing their job. If you do not trust that this was an appropriate block, there are dispute resolution processes in place: the Audit Subcommittee includes community representation, and the WMF Ombudsman Commission is an arms-length body that has absolutely no connection to English Wikipedia. Every arbitrator is elected by the community, and every checkuser appointed since 2009 has been vetted both by the Arbitration Committee and by community consultation; all of them must meet the WMF requirements for handling of private information. Thousands of blocks a year are made by checkusers using private information and the collective wisdom accumulated with respect to serial abusers of the project. That this one happens to involve a longterm contributor meant that there was lots of review prior to and following the block to reassess the opinion of the blocking checkuser; this has possibly been the most thoroughly vetted checkuser block in the past three years, and there has been no dissent at all about the link. Risker (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

See, that comment didn't answer anything contained in Jack Sebastian's post. It's this defensive "you chose us, we all checked, we much be right" mentality that is irking people. Silverseren^C 18:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I have pointed him to the appropriate dispute resolution processes. You can follow them too. Risker (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Not helping. :/ Rather condescending, actually. Silverseren^C 18:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Jack, apologies. I didn't mean 'dumbed down' - I was thinking about the way evidence is laid out for a jury. If the community was being asked to make a decision, then the evidence ought to be laid out in a way that the community can follow. But, there is not currently a mechanism by which the community makes decisions on whether someone is a sock or not, so there is not currently a requirement to lay out the evidence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries, Elen; I am glad that I took your comment the wrong way, and that you took the time to point out the correct interpretation. You also point out the same problem that I do; namely, that there is no mechanism by which to verify that arbs are making the right decisions. I know that might ruffle some arb feathers - 'who says we need anyone to verify our work? We're arbs, after all' - but the bitter pill here is that the community is not meant to trust you implicitly.

We create this culture wherein we call on others to prove that which they wish to add to articles. We insist that matters in discussion pages and community areas be cited with relevant rules and/or guidelines. Proof is part of the wiki 'DNA'. Those who can't or won't get this eventually weed themselves out or get weeded out by others. The assumption of good faith does not extend into matters as serious as this.

So, asking us to simply trust you (and I'm also addressing Risker's comments here) is contrary to what we do as wiki editors and counter-productive as a request. I am saying that if you are wrong about ScottyBerg being Mantanmoreland (and if you are not willing to risk both your adminship and arbiter status to do so, then you cannot say it with certainty), you are giving the community no opportunity to discover that error. And I think that not allowing that is a grave mistake that only further isolates ARBCOM from the community and further hobbles with process.

Risker, you seem like a smart guy, and I've never known you to make a mistake, but then, my Pops would say that makes you ripe for one. If you were aware of the ScottyBerg page - and I find it very hard to believe that no one commenting here wasn't watching that page - you might have suggested "the appropriate dispute resolution process" then, instead of waiting until Silver seren took the time to file this RfC. That seems a little bit less than helpful. I am commenting here so that we can try to address a problem without having to move further up the pipeline. You don't have to take my comments seriously, but I intend them as such. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Jack says:

• "There is no public checkuser that connects the two." - I thought checkuser info was never public.
• "I think that the idea of a secret deliberation about someone's block is anathema to the core ideas of Wikipedia" - well no, if it was really like that, there would be no such thing as checkuser, and no private arbcom deliberations.

Transparent processes have their advantages which is why we use them when we can; they also have limitations, especially in a setting as privacy-protective as Wikipedia. We try to resolve most disputes at the community level that is open to everyone, supposedly with transparency. When that doesn't work, plan B is to swap out some of the trust created by (supposed) transparency, for trust that's been vested in specific users (i.e. arbcom and CU) through community processes such as elections, thus making it possible to use private data and deliberations after open processes have failed. Per KWW, this is an encyclopedia after all, not an experiment in governance or judicial machinery.

In reality the "community" processes of course aren't so transparent either, because of the amount of sockpuppets, undisclosed COI, etc. present among the community participants. While it's not inconceivable that such issues could affect arbcom/CU, the arb/CU members have at least gone through some scrutiny and (in the past) open election discussions. Now we have secret-ballot of elections, which I'd have considered a loss of transparency, Of course lots of good editors supported that (I personally didn't), but it's disturbing when someone associated with socking does it.[1] 67.119.12.141 (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

I want to bring attention to a few issues here that need to be clarified...

• Checkusers are generally regarded as being highly trusted members of the community. They are expected to ensure that when they are dealing with possible ban evaders that they take certain steps to seek out other highly trusted members of the community (such as the arbitration committee) if they have evidence that may lead to a re-ban of a ban evader. In the case in question, checkuser Alison did this.
• The arbitration committee is generally regarded as being highly trusted members of the community...upon reviewing Alisons data, they apparently reached the same conclusion, namely that ScottyBerg = Mantanmoreland, who was banned from editing Wikipedia.
• Checkusers and members of the arbitration committee are expected to maintain the rights of privacy of all, including ban evaders, yet also provide feedback as to the basics as to why a returning editor has been rebanned...in this case, this has been provided.
• There are certain techniques, pieces of data, ques and other things I may not be aware of that allow for investigations of ban evaders to be possible...in other words, there is a lot more to such matters than just IP correlation. Some of this information must remain somewhat confidential so that the editor who is blocked as a ban evader, or those wishing to evade a ban or vote stack or similar isn't as easily able to dodge his/her ban. In previous comments on this matter, I alluded that reveiling some particulars of what is involved here could "compromise" Wikipedia...to clarify, I should have used the term "compromising"...but even with this adjustment, all I mean is that we don't want to aide and abet anyone using undisclosed sockpuppets...there are numerous reasons for this.
• The arbitration committee generally enforces previous bans but does allow (after some time has elapsed) the opportunity for all but the most egregious of editors the chance to return to normal editing...in this case, the committee has explained what this avenue is and it seems from my perspective to be a fair one for the most part.
• I believe that Alison and the arbitration committee here have acted in the best interests of Wikipedia in that the rules apply to all equally and a ban evader has no entitlement to editing this project unless they have sought out a modification of their ban via the arbitration committee....in such circumstances, the arbitration committee generally also seeks out comments by those who may have been involved in prior actions which led to a ban as well as community comments.
• Those sanctioned under arbitration are expected to follow certain procedural steps to regain the right to openly edit here.

However, I have other points here that should be noted...

• ScottyBerg amassed over 12,000 edits...aside from what a few have labelled as "promotional" to a certain bio, I can see no malice in any of ScottyBerg's contributions. Of course, I haven't reviewed every single edit made by ScottyBerg and may not be nuanced enough to know if he did or did not edit some articles in a completely neutral manner, but I know of almost no Wikipedian that doesn't have some bias...there are numerous editors on this website that edit purely from a biased position...their contributions surely appear far more detrimental to the project than ScottyBergs edits to a certain bio.
• Aside from some edits to a certain bio, ScottyBerg appears to have stayed completely away from editing areas that were edited by Mantanmoreland...
• ScottyBerg and I have had zero email communication that I can remember...he posted a few times to my talkpage and I remember giving him a barnstar for his positive contributions to a 9/11 related article and discussions there. Mantanmoreland and I did have email correspondance long ago...he never provided, nor did I inquire about his real life identity. My knowledge of ScottyBerg is solely based on his contributions to some of the same articles I have worked on. I never had any knowledge of or any reason to suspect that ScottyBerg may be a ban evader.
• The discussion which led to this matter of ScottyBerg being ban evader Mantanmoreland appears to have commenced at the website Wikipedia Review. I have generally held an antagonistic viewpoint of this website, the motives of some of the contributers there as well as their welcoming of not only banned editors (note that I don't believe Mantanmoreland contributed there as he would not be welcome I don't believe...the mods there may be able to check that), but some former editors of Wikipedia that have been involved in real life stalking and real life harassment....and their at least previous active efforts to try and identify the real life identities of some of our contributors. There is concern on my part that an off-wiki website, of a somewhat (from my perspective) dubious standing, may be misused as a coordinating point for on wiki harassment...[2]
• I do not think that the contributions made by ScottyBerg are in any way detrimental to this website...if indeed he is Mantanmoreland, I believe that his contributions as ScottyBerg already demonstrate that he has "reformed".
• I question the zeal that appears to have been shown here...I do not see any evidence that ScottyBerg was a threat to the content of this website. There may have been a better way to deal with this situation.--MONGO 17:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

In closing, I want to reemphasize that I believe that checkuser Alison and the arbitration committee have done the right thing here. It saddens me that an editor that has made apparently 12,000 plus contributions, virtually every single one of them positive, has been found to be a ban evader, but I AGF that all involved in this matter have enforced the letter of the law so to speak...for if we don't enforce the rules, all we are left with is anarchy.--MONGO 18:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

There are two different components here, and it might be as well to separate them, as otherwise I think it might become confused. The first is the question of whether the ScottyBerg account is operated by the same person who operated the Mantanmoreland account. The second is - if the first is true, should action have been taken. There's probably more discussion to be had about the second component, and as I said above to Jack, an argument that there should be community discussion in some cases might well receive support, because the community might not advocate continuing to block the individual if their sock has operated peaceably for years. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the evidence that Alison and the arbitration committee examined is conclusive that they are the same editor. I also believe that ScottyBerg has a 99 percent positive contributions history, but I am willing to modify that if provided evidence aside from a few to a certain bio that demonstrate malice or COI.--MONGO 19:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I do think that this, and Quest's statement below, are worth further discussion. Even among the reviewers, while everyone thought he is Mantanmoreland, some people did question whether it was worth blocking him. The question is - what do you do if you decide he can stay? Do you say he's a blocked user but you've decided to keep him on. Do you fudge it - say there's not enough evidence that he is? How do you respond to the argument that it encourages socking? And what do you do when WR keeps up the pressure? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll be blunt here and say that Wikipedia Review can go to hell....so any "pressure" they apply to our website itself should be ignored. Now as far as pressure on ScottyBerg himself, that is a dfifferent matter and perhaps even if he avowed to never touch Mantanmorelands areas, the malicious editors there may have made his editing experiences here (by socking and attacking here) untenable. I don't support the return of an arbcom banned editor unless he/she goes through the proper channels and abides by set conditions...am I incorrect in my assumption that this was initiated at Wikipedia Review...and the checkuser was performed based on evidence or suspicions cast there? Where is the official request for checkuser on ScottyBerg? Was it requested by a neutral third party? Why is User:Vee8Njinn/SB still up?...this is an obvious bad party sock page. I suppose the subsequent edits to the certain bio is the reason that a previously dismissed Rfcu became more in focus. Its these sorts of things that makes a few of those commenting here come across as frustrated.--MONGO 19:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that really all the behavioral evidence there is? Wikistalk is pretty much useless, as there are a number of people that would have more of a match with Mantanmoreland and not be him. The other evidence is what..."rply" and "--"? The -- is useless, as two edits out of 12,000 doesn't mean anything. I'm sure i've used -- before myself. As for rply, i'm not seeing any comparison to Scotty listed there. Silverseren^C 20:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that the information posted at the closed RFCu and at User:Vee8Njinn/SB constitutes the bulk of the behavioral evidence...subsequent "promotional" edits to Gary Weiss and closely correlating checkuser (IP) evidence is enough to determine that this is the same editor. I'm in a personal quagmire as to how to fully address this matter...anything that had it's birth at Wikipedia Review leaves a bad impression.--MONGO 20:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Second that sentiment. There is (to my mind) no reason why there couldn't be a proper community discussion as to an unblock that could cover off all these points. At least then it has been properly aired. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm better at asking the questions than figuring out the solutions. This is a relatively unique situation...a ban evader returns under a new username without arbcom agreement, makes almost universally good contributions, is found to be evading a ban and gets rebanned. The vast bulk of those banned return using short lived socks which are quickly found and blocked...who knows, we probably have other new accounts of previously banned/blocked editors that moved on to new horizons and have remained undetected.--MONGO 20:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Just musing here and not really in support of such a thing overall, but I wonder if some sort of statute of limitations might be in order...in that an old arbcom case is best amended (though never nullified) so that an otherwise trustworthy editor can return in peace under set conditions....we know what those conditions would be in this case.--MONGO 21:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting thought. As you say, most socks just repeat the previous behaviour, get caught and blocked. I'm sure there are users out there editing under a new name that no-one has picked up - or someone has noticed but kept mum because the new incarnation appears harmless. I don't have answers either, but it's an interesting thought to put into a discussion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Rootology is an interesting case...banned in the MONGO arbcom case, subsequently socked as User:XP and with other accounts...ventured to Wikipedia Commons where he was later made an admin...petitioned arbcom for his ban to be lifted on en.wiki...arbcom asked me and I said grudgingly okay after he promised to avoid me (lol)..and even became an admin here under his original username. The main difference here is that Rootology went through the proper channels for such an amendment...and conditions were established which allowed him to edit again, and as I mentioned, even be given admin tools. Sorry no links as I'm just reciting the events as I recollect them...--MONGO 21:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Rootology followed the prescribed route, which is fairly tortuous. At the other end of the scale, we have Count Iblis below, who seems to be suggesting that socks not be blocked at all while they are editing productively, which I would think it could be argued...rather invalidates the point of blocks. Yes, you're blocked, but we won't block your socks until they are unproductive. Or should we consider that? Some socks do edit productively for a while before running off the rails, which seems to be a strategy of some sockfarmers to cause more confusion and disruption. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There is (or was) in fact something of a tradition that if a banned user returned quietly and edited productively, depending on the circumstances of the ban, other editors who noticed this would often choose to not say anything. This was always a collective IAR on the part of the editors who noticed (and it obviously had to be unanimous), rather than anything that the banned user was entitled to by any stretch of the imagination. For example, the brouhaha over User:Law was (if I remember correctly) because Law became an administrator while other users/admins knew that Law was a new account of a banned user. If Law hadn't run for admin, then the eventual disclosure probably wouldn't have caused noticable blowback towards other people who had kept their knowledge quiet. As it was, it caused multiple resignations of admins and arbcom members. I can think of a few other examples I won't go into. So maybe the arbs/checkusers who discovered SB=MM could have just monitored the situation quietly or contacted SB privately, instead of blocking and announcing. But I'd imagine that the "transparency" aficionados would have been even more bent out of shape if something like that later became known.

Anyway, by another tradition, banned users normally can't get unbanned unless they themselves ask to be unbanned. If ScottyBerg wants an unban, the obvious thing for him to do is contact BASC or ask someone to open an AN thread where the request could be discussed in the usual way. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've just spent a few minutes looking over ScottyBerg's contribs. His mainspace editing is mostly reasonable, concentrating on New York City-related articles (geography, transit, etc). Of 12182 total edits he's made 4527 Huggle or Twinkle edits, mostly vandal reversions scattered all over mainspace (with some concentrations in specific articles he probably has watchlisted), suggesting he's been doing some RC patrol. Those are of course useful contributions per se, but at least in the old days, doing a lot of vandal reverting plus some uncontroversial mainspace editing was a standard route for returning editors to gain adminship without close scrutiny at RFA. So (forgive my cynicism), that pattern at least lifted my eyebrows about his possible intentions. I also notice some involvement of his in DR related to climate change and other areas inhabited by certain dramaboard/WR regulars, that I don't get a good vibe from. He says he has never heard of Mantanmorland.[3] He participated in several other SPI's, most extensively in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Nelsondenis248/Archive (where he did good work), showing interest and knowledge in this area. He removed mention of WR from an essay section discussing disgruntled former Wikipedians.[4] Early edit history (bunch of transit-related edits, then shows up on Jimbo's talk page about climate change, etc.) also looks a bit "constructed" through the lens of the known history we're discussing. Plus there are the Gary Weiss edits and a few other issues I'll skip. Overall not much "smoking guns" but my heart is still nonetheless not exactly filled with AGF. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, ScottyBerg doesn't have the kind of contributions such as new pages or major article enhancement, but his edits still appear to be overwhelmingly constructive nevertheless and that is generally all we ask of any editor. We have a history of being overly tolerant of well known POV pushers, SPA's and similar contributors that are, in my opinion, more detrimental than ScottyBerg has ever been while editing under that username.--MONGO 05:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

True. I do wonder how many other socks he might be running. One thing that really bugs me is when tendentious editors and sock operators start trying to influence site policies in ways that can weaken the encyclopedia's integrity. That's an area where SB causes me some concern, though I'll agree that it certainly could be a lot worse. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence as of yet that ScottyBerg had any sock accounts, only they he is a sock account of Mantanmoreland...I assume that User:Alison would have uncovered and also blocked any other socks during the checkuser investigation. Alison also protected the Gary Weiss article due to BLP enforcement.--MONGO 05:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I presume you mean other sock accounts and you've forgotten Bassettcat,[5] plus the total insanity of the MM arb case itself. I haven't looked into the past WP and WR discussions enough to know how the SB-MM connection was uncovered in the first place. I'd superficially guess that it was not easy to discern. So I don't necessarily expect that other ones (if they exist) were likely to have been discovered. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't "forget" Bassettcat since I posted that same AN/I archived link here earlier[6]...I meant that ScottyBerg isn't a sockmaster account...while we're here chatting about socks, how about you start editing here with your regular username...not to be rude, but why the coverup since you seem otherwise to be contributing without malice and quite neutrally and you're not a newbie.--MONGO 06:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't use a username. I think I edit more neutrally without one. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Have you edited under a named account before, anon67? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia. Everything else is secondary. ScottyBerg is a productive editor with 2 year's experience and 12,000 edits, and a clean record. Even if he is Mantanmoreland, whatever conduct issues they might have had in the past have obviously been corrected. Productive editors who aren't causing any problems should not be blocked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

I agree with A Quest for Knowledge. For me, the issue isn't ScottyBerg being Mantanmoreland or not. User:Tisane was also blocked by ArbCom for a similar reason, despite that user being very productive here. Count Iblis (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not sure how relevant that example is. Tisane only edited for five days. Even User:Pickbothmanlol can manage five days before going off at the deep end sometimes.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC) My bad. For some reason earliest contribs came up for me with 6 August 2010. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I see a lot more editing time than that here. Count Iblis (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Tisane may have been "productive", but his editing was biased at best and alarming at worst. Fences&Windows 21:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

My best ABF theory towards ScottyBerg's editing pattern is that he was after a sysop bit. Whether that strategy still works and he wanted to do with the bit once he got it, I don't know, but it can't have been good. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Kww

This is covered by one of the missing pieces of WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an experiment seeking a perfect online social justice system. It has a rough-and-ready system that is good enough for the task. A lot of people with checkuser privileges looked at the data and came to a conclusion. It may be the right one. If it is, they did the right thing, as socking is intolerable, no matter the productivity of the sock. They may have made a mistake, in which case .0000000000015% of the human race is unjustly blocked from editing a website. That's a problem of no consequence, and not worth any more effort than has already been put into the case.—Kww(talk) 03:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't like the absolutism of "X is intolerable no matter what" per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY among other things, but I agree with the general sentiment about WP dispute resolution and its imperfections. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 06:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

I will just copy-paste the comment I left on the user talk page for Jimmy Wales:

“ User:Cookiehead, who appears to frequent the site of Wikipedia Review where many active and banned editors have been discussing User:ScottyBerg as a sock of Mantan, makes the following edit to the Gary Weiss article: [7]. What is rather telling is that the edit summary has a comical feel to it and the use of quotations around the phrase "weight-loss surgery" as well suggests this was never meant as a serious edit. Sure enough, as soon as Scotty reverts the edit Cookie goes to WR to announce his success: [8]. It appears this was the inciting incident that led to the block, all apparently prompted by the discussion on WR.

However, the most unsettling thing is what happens next. Following several acts of vandalism the article was put under protection. At that point User:Cla68 leaves a post on the WR thread suggesting ways to "smoke out" Mantan socks in the future: [9]. Providing advice about how to use edits to a BLP as a way to provoke someone into an action that will lead to a block is a clear-cut case of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Should an editor be making positive contributions to the site and only fail to do so as a consequence of baiting by a group of individuals editing in bad faith, I believe the latter should be the subject of greater concern than the former.

”

Off-wiki coordination to use edits to a BLP article as a means to prove a point about a specific editor is problematic. Given that the admin who issued the block apparently frequents WR it raises serious questions about this case. I don't think disruptive editing should be overlooked even if it is supposedly done with good intentions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

The Devils Advocate...there has been little doubt in my mind that the suspicion that ScottyBerg is Mantanmoreland was commenced at Wikipedia Review. The chief antagonist of Mantanmoreland is Wordbomb...supposedly, both their real life identities are known and they have real life disagreements that in the past spilled over into Wikipedia. For the record, Wikipedia Review has been more empathetic to WordBomb than to Mantanmoreland, but in terms of disruption of this website, my assessment is that WordBomb was far worse.--MONGO 04:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Remember, when WordBomb tried to bring it to WP's administration's attention that the person behind the Mantanmoreland account was attempting to use Wikipedia to promote Gary Weiss and Naked Short Selling, he was banned. WordBomb was then forced to publicize what was going on, including the administrative corruption supporting it, on WR, among other places. As you know, Mantanmoreland was eventually community banned, vindicating WordBomb and exposing a rotten core of corruption in Wikipedia's administration, which included the use of mailing lists to coordinate content editing and controlling of WP's administrative processes, such as AfDs and RfAs. Many of WP's newer editors appear to be unaware of the history behind the Mantanmoreland accounts and thus are understandably confused by what has happened recently. Cla68 (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  Much of what you have descibed falls into the realm of conspiracy theories. I was an admin during part of that period and even though I was one of those supposedly misled by Mantanmoreland, I never once got a single email from another admin suggesting I participate in some campaign to control article content at any of Mantanmoreland's haunts...or to participate in a single Rfa or Afd. If anything, this sort of stuff is coordinated at WR, not the opposite.--MONGO 05:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

One thing to note is that one of the first instances where these accusations were prominently made on Wikipedia involved User:Verbal IED, who was apparently a sock of User:Editor XXV. The username was an admitted homage to WordBomb. What is particularly off is how Cla68 reacts to blatant harassment by those socks.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Please don't assume that the Wikipedia Review thread (or related actions) was the significant factor in this action; it certainly would not have had any effect on the opinions of the majority of those who reviewed the blocking decision. Risker (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it has only been alleged that WR was the source of the inquiry, not that it played a decisive role in it. However, from what I recall it was said by an admin (possibly the blocking admin) that the CU evidence was an ISP (Internet Service Provider) match with behavioral evidence being the crux of the case. Did the behaviorial evidence examined go well beyond what has been generated by WR?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It did. If the sum of the evidence had been correcting vandalism at the Weiss article and living in an area with a substantial population, we wouldn't be here now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty unimpressed with the WR crowd but I don't think the "weight loss" edit The Devil's Advocate takes issue with was especially egregious or disruptive. According to the citation, Weiss is very happy with the surgery and gives talks about how great it was as part of his public speaking career. Weight-loss surgery is (I think) not a formal medical term, but it's the term Weiss himself uses, so putting it in quotes seems like a reasonable attempt at dealing with that tension. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Screw "problematic", DA; if Cla68 did indeed recommend such a disruption, then a block is clearly in order, and a substantial one at that. This is behavior we absolutely need to apply a rolled up newspaper to the snout of. It is not only disruptive and pointy, its an utterly cynical use of Wikipedia to injure another. I find Cla68's behavior completely unacceptable. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like there was some on-wiki conflict between ScottyBerg and Cla68, so Cla68 played the banned-user card. I've looked at enough diffs by now to see that ScottyBerg's editing was quite good most of the time. Instead of socking, he should have contacted arbcom and asked for an unblock/clean start and agreed to stay away from certain topics where he had problems. He can still do that and I hope he does. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

From what I understand the WR crowd like to mock the whole idea of Gary Weiss having weight-loss surgery and the edit I noted, with the edit summary, definitely has a tinge of mockery underlying it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The edit is also something I would revert, for both because it seems completely irrelevant in the context it is presented in and because it is sourced to an, essentially, primary source. And Cookiehead is definitely a WR editor who is not here to improve things. You just have to read his user page to see that. Silverseren^C 20:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I had got my diffs confused--it looks like ScottyBerg reverted that edit,[10] but earlier he had made another edit that kept the info in the article, re-wording it and moving it from one section to another,[11] implying he didn't have a problem with it. I didn't examine the surrounding edit history that closely, but I see Drmies later removed the info from the speaking section as self-promotion.[12] I think maybe your real beef is with the WR participants who forced the sock issue onto arbcom (which otherwise could perfectly well have been exercising discretion and deciding not to intervene), so maybe you should be addressing that side of things more. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait, it looks like Cookiehead was actually edit warring over that thing (example). Not good. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Which editor do you think may be the sockmaster of Cookiehead? I can give you a clue....[13]--MONGO 03:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I had been thinking Cookiehead's editing reminded me of someone. You may be onto something but I don't have a scorecard handy and have lost track of the specifics. I liked this though :). 67.119.12.141 (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Cough (edit summary) 67.119.12.141 (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Tora Bora Mora

People need to realise that on Wikipedia they are living in a world where the likes of User:Elen of the Roads will protect and enable users like User:Mo ainm to hide their previous account history in flagrant breach of WP:CLEANSTART, ironically on the say so of the infrequent visitor User:Alison. In a single post that she never bothered to substantiate or defend, Alison 'confirmed' that Mo ainm's past account cannot be revealed due to WP:OUTING concerns. Yet it's a matter of public record that he came up with this OUTING justification well after the event, having clearly misunderstood what CLEANSTART allowed, seizing on the fact he had simply included his very common first name in his original account name. This is not personally identifying information protected by WP:OUTING, yet this deception of the community still stands to this day. If it's true that Scotty has a clean record and is a constructive editor now, then whether he is MM or not, his enforced exile in this manner is morally inexcusable when compared to what the likes of serial gamers like Mo ainm have got away with, with the help of some of the exact same people. Tora Bora Mora (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And whose sock are you.....? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Another sock at User:ScottyBerg'sNextS0ck. I find it highly unlikely that either of these are Scotty, so someone else is trolling him. Probably someone from WR. Silverseren^C 02:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Bongwarrior nailed that one's head to a coffee table. The first one I think is more likely one of the editors on the British side blocked over The Troubles.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Who'd have thought. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

One quick comment from HJ

I think most people will agree that I'm far from the biggest fan of the Arbitration Committee. However even I feel compelled to point out that its members are highly respected editors. I very much doubt that blocking an established contributor based on non-public evidence is something they do lightly and I'm certain that they are not conspiring to keep some hidden agenda from the community. If the evidence is private, it's private for a damn good reason—ie because somebody else's privacy is at stake, or because to reveal the evidence would reveal sensitive information on how to evade site security. That the community is not privy to the evidence does not mean that it is invalid or that it does not exist. Folks questioning ArbCom's judgement on matters like these should cast their minds back a few months. I'm sure several of you have read the leaked material regarding Sophie (talk · contribs) and Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs)—and that's just the stuff that's common knowledge. As painful as it may be, sometimes we have to trust ArbCom—after all, what do they gain from any of this? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with HJ here--Guerillero | My Talk 00:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think a bigger worry is confirmation bias and groupthink. especially in matters which need a lot of human judgment. This doesn't take malice and even highly respected editors may fall victim to it. Ken Arromdee (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks ArbCom can fall to groupthink has no idea how painfully divergent our opinions tend to be on most things and how heated debate can get. I can tell you from three years' experience that any decision from ArbCom that ends up being unanimous (or nearly so) needed an extraordinarily compelling rationale. — Coren ^(talk) 04:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, that isn't the point, Coren. ArbCom is asking us to trust its decisions based upon whaqt they call behavioral evidence and (what has since been determined to be severely outdated) checkuser info. There has to be more than that. This cannot be that Sydney Harris cartoon where the formula can only be solved by plugging in "then a miracle occurs". Secret meeting are just plain wrong. If there is no way around them, we need a parallel layer to oversight ArbCom's decisions. Of course ArbCom wouldn't like that - it harshes their buzz, effectively introducing the possibility of second-guessing their hashed-out decisions. Guess what? That's Wikipedia, my friends. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

As a sitting arbitrator, though not one who was heavily involved in the ScottyBerg block review, I have carefully considered all the input on this page. My opinion is that the Arbitration Committee's activity in this matter was proper. Of course, that opinion may be discounted as self-interested by those who are so inclined.

I was going to contribute a much longer statement here, which I have now written, but it wound up veering far off-topic and I fear it will become a distraction if I post it here, so I'm going to post it on my talkpage instead. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Beetstra

I'm not well known with this specific case, but I was looking through this page, and I again get the same negative impression as I get over and over when looking at ArbCom decisions. I think it is known that I am not a fan of the Modus Operandi of the Arbitration Committee, at all. I feel, that part of the reason we are here is that the Arbitration Committee often completely fails in bringing up their collective reasoning, their collective interpretation of the evidence. And that is a recurring theme throughout their cases.

I agree with HJ Mitchell above that the members are highly respected members of the Wikipedia community, and that there is / may be information which can not be made public but which nonetheless is of significant severity as to allow for a ban - but communication of the basis of the evidence, and thoughts on how the individual members of the committee feel about that, and how they see that piece of evidence in a greater perspective, and how that influences the final decision is completely lacking.

I'll assume good faith, and assume that the decisions the ArbCom has made in the past are correct, but it worries me greatly. You're right, HJ Mitchell, sometimes we have to trust ArbCom - they do not have anything .. or a lot to gain from this. However, the community sometimes loses a lot from their decisions.

The lack of communication and lack of showing perspective allows questions of propriety - was the evidence evaluated in the total perspective, does that evidence support the remedies chosen, and was all that evaluated objectively. That that feeling exists is detrimental to the operation of the Arbitration Committee. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Nobody Ent

I have no doubt the intention of parties involved here is to do what is best for Wikipedia and the intensity of a discussion reflects the passion of the participants as opposed to any ill will.

ArbCom

You have enemies? Why, it is the story of every man who has done a great deed or created a new idea.

— Victor Hugo

Ya'll ran for Rfa, accepting the yoke of responsibility for being the last stop when consensus otherwise fails. As Otter said to Flounder: "You fucked up. You trusted us." You cannot expect to escape criticism, warranted and unwarranted.

ArbCom's communication on the Scotty Berg situation has been poor and incoherent. Elen's saying all the evidence is available onwiki, AGK's declination statement references "checkuser and behavioral evidence", and SilkTork's additional explanation references metaphorical elephants, discussion of which assist this and other elephants to evade future detection..

Being altruistic enough to volunteer and sociable enough to get elected naturally bias ArbCom's composition towards editors who wish to work well with and communicate well with the community. You really need to get over that -- your attempts to explain the unexplainable come off as evasive because they are evasive -- not due to a lack of character but due to the restraints privacy (and security?) concerns place upon you. Back when I was in the strategic deterrence business, we were trained with standard phrases to answer the unanswerable: I cannot confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons upon this vessel. While this degree of formality probably isn't needed for a not bureaucracy, when a case review involves privileged information you ought to just come up with a statement and stick to it.

You see, you can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself

— Rick Nelson, Garden Party

Avoid falling into the trap of using legal terminology like "trial" and "guilt." ArbCom has neither the legal mandate, moral imperative, resources or training to determine "guilt." You're not determining guilt, you controlling access to a privately owned website that none of has a right to edit. That reads like a hair-splitting nit, but words have power. Wikipedia is just a website, our activities here are just a hobby.

Everyone else

Regardless of whether's it's Blackstone's formulation of better that ten miscreants go free instead of one innocent or Franklin's 1 in a 100, the continual assault on Wikipedia by vandals, trolls and POV pushers means we have to accept that from time to time someone is going to get a bum deal. Acknowledging that Wikipedia dispute resolution is fallible does not mean the fallibility can be corrected. It's simply not reasonable to demand to see the information that cannot be released per WMF's privacy policy. Nobody Ent 02:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

statement by uninvolved user:bwrs

I have found the behavioral aspects of sockpuppet investigation to be intriguing; how can you definitively determine, without resort to technical evidence, whether two accounts belong to the same person? With regard to User:scottyBerg, the arbitrators state that there is a combination of behavioral and technical evidence. Now,

• Technical evidence is, of course, protected by the Privacy Policy, and only general information can be disclosed. Here, a member of the Arbitration Committee says that the only checkuser evidence is that the two usernames in question are in the same "large area" and have the same ISP. Now, for any given ISP in a large area such as New York, there are probably thousands of users – if it is a large ISP such as Verizon, there may be over 2 million! Clearly, that does not establish that they are the same person. (Now, if they were on the same IP subnet or were served from the same central office, that would narrow it down more; isn't that what checkuser is for?) In either case, if user:ScottyBerg is innocent, then regardless of whether the arbitrators think he is guilty or innocent, they are not allowed to disclose further details, either to the public or to the accused person.
• Behavioral evidence comprises things that are generally publicly available: characteristics of your edits to Wikipedia, for example. Why didn't they provide the accused user with a basic description of the behavioral evidence so that he could at least defend himself?

A member of the Arbitration Committee, in the discussion on the user's talk page, mentions an "elephant in the room", but says that the nature of the "elephant" cannot be disclosed publicly (or even to the user in question?) because it is forbidden (presumably, by the privacy policy)– which would suggest that it is of a technical nature. But merely having the same ISP and being in the same city is not probative without behavioral evidence; therefore, I assume that the "elephant" refers to something behavioral. And since behavioral evidence usually consists of information publicly-available on-wiki, why can't it be disclosed at least to the accused person, so they can defend themselves? Although I recognize that Wikipedia is a private website, its contents tend to be very influential and (ironically) the primary check-and-balance against non-neutrality of content is the fact that anybody can edit it, so there should be some due process. Bwrs (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

discussion

• As you rightly say, checkuser evidence is circumstantial. It can establish that user X edited from the same IP as user Y but not that users X and Y are the same person. In other words, it's evidence that supports a hypothesis rather than directly proves the hypothesis. Direct evidence could include an admission by the sockmaster or a sockpuppet that they had been socking; or a statement from someone who, say, was present when sockmaster John Doe logged into the User:John Doe and the User:JohnDoe 2 accounts and edited with them. Direct evidence is best but hardly ever available to us. This is why checkuser is always used in conjunction with behavioural evidence: edited the same articles; added the same text; have the same (unusual) idiolect.

  The usual on-wiki test of evidence is somewhere between "more likely balance of probability (ie more likely than not) and "clear and convincing". It is worth noting that the vast bulk of sock blocks are done by administrators, working entirely on their own initiative. Wikipedia doesn't really do due process in any of its processes. The full evidence is rarely disclosed to a sock as it is merely teaching him what to avoid and thus how to sock better next time round.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Okay, but where's the "elephant"? If it is technical in nature, then it's got to be more than just editing from same ISP in the same large area. And if it's behavioral, then I assume it is publicly-visible, in which case, what exactly is meant by "we cannot point to the elephant as our rules forbid it"? Finally, if it's merely an accretion of small pieces of evidence, none of which are probative on their own, I wouldn't characterize it as an "elephant" at all. Bwrs (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Bwrs, see the 'evidence' and analysis below. I have encountered some ants in the room, and maybe a cockroach, but no rodents, let alone an elephant. Unless they are still hiding something from us, there is no elephant, we're just being stonewalled. The more I look at the overlap they present, the more I see that this is nothing more than a normal, statistical overlap between the two (thank you for your work to Vasopressin. I suggest you stop editing such pages, before someone thinks you are my sock. After all, Vasopressin is a drug, and I obviously have an interest in editing drug pages). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Alessandra Napolitano

Many sockpuppet investigations fall prey to the prosecutor's fallacy. To explain the issue in simple terms, suppose that for a certain crime, we know the DNA of the perpetrator with certainty. A DNA match with the defendant is found, with a trait that only one in a million people share. Could we then conclude, on the basis of genetic information alone, that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, because the chances of his innocence are only one in a million? Hardly. If we know that the crime must have been committed by one person in a national population of 300 million, and that the only connections between the defendant and the crime are DNA evidence, and residence in the same country, then there are 299 other people who are equally likely to be guilty! The probability of the defendant being guilty is only 1/300. While Wikipedia sockpuppet investigations do not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it's generally accepted that we should only block an account if it's more likely than not that an editor is a sock. So, to the arbitrators who are really, really sure that ScottyBerg is probably a sockpuppet of Mantanmoreland, I would ask: How many people reside in the same general area as Mantanmoreland, and use his very popular ISP? Above, I've heard figures in the millions. Of that population, how many edit Wikipedia regularly? Within that large pool of editors, what is the probability that at least one person who is not Mantanmoreland nonetheless bears every behavioral resemblance to him contained in the secret evidence, purely through chance? If ScottyBerg were causing Mantanmoreland-style disruption, such considerations would be far less salient. We could simply say that, regardless of whether the banned user or his doppelgänger is sitting at the keyboard, he's causing trouble, so good riddance. For instance, we need not distinguish between actual Scibaby sockpuppets and equivalently disruptive climate change POV pushers; we don't have time to council and warn them all before imposing sanctions, as would be necessary for obviously new users. For ScottyBerg, who was making useful, productive edits, and causing no trouble at all, we had better be damn sure he's at least probably Mantanmoreland before blocking him. What I see reflected in this RFC is a lack of confidence that the arbitrators, tasked with reviewing the secret evidence, have or even can adequately discharge their duties in this respect. Therefore, I propose the following procedures. Disruptive socks should continue to be blocked on site. For the exceptional rare cases of apparently constructive editors who are believed to be socks on the basis of behavioral evidence that cannot be disclosed to the community, for fear of educating the sockmasters in means by which to elude future detection, we should refrain from immediate administrative action. Their names should be added to a (secret) "sockpuppet watchlist", to ensure that they receive close scrutiny. By assumption, banned editors will try to cause trouble, since anticipation of future disruption is the only tenable basis for maintaining bans. Therefore, any of the watchlisted accounts that are really banned users will be blocked as soon as they step out of line, without the benefit of usual dispute resolution. This won't work for pathological cases, obviously. We have no way of being sure that an editor who is suspected of being an Rlevse sock isn't creating copyright violations. But, in the vast majority of situations, extremely controversial blocks of productive editors who many members of the community believe to be innocent will be avoided. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me add that I find the following comment by Cla68 on Wikipedia Review utterly deplorable

Once the article is unprotected, an easy way to smoke out Mantan's new accounts is to add the Register articles by Cade Metz about WP and naked short selling as references at the end of the line, "He criticized Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne and his campaign against naked short selling" without changing any of the text. Mantan will not be able to abide even having any of those articles linked to in his WP promotional page, and will remove them quickly if no one else does.

WP:BLPs need to be written with due care and respect for the interests of the subjects, and should not be degraded by use as sticks with which to poke them. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

discussion

Some comments:

• It has been disclosed in this RfC, that they expect to have 3000-4000 editors in the New York area, and it was disclosed that Mantanmoreland and ScottyBerg use the same internet provider (i.e., not the same IP range).
• You use in your example 'a certain crime' - there is no evidence (presented) that ScottyBerg was committing a crime, there is no evidence (presented) of on-wiki disruption, there is no evidence (presented) of abuse of process, there is no evidence (presented) of off-wiki disruption of on-wiki processes, nothing (note: there may be secret evidence, but there is no disclosure of whether there is secret evidence, which suggests that there is no secret evidence). There is evidence that Mantanmoreland was socking in the past, there is no evidence that Mantanmoreland was still socking.

I agree with your assessment that we should not block editors who may be a sock of a banned editor, we should be sure. There is a plethora of evidence presented - all circumstantial, and much of it statistically so unsound that it is practically inadmissible. There certainly is a chance that ScottyBerg is Mantanmoreland, but I have not seen enough circumstantial evidence to believe that it is an absolute match. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Calathan

I have no experience with ScottyBerg and Mantanmoreland, and know nothing about their edits other than what has been presented here. I also have never had any interactions with the Arbitration Committee. I found this discussion because it is linked from the daily AFD log pages, which I look at regularly. While much of what I am posting here is a discussion of how I think the Arbitration Committee may have erred in handling the ScottyBerg case, I want to stress at the outset that I am not specifically asking that the block be overturned, but instead want to suggest how I think the Arbitration Committee should act differently if a similar case arises in the future (also I'm sorry that this ended up rather long . . . I'm not very good at expressing my opinions concisely).

As I read this discussion, I became concerned about a few aspects of the Arbitration Committee's decision that ScottyBerg was a sock puppet of Mantanmoreland. First, I'm concerned that the Committee may have been mistaken on the statistical likelihood of two editors sharing similar interests, location, and mannerisms. Second, it seems to me that the circumstances of this case may have been different than a typical sock puppet investigation, but that the Arbitration Committee may have overlooked those differences. Finally, it is unclear to me whether the Arbitration Committee made a strong attempt to gather exculpatory evidence in addition to inculpatory evidence, and whether they gave what exculpatory evidence there was proper weight in their decision-making process.

I would guess that there are enough Wikipedia editors that there would be some pairs of unrelated people who share interests, edit from the same ISP in the same region, and have similar mannerisms. However, I have no idea if such pairs would be rare or common. For all I know, there could be many thousands of such pairs of similar users, or there could be only a handful. In this instance, it seems to me that people went looking for potential sock puppets of Mantanmoreland, and found someone with similar interests, the same ISP, and similar mannerisms. However, I personally have no idea what the relative likelihood is of someone found in such a search being a sock puppet versus them being a coincidentally similar user. It seems to me that no one really knows this, but that the Arbitration Committee has assumed such a person is overwhelmingly more likely to be a sock puppet than to be a coincidentally similar user. I don't see any valid basis for that conclusion.

My thought is that part of the Arbitration Committee's reasoning in this case was that having similar interests, the same ISP, and similar mannerisms are things commonly considered in sock puppet investigations. However, I believe that most sock puppet investigations arise from some sort of noticeable bad or suspicious behavior (e.g. someone making similar disruptive edits to those that a banned user previously made). I get the impression that the Arbitration Committee overlooked that the lack of suspicious behavior made this case very different than the typical sock puppet investigation. When someone is making disruptive edits similar to a banned user and also is similar in interests/ISP/mannerisms to the banned user, that is two good pieces of evidence that they are the same person. Together, I would think that those pieces of evidence are enough that most Wikipedia editors would be satisfied that sock puppeting is going on. However, without one piece or the other, there is less evidence of sock puppeting, and I am not sure that most Wikipedia editors would consider only one or the other type of evidence enough to say someone is a sock puppet. In a typical sock puppet investigation, I think the person initiating the case would be doing so because they have noticed suspicious behavior. Because suspicious behavior would already have been presented at the outset, people investigating a typical sock puppet report may only need to look for other things to confirm the suspicions. I think that in this case, the Arbitration Committee may have proceeded to gather the sort of evidence that is normally gathered in a sock puppet investigation, without really realizing that such information is only one part of what typically leads to someone being declared a sock puppet. To me, it seems the lack of similar behavior weakens the likelihood that sock puppeting occurred in this case compared to a typical sock puppet case, and that the Arbitration Committee has overlooked that.

About my last concern, nothing in this discussion has really led me to believe that there was a strong attempt to find exculpatory evidence that would suggest ScottyBerg wasn't a sock puppet. It seems to me that a large list of similarities between ScottyBerg and Mantanmoreland was gathered, but it is unclear to me if anyone made an attempt to gather a similar list of differences between them. I can't tell from this discussion whether anyone on the Arbitration Committee really looked to see if ScottyBerg and Mantanmoreland had some non-shared interested, or had some peculiarities in their posts that were different from one another. It seems to me that in order to accurately judge whether two users are the same, it is necessary it consider both their similarities and differences. Maybe the Arbitration Committee did a good job of that, but from what has been presented here I really can't tell. This is especially concerning to me because I would think one user being disruptive enough to be banned and the potential sock puppet apparently not being at all disruptive indicates a major difference in behavior. Did the Arbitration Committee really consider this significant difference when coming to a decision in this case?

Anyway, here is what I personally think should be done differently if a similar case to this one comes along in the future. First, in cases where one user was banned for bad behavior, and another user has not been similarly behaving badly, I think that the Arbitration Committee should not even bother looking into whether those users are the same person, even when presented with some evidence that they are similar (beyond perhaps checking if their IPs match exactly). Other than something like an exact IP match, I don't think any amount of evidence on similarity is enough to outweigh the large differences in behavior between a disruptive editor and a productive one. While I do not think users should be allowed to reform and come back in secret, I don't think having a few reformed formerly banned users sneak by is a major threat to Wikipedia. It doesn't seem to me that in cases like this there is enough to be gained to risk possibly banning a productive user. Since I think there is no reason to believe that statistically cases like this are more likely to lead to sock puppets being blocked than good users being blocked, I think cases like this should not be presued in the future. Second, I think the Arbitration Committee needs to make sure that someone defends people accused of wrongdoing. Ideally, accusations of wrongdoing would happen in a public forum, and a person accused of wrongdoing could defend themselves. If possible I would like to see all people the Arbitration Committee considers sanctioning get a chance to defend themselves. However, if the Arbitration Committee feels that discussions need to happen in secret, then I think that someone on the Arbitration Committee should be appointed as a "devil's advocate" to present the side of the person accused of wrongdoing. While I generally trust that the Arbitration Committee does a good job, I feel that having assurances that everyone accused of wrongdoing at least has someone trying to present exculpatory evidence on their behalf would help assure people that the Committee's decisions are fair. Calathan (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Short remark, will parse this in full later. If you go through /Evidence pages of cases, the exculpatory evidence is generally strongly underrepresented. Most editors interested in the case are the ones who .. have evidence to present that shows 'guilt' of the editor in question. Worse is that there are size limits on the evidence - if one has 20.000 edits, the exculpatory evidence NEVER fits in there (except for a Special:Contributions link, which no Arbitrator will ever go through. Here, there is some sekret evidence presented, and exculpatory evidence could not even be presented - the defendant was found guilty and locked away before any form of defense was allowed - and largely ignored since ArbCom already made up their mind already - this victim must be guilty - no other explanation is entertained. This is similar to the conformation bias that is mentioned elsewhere. It is indeed another point where ArbCom should reform. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Other note: I mentioned some differences here in my examination of some 'evidence' - which were explained as that the user obviously moved on and got other interests .... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Questions and Discussion

• As an overall comment, i don't think any of us would be opposed to a permanent topic ban on Scotty from the known Mantanmoreland-related articles. Scotty himself even indicated on his talk page his full willingness to be under such a topic ban. Though again, this doesn't matter all that much, since I don't think he's going to come back regardless. Silverseren^C 19:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, I see no reason why there shouldn't be a community unblock discussion, with those kinds of terms being considered, if it's what folks want. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

We received many e-mails from ScottyBerg, in all of which he claimed he was not Mantanmoreland. I would give serious consideration to a ban appeal that gave an accurate account of his past accounts, but the community would not allow us to unban MM if he did not admit he was ScottyBerg, so to offer an unblock with topic-ban is a non-starter. We were put in a difficult position by the lack of such an admission, and I do not see what else we could have done (nor, therefore, what this discussion hopes to achieve as it relates to our handling of the specific case at hand). AGK [•] 21:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Which does rather make Silver's point that if he isn't Mantanmoreland, he's caught in a catch-22. By maintaining his innocence, he confirms his guilt. I do understand Silver's concern here, and it is an issue in many judicial systems, where prisoners cannot be considered for parole until they address their crime - a reasonable position, but one which leaves the genuine victim of a miscarriage of justice with two equally unpalatable options, stay in jail, or confess to a crime they did not commit. There genuinely isn't an easy way out of this. Everyone who looks at the evidence thinks they are the same person, and one could not countenance an unblock unless a genuine sock 'fessed up, but there is still an uneasiness in straight out saying "confess to being Mantanmore or stay blocked.' Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Some jurisdictions use a device called an Alford plea in situations like this.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, since we're talking jurisprudence, the majority view in English law is that plea-bargaining is an invidious process, and although there are situations where a convicted criminal may receive a lesser sentence if he pleads guilty, they are always looked on by a section of the interested with great suspicion. However, in the lesser court of Wikipedia, plea bargaining seems to be used quite a lot. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This is probably due to our nature, which overall is benevolent.--MONGO 04:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Given Elen's quite correct summary of expert opinion regarding plea bargaining it more strongly implies that this is due to our nature, which overall is invidious. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that this block was thought through to its logical conclusion. If Scotty really is a sock, then all he has to do is create another account. He knows what got him caught last time, so he can more easily evade detection the next time. IOW, blocking him accomplished absolutely nothing. But if Scotty isn't a sock, then the block only hurts Wikipedia. This block was a complete lose-lose move. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is, if one takes that argument to its logical extreme, one simply hands the keys of the pedia over to Grawp, Bambifan101, Pickbothmanlol and so forth. It's never worth blocking them if one's intention is to stop them coming back the next time. Because they never do.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think what AQFK meant is that blocking them when they've only been positively contributing to Wikipedia is a detriment. If they are doing negative things, then yeah, a block is justified as it would be in any other case. Silverseren^C 22:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That's actually the reason why it is so important to undo everything the sock did, without regard for quality. It's tedious and slow, but if you carefully insure that everything they do is undone, they eventually get the point.—Kww(talk) 22:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

But in this case, we're talking about a productive editor. Can anyone point to anything positive that this accomplished? I'm at a loss to think of something. Enforcing rules for the sake of enforcing rules seems a bit WP:LAME to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's between a rock and a hard place. If we *failed* to take action, and six months from now someone else figured it out, we'd be condemned for not acting immediately, and having ignored the return of a community-banned user. Risker (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can certainly understand that. How often does a situation like this one happen? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Usually a couple of times a year we're blamed for not acting on something or other, or alternately blamed for acting too precipitously or harshly on something or other. As I write this, we're being blamed for both harshness and ignoring things at the same time. Kind of goes with the territory, unfortunately. Risker (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be beneficial to modify policy to handle situations like this, to give you guys an out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is a policy issue. I think it is a behavioural issue on the part of certain segments within the community. There is this ongoing expectation that arbitrators are supposed to render perfect decisions (for various definitions of perfect), always be available, always respond appropriately and in a timely manner, meet all deadlines without fail, and write a few featured articles in our spare time. The one thing I can say Arbcom does very consistently is fail to meet the expectations of all segments of the community all of the time. :-) Risker (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Pretty crappy deal huh? All work and no play....and worse of all, NO PAY. Thank goodness there are a few like yourself willing to stick your necks out...--MONGO 03:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If we're required to do any particular thing in response to a banned user's activities, that means the banned user controls our editing rather than the other way around. That obviously isn't good. Regarding KWW's "revert everything" theory: I don't think an out-of-process deletion or AfD of History of logic (written by socks of a different banned user, see FAC discussion) would go over very well, and undoing ScottyBerg's 4500+ vandalism reversions doesn't seem like a great idea either. As with anything else on WP, clear thinking and good judgment addressing a particular situation (especially an unusual one) is preferable to knee-jerk, "one size fits all" responses. Do what's best for the project, which per our principles involves adaptability. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Something I'd like to see (or at least have a discussion about it) is a change in policy that gives ArbCom the option (as opposed to a requirement) to block an sock in situations like this one. IOW, let ArbCom use their best judgement. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I would object strongly. Banned is banned. If a banned editor comes in through the front door (i.e., the Ban Appeal Subcommittee), that's one thing. Simply socking until you are caught is another. As for the problem of proclaimed innocence, that's a problem in real life where there are real consequences. Ever heard of anyone being released on parole without showing repentance? That's extremely rare, and for anyone to show repentance they have to admit guilt, even if they are actually innocent. Don't hold a website to a higher standard than every other justice system in the world.—Kww(talk) 23:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The real world doesn't have the same rules as Wikipedia. If it did, you could murder someone and not sent to prison if you promised not to do it again. My concern is of practicality. Can you point to one positive thing that this block accomplished? I asked the question yesterday[14] and no one could come up with anything. Maybe you missed that part of the discussion. Can you please read through it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It prevented a banned editor from contributing through an illicit account. That's a benefit in and of itself. Whether you believe that or not, acknowledge that many of us do. I read that section, and even replied to it. It doesn't matter whether ScottyBerg was constructive. He was sockpuppeting.—Kww(talk) 23:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

But if Scott really is MM, then he's just going to create another account. The same situation that existed before the block exists after the block: a banned editor is still contributing through an illicit account. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

And that account will be blocked, hopefully faster this time. This can go on for a while. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Brexx, for example. If someone actually manages to go completely undetected, that will come under WP:FRESHSTART, but that's really just an acknowledgment that some never get caught.—Kww(talk) 01:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's say that you're right. They productively edit Wikipedia using an illicit account and in less than 2 year's time, they are blocked. So, they use another illicit account to productively edit Wikipedia. Rinse, rather, repeat. So what has been accomplished if the situation remains unchanged? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the stage where, instead of yelling at arbcom for blocking the sock, people go through the edits and remove them. That's what I do with any sock that I block: go through their entire contribution history and remove everything that doesn't result in restoring vandalism or copyright violations. The only reason I'm not doing it here is that I can foresee several editors crying out "But they were productive edits!" and undoing what would be a lot of hard work. The only way to discourage a sockpuppeteer is to eradicate the results of their work. Do that for a while, and all but the pathologically ill ones go away.—Kww(talk) 12:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about all socks. I'm talking about those rare occassions such as this one. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not particularly rare for editors to become concerned with whether a sock has been productive and use that to attempt to justify the original block evasion.—Kww(talk) 14:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And based on Elen's comments, I am becoming ever more doubtful that Scotty is MM. Silverseren^C 00:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Not following this closely, but Kww is right about how to handle banned users. They aren't banned unless they make good edits, they're just banned. There aren't special categories, where some users are really and truly banned, but basically decent guys who make good edits are merely pro forma banned, but really it's okay if they edit. It's a fact of life that there won't be consensus to undo all their work and delete the revisions, and that consensus must be respected, but that is what should happen - nothing the banned user does should stick; nothing they say should get any response, except for explicitly allowed communication with the mailing lists, arbcom, or the foundation. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And in a case where the ban is incorrect, but some users have jumped on the "revert everything the person did" train? So, if the user is then unbanned later because it was incorrectly applied, they now found that a lot of their edits, and probably a lot of the articles they made, have been deleted. Do you not see the issue with this? Silverseren^C 17:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The time I became aware of a problem like that, I took the time to redo everything I had undone. Mistakes will happen in both directions.—Kww(talk) 17:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

@Tom: Kww is correct for about 99% of socks. However, this is one of those rare cases where the situation is different. Scotty was a productive editor with 2 years of experience and 13,000 edits, and managed to do this with a clean record. Now if ArbCom is correct and Scotty is a mastermind sockpuppeting genius, then they've already created another account and are happily editing on some corner of Wikipedia. In fact, if he's such a mastermind, he already has dozens of sleeper accounts ready and waiting. IOW, the block accomplished nothing. But if ArbCom is wrong, then an innocent person has been blocked. Either way, it is a lose-lose situation.

But it gets even worse. ArbCom could have reasonably expected that the block was going to be controversial. The block disrupted Wikipedia and sparked a 3 week's (and counting) discussion beginning at ANI, then Jimbo's talk page and now this RfC. Dozens of editors have weighed in on the discussion and who knows when it's going to end. This is time and effort that could have been spent improving the encyclopedia. All of this could have been avoided. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It certainly could have been. You could have accepted the block, not participated in this struggle, and edited the encyclopedia instead.—Kww(talk) 00:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Tom and Kww, "Wikipedia does not have firm rules" is one of WP's five pillars and as such, the only possible answer to any pontification like "we must handle every incident of type X by doing Y no matter what" is "sorry, you're wrong". That's obvious from both a WP:ENC point of view (we're here to write an encyclopedia, and all the interaction policies and for that matter the community's very existence are to serve that goal), and from the nature of conflict. If the other guy can adapt his tactics to yours but you can't adapt yours to his, he's going to beat you. Most incidents fit the same pattern and there's well-developed procedures for them, but it's perfectly fine to make tactical exceptions when something doesn't fit the pattern.

AQFK: If ScottyBerg has dozens more socks and we get 13,000 more good edits from each one before blocking them, we're doing great. The last thing we want to do is block them too quickly (assuming we detect them early). We get much more pwnage against them doing what we did here, even if it wasn't intentional this time. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just going to comment on the "revert everything" idea, I think editors should only revert an edit if it is somehow contentious, not just because the editor who made the edit did some naughty things elsewhere.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Long standing practice and policy says otherwise: see WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors.—Kww(talk) 23:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, it says "ambiguous" rather than "contentious". But most of the edits we're discussing don't raise concern at the level of "ambiguous" as far as I've seen. Some of the Gary Weiss-related ones probably do, and reverting those seems fine if anything is left of them by now. Anyway, WP:NOTSTATUTE. Situational adaptation is good. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you are reading the policy nearly precisely backwards. It encourages us to revert all edits by banned editors, unless they are vandalism reversion or similar edits. If it's ambiguous (i.e., we aren't sure whether the effect of reversion would be to reintroduce problematic material), it recommends reversion. The only fuzz it contains is to make it clear that it doesn't mandate the removal of beneficial edits, it only recommends that we do so.—Kww(talk) 01:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you or Tom Harrison on this matter, but who is going to sort through the edits and decide which ones need reverting and which don't. If we have some stand and others fall, then the "sock" sees that not all his/her efforts were futile. I am assuming that the wording of the recommendation was when we're dealing with a sock that made substantially fewer edits than this one did. I would think the ongoing Rlevse situation is far more troubling due to his history of copyviolations.--MONGO 01:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Kww, I'm reading what that section you linked says: "free to", "may", "presumption in ambiguous cases", etc. I don't see "recommends" or "encouraged" anywhere in there. This is not "robopedia" and we are supposed to actually use our brains, seek consensus, etc. Anyway, if there's a discrepancy between a policy page and observed practice, the policy page should be updated to reflect the practice, not the other way around.

Mongo: the Rlevse copyright thing (the parts I saw) looked pretty overhyped. He paraphrased some sentences from sources that he cited including the page number, and in some cases with Google Books search urls that brought up page scans with the relevant passage highlighted in yellow. I always find it droll when there's drama on WP over purely speculative copyright problems, while nobody raises an eyebrow about the Google Books link even though Google Books is an actual subject of a real-world bazillion dollar copyright lawsuit, that's going on even as we speak (article). 67.119.12.141 (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The copyvio issue is actually under-hyped...--MONGO 07:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it was under-hyped, but it definitely wasn't over-hyped. Rlevse was found to have just used huge chunks of information from sources. And when people checked other articles he has written, they found much of the same. If i'm remembering properly, every article of his that was actually checked was found to have copyvios in it. And not just one sentence or something, but extensive paragraph long copyvios.

However, I don't want this to turn into a discussion on Rlevse. That discussion is being held on AN right now. Silverseren^C 17:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we do one step back (I'm not sure where this leads): 'indefinite' or 'indefinite like' bans on a user. Combine this with the concern that legal systems do make mistakes. I am worried, that if a productive, good editor gets into trouble, and is judged to have made serious mistakes, and an indefinite(-like) ban is put on such an editor, that there is basically never any way to escape that ban, really, ever - there is no form of WP:CLEANSTART possible:

• either the editor confirms guilt (of something they did not do) to the BASC, and it is announced that <editor> has successfully asked to be unbanned - if that editor starts under a new, undisclosed, account that is not a cleanstart, editors will on a next (maybe even unrelated) mistake claim recidivism (after all, it may still be disregard of some policy, even if it is a different one).
• or the editor does not confirm guilt of something they did not do - hence BASC does not unban.
  • even if this is accepted and the editor is unbanned, it will be announced that <editor> successfully asked to be unbanned - which is still no cleanstart.
• or the editor does not ask for an unban, either to community or BASC and really starts clean - which means that the editor is socking, and can be blocked without discussion, even if there is not a single spot on the new account after years of editing.
• or BASC grants unban (with or without confirmation of guilt), but does not publish this - so the community ban or ArbCom ban is still public the only thing - and public evidence may then show that the editor is socking, which is a blockable offense.
• or the editor stays away, which is a loss of a good editor to the Wikipedia.

Maybe the community should seriously consider the basis of 'indefinite' bans. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Desired outcomes

There's usually a section in an RfC/U with what the filing party would like to see as an outcome (listed party uses better sources, less swear words or whatever). While discussing feelings is good, I think it might be helpful to pull out what people would like to see as more definite outcomes eg. should there be a community unblock discussion, should there be a change in policy about long term unproblem2atic socks, should there be a discussion about checkuser data retention outside of the legal requirements. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The first two, I think, both should be done. The third is really dependent on if other people share my concerns. If members of the community don't, then there wouldn't really be a point in that discussion. Silverseren^C 00:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The question becomes, how does one define an "unproblematic" sock? We must remember how Mantanmoreland operated: he slowly and insidiously altered articles to his preferred POV, he made strong friends amongst Wikipedians, he leveraged those friendships and working relationships to drive off anyone who tried to edit his articles (harming the reputations of other Wikipedians in the process), and to this day editors with expertise in the field avoid working on articles that he worked on. The damage he caused has not been completely repaired even years after the fact. We have similar problems with other longterm, apparently unproblematic socks: their social engineering practices inflict wounds that never really heal, and that is why they're removed from the community permanently. They harm our faith in our ability to provide neutral information, and they harm our faith in treating each other respectfully and without malice. Perhaps you should spend some time reading over the archives of WP:VANISH and WP:CLEANSTART to get some sense of what the community's feelings are on this subject. As to the checkuser data, it's not going away, and the checkuser wiki (where checkusers are encouraged to retain any relevant information) discourages "personal files" kept by individual checkusers, while permitting routine review to remove information that no longer appears germane. As increasing numbers of problematic editors show up on multiple projects, the need to share information in a secure manner has only increased. Every year, thousands upon thousands of socks are blocked by checkusers using this information and these tools; only a handful of these blocks are questioned by the community. It is precisely for that reason that the work of checkusers is monitored carefully, and why there is a process for addressing situations where a checkuser block is likely to be more controversial. Last month, we blocked an administrator who was socking, *and* desysopped him, but the situation was first identified by a checkuser. Risker (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Would indefinitely topic-banning him from Mantanmoreland's known issue areas not fix the problem? Then it is on his own head if he violates the topic ban. That would be an obvious way to deal with suspected (or, I suppose you would say confirmed in this case) sockpuppets of old problem users, that have, as far as can be seen, been contributing productively to Wikipedia. Just topic ban them from the problem areas and let them contribute productively elsewhere, as they have been doing with the accounts anyways. Silverseren^C 01:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That might be worthy of discussion in this particular case, but not in all cases. Consider if someone's on-wiki editing was generally good, but they were blocked under something like NLT. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, this is a Community site ban and Committee topic ban. I would suggest that if we want to remove the community ban (which I don't recommend, but meh, we can leave it up to the community, where I would have a say, but so would everyone else.. This runs into the problem you see that "what if he's innocent".. If he's not, the topic ban never comes into play really, the person behind Scotty's account is not to edit all without getting the community to release the community ban. But since the identification is made, we'd actually be flouting the community's stated wishes by turning a blind eye and letting him edit. SirFozzie (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I got into this through a mention on Jimbo's page and my views on this may not be as extreme as some of those expressed here, but I still think there are things which smell wrong about this.

Jimbo pointed out that he once offered to go on Skype with this person to prove he isn't Mantanmoreland. Someone in the original discussion suggested he could send a copy of his driver's license. That may be too easy to forge, but I'm sure there's something that could be used. I would suggest as a starting point that Arbcom should accept such things as evidence. He refused to provide such evidence to Jimbo, and so he probably won't do so here either in which case, fine, it's over, but all of the rest of us who are wondering "what would I do if this happened to me?" can rest a little easier.

I'd also suggest asking "if it wasn't for Wikipedia Review, we would have initiated this process?" We may be in a situation where someone disrupted Wikipedia and generally did bad things in order to point out a sock. What is the right thing to do in that situation? It's not immediately obvious that the right thing to do is to kick out the sock and thus encourage the troublemaker. Ken Arromdee (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I missed the beginning of this, but I'd have thought that if someone wanted to point out a sock without causing disruption, the obvious way is to email checkuser-l. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, email a checkuser directly. The Checkuser-L mailing list does not accept emails from non-subscribers, and all subscribers must be checkusers or stewards. Risker (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Now able to refresh my fossilized memory banks on this matter, Mantanmoreland, as SirFozzie noted above, was topic banned by arbcom and then after another sock was identified, was banned indefinitely by the community two months later...here...as I have noted above, ScottyBerg appears to be a reformed editor. I might welcome sectioning off below and asking for wider community discussion on this matter. I'll leave this up to those who know where to post requests for more feedback from the community as they see fit.--MONGO 04:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that ScottyBerg has posted at his talkpage that he has no plans on contributing again [15].--MONGO 04:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As we should know well by now, that doesn't necessarily mean he's really gone. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it means that he is hoping that this uproar will subside so he can get his new account(s) going with a minimum of scrutiny. Cla68 (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A rude and unfounded statement. In a sense, Cla, you're also under scrutiny here. Silverseren^C 05:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Definitely under scrutiny. One outcome I'd like to see is Cla68 never, ever pulling the disruptive baiting crap at WR that has been documented. I still think that it deserves a block until the cows come home. Hello pot, meet kettle - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If ScottyBerg is indeed a sock, then he's probably already created a new account and is happily editing some corner of Wikipedia. In fact, if he was smart, he has already created a number of sleeper accounts a long time ago. Nothing was accomplished with this block. Nothing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching this debate since the start and only commented once in a small way. But the question I keep coming back to is: If Scotty is a puppet of a prolific sockmaster then why expend so much energy trying to get that sock unblocked? The ScottyBerg account didn't have any special userrights and interactions with it were a mixed blessing - switching to another account would probably have had advantages for the master. I'm also reminded of a case over a decade ago on USENET, we had some (behavioural) evidence that a certain poster who was making significant threats was a particular Californian Businessperson (They also ran for Congress in the 90's). With a bit of work we got I.P's for both the Real person and the Usenet account and could compare them and they also matched. However later when everything came out, it was two different people close enough to share an I.P. - since then I've always been wary about checkuser data and how it's used. In the public it is open to challenge either by the individual or by the community but in private it can be checked by no-one except the arbiters - at WP:SPI we have had several cases where reasonable challenges have been made to checkuser data but here the individual is not aware of that checkuser data to challenge it. I understand the worry that in some cases revealing the evidence could make the person a better sock, but in what court would you exclude the accused from a hearing on the basis that hearing about fingerprint evidence will make them more likely to wear gloves the next time they commit a crime? I also wonder if perhaps you still wish to retain secrecy in cases like this ArbCom should have one of it's members act as a council to the accused; testing the evidence thoroughly, acting as a liason to the accused and counterpointing the editors brining the evidence to ArbCom. Stuart.Jamieson (talk)

Agreed, that kind of thing has happened sometimes. That's what we have the audit subcommittee for. In this case, the IP data doesn't match any previous sock, just demonstrates that the guy lives in the same - large - area and uses the same ISP. It's not the smoking gun - behaviour is the smoking gun. Indeed, from my experience, its when there's no behavioural match only a technical match that mis-identification is moree likely. Which again is what the audit subcommittee is for. They go through technical data, but this was virtually all editing patterns, which are available to any editor if they want to go look. Interesting observation on the protestations - there are some sockmasters who make a huge point of protesting the innocence of their socks, because this takes up everyone's time and increases the drama and disruption. In MM's case though, probably not so much. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

In other words, an evaluation of the evidence would not break any privacy rules and since the behavioral evidence is public it would not really be an issue of telling him how to avoid suspicion in the future.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the things that has been bothering me about this is how Arbcom has been inconsistency invoking privacy rules. If the evidence really cannot be shown because it violates Mantanmoreland's privacy, and you really believe that Scotty is Mantanmoreland, then you should be okay with showing the evidence to him. You can't violate his own privacy by giving him information about himself. In practice, the answer has been that you're sure he is Mantanmoreland when that is to his disadvantage, but when being Mantanmoreland would help his case (allow him to see the "private" information) suddenly you're not that sure after all. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Bothers me too because in this case, there is no private evidence. All the checkuser did was in ScottyBerg's case is confirmed that the guy is in the right part of the right continent - an exclusion test. All the rest of the evidence, as people have pointed out in various places here, is all over the wiki. What the checkusers and admins who have been around for a while have is a collective memory that identifies editing patterns etc. Me, because I've not been here for so long, and I haven't primarily worked in SPI, there's not so many I can spot. There is a theory that he's Weiss, there is a theory that you can track his interests based on Weiss's blog, the later socks frequently edited articles on such as the NY Subway, some parts of NY, other stuff. Someone has pointed to it above. ScottyBerg did launch a considerable defence - I don't know if he's told people that he hadn't. He argued that he only came to edit the Weiss article by accident, that his other interests were coincidental or arose from picking up articles after recent change patrol. And it is hard to prove a negative. But we wouldn't, for example, block an editor who everyone swore blind was a sock of Mark Nutley, because at that time there just wasn't sufficient evidence. And you should hear the way Mattisse's socks continually petition to be unblocked as mistaken identities, including having the sockmaster contact us and say that this isn't her sock. So it isn't easy. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This has its own problems: it seems like people don't even agree on whether there was any secret evidence. Just imagine how it would feel if this happened to you. You're being kicked off and not only do you not know what the evidence is, you don't even know if the evidence is being described accurately, even in very basic terms, because nobody seems to even know what the evidence is like. It seems to be whatever is convenient at the moment. I suppose I'd have to add to "desired outcomes" "state categorically whether the evidence was secret". Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no way to get rid of this problem until we get rid of the whole notion that editing an encyclopedia has some kind of privacy implications. —Kww(talk) 23:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If a Mantanmoreland sock is discovered again in the future and blocked, it will be interesting to review this "RfC" in hindsight. Cla68 (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I'm not asking that he be reinstated. I'm asking that there be a way to get reinstated if he is legitimate. The answer to this should be an offer to do something that a legitimate user can do and a sock cannot. If he's a sock, this would not lead to his reinstatement, so if he is discovered again in the future it would not reflect badly on this idea. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

'* Silver serin, in the context of the whole thread beginning with A Quest For Knowledge's comment at 21:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC) ("I don't think that this block was thought through..."), please explain precisely why the objectives of this RFC are valid. AGK [•] 14:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There weren't any objectives originally - just Silver had a sense that something was wrong. That's why we're trying to pick 'em out here. I don't think there's anything wrong with holding this discussion, it's turned up a few things worthy of larger consideration. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean why they are valid? Why would they not be valid? Silverseren^C 17:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For myself, I think the desired outcome would be fourfold:

• A lessening of - if not complete removal of - these secret 'trials', then a clearly-defined standard for when these sorts of matters are to be handled privately. Secret trials (and despite the informal nature of the back and forth private list, these are indeed essentially trials) are anathema to both an open society and an open wiki. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to be. Period.
• The accused must be able to see the evidence arrayed against them. Stuart Jamieson's recent and concise post underscores the absurdity of the privacy/secrecy claims of the Checkusers and arbiters trying in effect to prevent a WP:BEANS situation from unfolding.
• Blackstone's formulation is on point here; Stuart Jamieson also makes the excellent suggestion that, since these sorts of deliberations bear a great many earmarks of a trial, that one of the arbs should stand for the accused. As no one outside of ARBCOM has any idea what actually occurred in the discussion, we have no way of kowing if everyone walking into that discussion didn't do so predisposed as to SB's guilt. It would be nice to know that the accused has someone without that presumption.
• A clear addressing of how a user can clear a ban if they are indeed innocent. Currently, the only way for SB to return is to admit he's MM and undergo the arduous process of return. If they are not guilty, they are not as likely to try and return. If they are innocent (check that; if I were in this situation), they would want that avenue clearly highlighted so the could get reinstated without admitting a falsehood (i.e. that they are someone they are not).

Maybe that's too much to ask, especially for arbs who think their time is better spent than on providing niceties for someone they are convinced is a sock. I suggest that it is precisely because of that belief that these outcomes are necessary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd also add that Arbcom should do something to make sure this doesn't send the message "Hey, disruption is fun and works great! Look, we did it and got one of our enemies kicked out of Wikipedia!" And no, I don't know the best way to do this myself. I'm not really familiar with WR anyway. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, now that is a concern. Open to suggestions on that one, because once someone has let the genie out of the bottle, it's difficult. You can't pretend that you don't know, but you can't avoid that the source is not one you like. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Elen, it certainly would have been fine with me if arbcom had chosen to sit on the info quietly while monitoring ScottyBerg's editing after checking out the initial report. Sooner or later IMHO he would have done something that unquestionably called for a block, and gotten one. I hate the "legal" analogies this page is full of, but it's certainly the case if a member of the public reports suspected criminal activity to law enforcement, LE thanks the person for the tip and then doesn't (at least immediately) give any further info. Until (and unless) actual arrests happen, the tipster never learns whether an investigation was opened, whether it was found to be conclusive in either direction, whether they decided that there really were crimes being committed but were waiting for the case to get juicier before pulling the plug, whether they decided something was up but they had more urgent cases to pursue, etc.

I also by now agree with Devil's Advocate that Cookiehead's experiment was deserving of a block. If nothing else, it pretty much discredited WR as sanctimonious guardians of BLP's, and Mongo mentioned some socking suspicions about Cookiehead. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

ScottyBerg has posted the emails he sent to arbcom over at his talkpage, just for the record. I've been reading through all this on the Rfc (three times now) and at ScottyBerg's page as well have done another examination of ScottyBerg's editing...if he is Mantanmoreland, he did a pretty good job covering it up...one thing that keeps popping up is the IP issue...right place and right ISP I suppose...so a basic match (it's New York City...8 million people...it's not North Platte, Nebraska for instance) Anyway, this section is about what outcome should happen here...and against my usual intolerance for any ban evasion and my general dislike of liars...I am going to say now that I have a doubt. I have a doubt that SB=MM...it's not a strong doubt, but sufficient enough to justify saying that I think ScottyBerg should be unblocked. If this were a murder case or even a shoplifting case...I'd want the pieces to fit together better than this before I convicted or even tried to prosecute this guy for life much less death. Look, this editor wants to edit and his contributions have shown nothing in the way of malice...he's not going around calling people nasty names, he's not using socks to vote stack...he's not POV pushing...he's not a SPA. No, he doesn't have a long list of new pages or good/featured article work under his belt...or major efforts to right wrongs on some policy pages or similar, but he seems a good egg overall...a wikignome primarily. I was the editor that brought forth the extensive sock investigation of User:SevenofDiamonds being banned editor User:NuclearUmph...it was the first arbcom case of that type, so I know how to spot a sock...and unless arbcom has many more pieces to this puzzle than what I can spot, then this is insufficient evidence to convict....I might be wrong and I surely must be I suppose, but I do have a doubt.--MONGO 03:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose my above sentiments mirror the same ones I had at arbcom SevenofDiamonds...[16]--MONGO 03:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Mongo, if this was a murder or shoplifting case, the court would be weighing whether to order the defendant to be physically killed (in the murder example), or anyway given a criminal record (making him near-unemployable for the rest of his life) in the shoplifting example. Here we're talking about booting an anonymous user from a privately operated web site, which when you get down to it is not much different than throwing someone out of a restaurant. You simply don't get a criminal trial in such a situation. And per Ken Arromdee, if Scotty isn't socking, he can apparently fix things up by talking to Jimbo on Skype (or presumably the phone), but he refuses to do that, preferring martyrdom. So I think you guys are asking a bit much.

And no, if you're playing poker with someone in order to beat them, you don't explain their tell (poker) to them even though it's "public" in the sense that it's in plain sight and could as well be noticed by other observers besides yourself. You use it against them to your best advantage and hope that they never figure it out. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo's offer was made before this case. As far as I know, Arbcom has not offered him any way to clear himself, not even appearing on Skype. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, he could still talk to Jimbo on Skype if it would clear things up. I know Jim has his moments, but if he came to Arbcom and said he had spoke to the guy on the phone and he's a subway engineer, lives in whatever place he edits the article on etc, then that would be serious evidence that he isn't MM and this is mistaken identity. There may be an element of sock fatigue in the responses - with socks of certain editors you just do not want to engage in conversation with them - which might cause an innocent editor to feel they had no way to 'clear their name'. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Elen, that's good to know. I could imagine some situations where an editor (e.g. one of Jimbo's various on-wiki opponents) might have plausible grounds to refuse the Skype chat, but ScottyBerg is playing the innocuous contributor uninterested in controversy, so in his shoes I'd have accepted Jimbo's invitation and tried to bypass all the drama. It's something like the Hans Reiser murder trial, where (I don't remember the actual details but it was along these lines) Reiser was arrested 100's of miles from his home and claimed he was travelling on innocuous business and had no idea anything was amiss, but the prosecutor argued that Reiser was running from the cops after having disposed of the victim's body. During the arrest, the cops had seized Reiser's cell phone and found that Reiser had removed the battery and was carrying it separately from the phone. Removing the battery from your cell phone is not illegal or incriminating in its own right, but fitting it into the surrounding story, the jury apparently accepted that Reiser took out the battery to avoid being tracked by the cellular network. That corroborated the "running from cops" theory, and was instrumental in convicting Reiser. Similarly, while there's no WP policy requiring anyone to talk to Jimbo, ScottyBerg's refusal to do so IMHO sounds sort of like Reiser's battery-less phone. It paints, shall we say, a certain picture. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo has not actually asked Scotty if he's willing to Skype with him. Jimbo apparently asked him a few years ago in regards to a different incident, but currently, Jimbo only mentioned it on his own talk page. I let Scotty know about it and he said that since he had no interest in continuing to edit Wikipedia, he felt there was no point in giving up his privacy. I can see that Jack is trying to convince Scotty otherwise on Scotty's talk page. Silverseren^C 07:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok, it had sounded like we were discussing something more recent. It will be interesting to find out if Scotty actually talks to Jimbo. Of course there may still be a problem after that, but for now we can't say that all options have been pursued. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Most people cannot hide their tells even when told, but yes, it's best that they are not aware of them. Most of the sockpuppeteers that I spend my time with have one or two habits that reveal their identity, and it's quite apparent that they don't know what they are.—Kww(talk) 11:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume Alison and arbcom are correct...I'm not going to nor desire to use this Rfc as a place to pick on these folks...I respect that they have unforgiving "jobs". But take the edits to NY subway articles...if you're a New Yorker, its a part of life for almost all there to spend an hour at least everyday riding or waiting for a train...I'm not surprised this would therefore be in the editing realm of ScottyBerg...just as it was with Mantanmoreland. In the SevenofDiamonds case there were a few "gotchas"...he edited several very obscure articles and templates that had extremely low editing histories...I'm either missing or overlooking the "gotchas" in this case.MONGO 12:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the letters sent to ArbCom that SB posted as to his page, I am seeing less and less of a connection, too. Can an arb confirm that these were in fact the letters sent to ARBCOM? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps ArbCom should give a rough order of magnitude estimate of the probability that ScottyBerg is not Mantanmoreland given the similarities in editing behavior. This will force ArbCom to take into account all sorts of pre-selection effects, and if this probability is still extremely low, then it will make the identification of ScottyBerg as Mantanmoreland more credible. Count Iblis (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure out this "tell" that so convinced arbcom and company that Scotty is the sock master. Editing articles about NY can't be it. They already know the man lives in NY! Having the same ISP as this sock master is a possibly sad coincidence. How many ISP's are there in NY? Putting these two together can't be it in my mind. The only thing that I can figure is that Scotty uses the same pass word in addition to the other two rather weak coincidences. I admit that at first glance that's a pretty damning coincidence. Let's think about it a bit more though, maybe the password is "newyork" or "subway" or "timesquare". Since the ScottyBerg account hasn't been accused of doing anything wrong, is it really fair to ban someone in this situation? Because they use the same ISP and same password as a banned sock master? My opinion doesn't really matter though. It is apparently unanimous for those opinions that matter, it is enough to ban a productive contributor. Bill Huffman (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hum...interesting......see, now that is an aspect of sock hunting I wouldn't have thought of nor had the ability to track anyway...the issue of the Wikipedia login password. I suppose checkusers can do this? I suppose they could...of course if the password is unique and SB and MM used the same unique one, then that would be all the evidence that would be needed...since such a parameter is surely a sworn to secrecy issue, I'll not ask them to clarify this matter since they can't and won't anyway.--MONGO 03:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediawiki encrypts all passwords with an MD5 Hash and doesn't store the plaintext. If checkusers could see the (encrypted) password then they might be able to tell if they are the same but certainly wouldn't be able to tell if it was unique - password similarity shouldn't have any weight as a tell because it could be something as ubiquitous as "Password".Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Stuart..thank you for that information. I suppose what I did mean about unique would be just that...a unique set of letters and symbols. But since this can't be checked anyway, it doesn't matter...MONGO 15:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

To be a little more precise, good security practice these days is to at least salt and not just hash the passwords. That makes it difficult or infeasible to tell if two passwords are the same by looking at the hashes, so this password-checking theory is IMO unlikely. In MediaWiki, the salt is implemented in format "B" at lines 3832 and 3860 here plus some related places. Some unsalted formats are also supported (presumably for legacy reasons), but by the time ScottyBerg's account was created, I'm reasonably confident that all new passwords were being salted. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone please explain THIS

Collapsed list of edit counts that seem to reflect confusion

I hope I’m wrong about this, but I don’t think so. Yesterday Scotty B gave everyone a big “tell” when he posted his “Third e-mail to Arb Com” on his talk page. This e-mail lists a long series of edits performed by the Mantanmoreland IP. I copy/pasted this list…it appears below this statement, so you can see for yourself. This list includes the usual: 114 edits by Mantanmoreland in Naked Short Selling, 27 edits in Patrick M. Byrne, 5 edits in Overstock.com. But then I noticed a number of edits for NYC subway lines, and remembered that Scotty B’s talk page had said “I’m a trolley buff and a New York City subway buff.” So I looked into the subway articles on this list: IRT Third Avenue Line -- 68 edits New York City Subway -- 25 edits R32 (New York City Subway car) -- 23 edits IRT Sixth Avenue Line -- 20 edits C (New York City Subway service) -- 16 edits IRT Ninth Avenue Line -- 15 edits IRT Second Avenue Line -- 14 edits 18th Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line) -- 6 edits Battery Place (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) -- 5 edits None of these articles contained a single Mantanmoreland edit. But ALL of them contain Scotty B edits, with PRECISELY the number of edits listed above. The above nine articles contain 192 Scotty B edits and zero Mantanmoreland edits. So Scotty B made 192 edits from the Mantanmoreland IP – just counting the nine subway articles. If we look at other articles, we may find hundreds of more edits – in which case Scotty B was editing from the Mantanmoreland IP, just about every day. 192 edits, right out there in broad daylight. Maybe I’m missing something here – but this looks pretty clear, and pretty bad. Magnificent Amberson (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC) (Below is Scotty B’s third e-mail to Arb Com, with the list of Mantanmoreland edits) My third: I cannot find the Wikistalk took, only Soxred's "top edited pages" tool. Here are the results for Mantanmoreland: • 114 - Naked short selling * 85 - Martin Luther * 73 - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad * 44 - On the Jews and their Lies * 39 - John M. Oesterreicher * 37 - Louis Farrakhan * 28 - World Trade Center (film) * 27 - Patrick M. Byrne * 26 - Gary Weiss * 23 - On the Waterfront * 23 - Paul Burke (actor) * 23 - Henry Ford * 22 - National Crime Syndicate * 20 - Dave Karnes * 19 - John M. Corridan * 17 - Jews for Jesus * 17 - Fordham University * 17 - Cornelius Willemse * 16 - John McLoughlin (9/11 survivor) * 15 - Ernest Borgnine * 14 - Shepherd Mead * 14 - Will Jimeno * 13 - Malcolm Johnson (journalist) * 13 - Pump and dump * 12 - Ethan Bronner * 12 - Thom Calandra * 11 - Joe Queenan * 10 - Eddie Egan * 10 - Burton Turkus * 10 - On the Jews and Their Lies * 10 - Microcap stock fraud * 10 - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel * 10 - Richard Price (writer) * 9 - Big Love * 9 - New antisemitism * 9 - Short and distort * 9 - 2004 Madrid train bombings * 9 - Arthur Waskow * 8 - The Quiet Man * 8 - The Friends of Eddie Coyle (novel) * 8 - List of Fordham University people * 8 - Jordan Belfort * 7 - Detour (novel) * 7 - Herb Greenberg * 7 - Church of St. Joseph in Greenwich Village * 7 - Jack Garfein * 7 - CounterPunch * 7 - Mark Cuban * 6 - Grand Concourse (Bronx) * 6 - Charles Lane (actor) * 6 - Dutch Schultz * 6 - Rose Thering * 6 - Carroll Baker * 6 - Louis Buchalter * 6 - Michael V. Gazzo * 6 - Love with the Proper Stranger * 6 - Jason Thomas * 6 - Kossar's Bialys * 6 - James Cagney * 5 - The Wanderers (1979 film) * 5 - David Strathairn * 5 - Hedge fund * 5 - Antonio Demo * 5 - James Dale Davidson * 5 - Yonah Shimmel's Knish Bakery * 5 - The Nation * 5 - Overstock.com * 5 - Pat Reid * 5 - Avery Corman * 5 - Lee Harvey Oswald * 5 - Murder, Inc. * 4 - Harry Connick, Sr. * 4 - Spencer Tracy * 4 - Russ Tamblyn * 4 - Market Wizards * 4 - Meyer Lansky * 4 - Ryan's Daughter * 4 - Barry Foster (actor) * 4 - The Sleeping City * 4 - Roger Lowenstein * 4 - Arthur Levitt * 4 - Boys Town (organization) * 4 - Chop stock * 3 - The Seventh Cross * 3 - Stratton Oakmont * 3 - Joseph A. O'Hare * 3 - Cong, County Mayo * 3 - The River (1951 film) * 3 - Havana Conference * 3 - Mickey Spillane (mobster) * 3 - Donald Henry Gaskins * 3 - Alex Nicol * 3 - Augustin Cardinal Bea * 3 - Richard Conte * 3 - Mission San Xavier del Bac * 3 - The Lost Weekend (novel) * 3 - Jack Ruby * 3 - Fordham, Bronx * 3 - Woody Strode * 3 - Katrina vanden Heuvel Here are the results for me: * 89 - Nelson Antonio Denis * 87 - Doyers Street (Manhattan) * 85 - Steve Brodie (bridge jumper) * 76 - Juano Hernández * 74 - East Harlem * 71 - Raymond Márquez * 70 - Zahi Hawass * 68 - IRT Third Avenue Line * 60 - Chasing Mummies * 57 - Bowery * 53 - Sixth Avenue (Manhattan) * 48 - South Bronx * 46 - Seventh Avenue (Manhattan) * 45 - World Wide Tours bus crash * 43 - Chinatown, Manhattan * 38 - Allen Street (Manhattan) * 36 - Time travel urban legends * 34 - Tenth Avenue (Manhattan) * 32 - TriBeCa * 32 - Occupy Wall Street * 30 - Harlem * 27 - Chinatown bus lines * 25 - New York City Subway * 25 - Spread tow fabric * 24 - Singer Building * 23 - Italian Harlem * 23 - R32 (New York City Subway car) * 22 - ServiceMagic * 22 - Edgar Allan Poe Cottage * 22 - Commissioners' Plan of 1811 * 21 - Herberts Cukurs * 20 - Gary Weiss * 20 - IRT Sixth Avenue Line * 19 - Chuck Yeager * 19 - 2011 Egyptian revolution * 19 - Koreatown, Manhattan * 19 - Bowery (disambiguation) * 19 - Climatic Research Unit email controversy * 18 - List of Puerto Ricans of African descent * 17 - List of Puerto Ricans * 16 - C (New York City Subway service) * 15 - Closings and cancellations following the September... * 15 - Manhattan * 15 - IRT Ninth Avenue Line * 14 - IRT Second Avenue Line * 14 - The Bronx * 13 - Houston Street (Manhattan) * 12 - Harlem Riot of 1964 * 12 - South Street (Manhattan) * 12 - The Circus (film) * 11 - Adam Clayton Powell IV (politician) * 11 - Donald A Wilson Secondary School * 11 - Richard “Skip” Bronson * 11 - Longwood, Bronx * 10 - New York City * 10 - Shakaiba Sanga Amaj * 10 - Angie's List * 10 - Brownsville, Brooklyn * 10 - Stacy Horn * 9 - Steve Brodie (actor) * 9 - Josh Franceschi * 9 - Stonewall riots * 9 - Arthur Avenue * 9 - Rick Sanchez * 9 - Siege of Richmond * 9 - Pleasant Avenue * 9 - La Marqueta (East Harlem) * 8 - Hashomer Hatzair * 8 - Ferdinand Waldo Demara * 8 - Jerome Tiger * 8 - Alvin C. York * 8 - Division Street, Manhattan * 8 - Eddie Chapman * 7 - RMS Titanic Lifeboat No. 6 * 7 - Grand Concourse (Bronx) * 7 - Robert Moses Playground * 7 - Berenice Abbott * 7 - Association of Naval Service Officers * 7 - Radio Row * 7 - St Andrew's College, Cleethorpes * 7 - List of Clark University people * 6 - Orwell High School * 6 - Mottephobia * 6 - List of Puerto Rican boxing world champions * 6 - Irwin Corey * 6 - Longwood Historic District (Bronx) * 6 - 18th Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line) * 6 - Stormfront (website) * 6 - David M. Gonzales * 6 - Young Man with a Horn (film) * 6 - Vesey Street (Manhattan) * 6 - Gotobus * 5 - David Guetta discography * 5 - You Me at Six * 5 - Space Cats * 5 - Michael Sorrentino * 5 - Malbone Street Wreck * 5 - Zuccotti Park * 5 - Battery Place (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) * 5 - Nolita I'm not seeing any intersections except for Gary Weiss, which I have already discussed. I have shown no interest in any of the major subject areas of that editor, finance and theology. I may be missing something here, but you are aware that the above list is actually two lists, right? The first being edits by Mantanmoreland, and the second being edits by ScottyBerg. There's a "here are the results by me" in the middle somewhere. I'm not seeing how you're inferring that the NY edits are actually by Mantanmoreland based on that. Can you please clarify? Reyk YO! 21:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC) BTW- I see that all your edits consist of this list posted in various places. Whose sock are you? Reyk YO! 22:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC) What exactly are you talking about in regards to the IP? You do realize that the IP that the two accounts have is for a large portion of New York, over 8 million people, right? SilverserenC 00:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC) I smell a WR rat. This is too transparent for someone of MM's supposed socking skill. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC) I would expect all three of the accounts mentioned on this page are either a single person from WR or a group of them working together. Do they realize that the more they sock and try to incriminate Scotty, the more it makes it seem like they're the ones that created this whole scenario in the first place (though we already know they did), thus lessening actual support of the Scotty = MM theory? SilverserenC 02:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Of course. Okay...List of New York City Subway stations....lets not confuse what an IP address (IP) is and what an Internet service provider (ISP) is...Elen said well above that the checkuser data only placed ScottyBerg in the same region as Mantanmoreland...so if that is the case, they may have the same ISP but not the same IP which wouldn't be surprising since my IP changes independently and frequently.--MONGO 04:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) (The section above became too convoluted to post a response that might be seen.)

I collapsed the above per Jack Sebastian's request, and because I couldn't make any sense of it even after looking at it for a while. It's either misdirection, or somebody is pretty confused, as the collapsed discussion indicates. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

So, this presents us with a fairly point-blank question that would help us understand at least one facet of the ArbCom decision to ban: are they able to see the passwords we use to sign in (never mind the fact that this seems a helluva lot more disturbing than socking)? If so, are they seeing a match? Even though it isn't decisive, it would be a notable coincidence.

And yes, I am stymied by the fact that ScottyBerg isn't rising to the challenge of clearing his name. I've pointed out on his talkpage that Skyping with Jimbo (or anyone else familiar with the MM stuff) would be a leap in the right direction towards clearing his name. At the very least, it could help address possible flaws in the detection system that render false positives on (other?) innocent users. Understand that this is a hassle for me; I personally consider SB something of a selfish, self-centered douchebag. Seeing him bemoan his his situation without doing anything about it is not surprising, but a lot dumber than I would have expected from him. I can still intensely dislike the guy and still defend his rights as a Wikipedian. Others who are less douche-y might run into the same problem, and the snags - if there are such - need to be addressed before that happens again.

Thirdly, I am aghast that we are acting off of WR innuendo and half-baked accusations and attacks. Cookiehead needs a very long break from the project; there is a CoI problem at best, and a disruptive and pointy issue at worst - and they are fully aware of such, believing that their edits a sufficient armor against recrimination or administrative action. As such, he is a net detriment. The same goes for Cla6 for many of the same reasons: Wikipedia is not a battlefield, and them using WR to coordinate an attack on a user - any user - constitutes a clear and ominous disruption of our processes. As per WP:CABAL, this behavior needs to be uprooted and the ground burnt and salted.

Lastly, could someone please show/hide the "Someone please explain THIS" subsection? It's clearly a gaslighting from some WR jagoff seeking to keep us on the topic that they want. It is distracting and inaccurate in the extreme. We aren't marionettes, dancing at their bidding. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That's 5 at least throwaway accounts created by one or more WR trolls. In the above section, Stuart Jamieson exdplained that checkusers cannot check log in passwords...I assume his information is accurate.MONGO 16:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Jack, I wouldn't worry about the password-snooping theory (it was an interesting thought but unlikely in my opinion). I added a little more technical explanation after Stuart's post. Leaving plaintext passwords in a database is considered poor security practice.[17] It's a standard newbie error, but the WP developers are pretty clueful and they know better than to do stuff like that by now. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I should note that the Scotty account only noted correlations with Mantan and not the various confirmed socks. Here are the results against User:JohnnyB256: [18]. Against User:Tomstoner: [19]. Against User:Stetsonharry: [20]. Against User:MajorStovall: [21]. The others didn't have significant correlations, but the correlations above are certainly of note. I should further note that the MajorStovall correlation is particularly telling in the way the account focused on military topics. The Scotty account's focus on Harlem and New York transportation articles appears to recreate this tactic. I noted on Scotty's talk page that the edits to Italian Harlem were especially notable given the real-life connection between that subject and Weiss, it was apparently the subject of his "first journalistic effort" to quote his blog. Also, one of the articles included in the above list (Grand Concourse (Bronx)) demonstrates that the interest in notable New York thoroughfares was not peculiar to Scotty.

None of that dulls the concerns raised in this RfC, in my opinion, and there are definitely legitimate concerns about the off-wiki activity regarding the case. In fact, that this kind of behavioral evidence was easy as shit to find and provide here makes the apparent failure of anyone at ArbCom to provide that evidence a legitimate inquiry.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's not call it a failure, DA; as Elen noted previously, ArbCom has no protocol for this sort of thing. The reason why I am here is that there needs to be something, because it is just as easy as an innocent user to get banned as it is a sock. I have no idea what ScottyBerg is anymore (despite a selfish douchebag, imo). For me, its never really been about him; its about making Wikipedia better than it is. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"Just as easy"?? No I don't think so. "Scientifically possible": sure. "Not proven to beyond reasonable doubt" (as if this were a murder trial): ok maybe. Was there a preponderance of evidence (the standard for a civil trial, a much closer analogy to an arb case even though arbcom is not a courtroom procedure at all)? I tend to think so; the arbs/CU's are not fools.

I agree with Jack and TDA about the WR-related issues and would like arbcom to have handled it somewhat differently. It's ironic that arbcom's options were (formally or de facto) limited by past actions of "freedom fighters" concerned about arbcom becoming too powerful and working to reduce its discretionary authority. It doesn't sound (from Elen) that the arbs were exactly eager to do this block. I don't think there should be a "protocol", but rather, more should simply be left up to situational judgment. Maybe they should also talk to some of WP's longer-serving editors about how this type of problem was handled before the current, wikilawyer-dominated era. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What will all this resolve?

I am hoping that something good comes out of this, as opposed to ArbCom simply sitting back and waiting for the hullaballoo to die down. I get that they are probably seeing some people as inflamed, or armed with an agenda, or a collection of creeps from WR here to grind an ax, but I hope that they see that there is a problem here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really seem like it. Elen seems to be the only one that understands the problem. Silverseren^C 17:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom is in complete agreement as to the situation, so no reason for each arbitrator to comment as they do currently have a lot on their plate. None of them are going to overturn this ban unless ScottyBerg proves to them that he is not Mantanmoreland.--MONGO 18:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As hasw been mentioned ad nauseum previously, this isn't just about SB and whether or not they are a sock of one user or another. As the current situation with Rlevse proves beyond a shadow of doubt, ArbCom (and arbs) make mistakes. A lot of mistakes. The chance that an innocent person can be treated as SB has been is likely a LOT higher than is being let on. I am saying - and I thought that this whole RfC was about putting some controls on how these secret little discussions are governed. While ArbCom does a great deal of good, it hasn't been seen to be able to police itself all that well (any one of a number of situations distinctly bear that out). There must be something in place to prevent these secret discussions from potentially ruining a perfectly good user. We cannot trust ArbCom on their simple say so that they haven't made any mistakes. It's stupid to do so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, you won't be able to make progress on that goal unless we drop this notion that editing an encyclopedia is some sort of private activity that won't bear public inspection. Unless checkuser data is made publicly available (something which I wholeheartedly endorse, by the way: I think the identity of all editors should be public information and IP address should be exposed for all edits), you won't be able to publish the evidence that these secret trials are run on. Anonymity and privacy are the enemies of openness, and you can't have them without keeping secrets.—Kww(talk) 22:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Public inspection is fine, but measures should only be taken if it some finding implies that the edits made by an editor are compromized. SB being Mantanmoreland or not is, as far as SB's contributions to Wikipedia is concerned, an entirely academic question. Count Iblis (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I would be vehemently opposed to not providing privacy rights to the editors here. There are all sorts of reasons to maintain the rights to privacy...I mean, editors have been run off this website after stalkers have identified their real names, addresses, phone numbers and employers...all just because they left one too many crumbs that led to the discovery by some wacko. I could never support denying the rights of our editors to edit with anonymity...in fact, I always suggest our editors do so. But as far as the secret trials...I don't see that here...THEY believe the evidence supports either unambiguously or at the very least with overwhelmingly that SB=MM...I personally have a doubt, but I haven't seen the evidence, only did a modest survey on my own...I have to concur with HJMitchell's comments above. In light of the fact that some things are going to be "secret" for a reason, this is probably as good as it's going to get.--MONGO 02:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There are several types of "privacy" here. You can make a good case for not revealing the identity of the other editors, but "privacy" in this case has often been invoked to mean that it would violate Mantanmoreland's privacy. I think that if you really believe Scotty is MM, there should be no "privacy" concerns over giving him information about himself.

Of course, one issue here is also that Arbcom doesn't say much. Are there, in fact privacy concerns? You say yes, but other people have disagreed above and as far as I know there's nobody to speak authoritatively on the subject. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, publishing everyone's identity and ip address is not reasonable. Wasn't some kind of community group set up a few years ago to independently monitor checkuser and oversight? Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Risker said that ArbCom was between a rock and a hard place. So what would like to see is a change in the rules to give ArbCom an out if they so choose to use it. If a banned editor's new account meets the following conditions:

1. Is productively editing Wikipedia.
2. Has a long history of such contributions (In this case, Scotty had 2 years and 13,000 edits. 99% of socks will never reach this level).
3. Has a clean record.
4. Blocking the account would be disruptive.

Issuing or not issuing a block is at ArbCom's descretion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what the BASC is for. I strongly oppose granting amnesty to people that sockpuppet, regardless of their motivation or apparent productivity. Arbcom should not have that level of discretion.—Kww(talk) 15:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wouldn't support changing the rules for past edits at all, either. When I say that I think information that is now concealed should become public, I'm speaking only on a going-forward basis, not retroactively.—Kww(talk) 16:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

As things are now, no one is ever required to block an account, right? Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In this situation, Arbcom pretty much was. Past precedent of desysopping admins that were allowing known socks to become admins would be hard not to apply in this case. It's pretty hard to argue that someone that passes RFA isn't an overall constructive editor.—Kww(talk) 19:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested actions

Let's see if we can get something actionable proposed here. From what I can tell the main proposals advocated here are:

1. Clearly providing a procedure to allow an editor engaged in sockpuppetry who has demonstrated productive editing activities on Wikipedia to be given a means to return to editing. Basically if someone is only socking to make constructive edits this should be taken into account.
2. Administrative action should be taken against users mentioned in this case who have apparently been engaging in off-wiki coordination aimed at using contentious edits to the BLP on Gary Weiss to bait Mantan socks that would otherwise go unnoticed given generally productive editing in non-contentious areas.
3. Greater transparency should be introduced to ArbCom proceedings and sockpuppet appeals in particular. Lack of transparency has created a trust gap between ArbCom and regular editors that needs to be addressed through reform.

On the first point I happen to be aware of a case where someone indeffed for sockpuppetry was able to come back under certain conditions. Essentially the editor agreed to regular checks on the condition that any future instances of sockpuppetry would lead to the indef being reinstated without talk page access. Perhaps something along those lines could be put forward in this case and adopted broadly as a model for sockmasters to come out from the cold. One thought I have on the second point is that there should be some wording set forth to lay out how "baiting" might apply to edits on articles, as the policy currently does not mention that as a possible form of baiting. If anyone has any ideas on the appropriate way to address the above issues or other issues they want to see addressed please provide them.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Your first condition requires an admission of sockpuppetry. There are paths back for people that admit to socking. There are none, and should be none, for those that do not.—Kww(talk) 01:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I completely disagree. It is not on to demand someone admit guilt when they're actually innocent, so unless and until we have some guarantee that ArbCom is infallible a return to editing should not require admitting anything. The trouble is that checkuser is limited and unreliable (particularly when you're using CU info too stale for a regular editor to use at SPI), and behavioural evidence is always tainted with data cherry-picked to support a pre-ordained guilty verdict. I bet that many, many blocked "sockpuppets" are actually innocent. IMO, the only thing that should be necessary after the six months is a plausible commitment in the future to edit constructively and under one account. Reyk _YO! 03:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying the ScottyBerg should promise to go away for 6 months and then be allowed back? What happens if Arbcom reaches a unanimous conclusion that he was socking during the 6 months and he still denies it? I think you are just pushing the problem down the line.—Kww(talk) 12:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering that Scotty was editing completely productively, I don't even see what the "problem" is at this point. That's also the hole in your statement, Reyk. What's the point of them making a commitment to edit constructively when they were already doing that and hadn't done anything wrong and then they were blocked. Silverseren^C 15:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Evading a block is doing something wrong, Silver seren, and everyone that has examined the evidence agrees that ScottyBerg was evading a block.—Kww(talk) 15:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

However, there are significant doubts, especially based on what Elen revealed about the "evidence", that he is a sockpuppet at all. The technical evidence seems to have been, "He had an ISP the same as Mantanmoreland, the ISP that hosts 8 million New Yorkers". Based on this, a lot of the behavioral evidence of "editing New York based articles" seems to be pointless. And as for the behavioral evidence based on edit summaries, from what i've seen, it's less than compelling. Silverseren^C 16:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is twofold. The first is (as noted previously) that of trials conducted away from the membership without even the accused having the right to know the evidence against them. We have only the word of a few arbs that ScottyBerg is guilty of anything. I'm sorry, but the trust gap alluded to in DA's previous post continues to widen as ArbCom continues to stall and refrain from taking action - any action - to fix the problem. They seem quite content to sit around and wait for our frustration and indignation at secret trials to run out of steam. Either that, or some cowboy new admin will be nudged into closing the RfC. That belief isn't inspired by conspiracy, but instead by precedent.

The second problem is that if we presume ScottyBerg's innocence, he has no way to return to the Project unless he lies and says he is a sock of MM. Presupposing the aforementioned trust gap as well as the absolute - yet independently unconfirmed - proof that ArbCom says it has against a supposed sock - we have no way of knowing if this has not happened before.

If we cannot trust each other, if we cannot trust those with whom we place our highest level of access, it all falls apart. With this matter as well as multiple other issues affecting the credibility of ArbCom (and I am referencing the matter with Rlevse, among others), ArbCom needs to cowboy up and address these concerns both signly and jointly. They need to adapt. The closed-door policies of us-versus-them needs to stop, and stop now. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Precisely what do you expect them to do to convince you that doesn't involve violating the privacy policy? I encourage you to "vote the rascals out" (hell, I ran against them in the last election), but there has to be a final court that deals with this kind of thing, and there isn't much of a choice but to listen to them when they are serving their terms.—Kww(talk) 18:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There has been no definitive statement from Arbcom as to whether not releasing the information has anything to do with the privacy policy. Any statements to that effect are just inferences or unofficial statements that can be, and have been, disclaimed when convenient. The first thing I would like to see Arbcom do in relation to releasing private information is to say--in a way that isn't subject to later denial--whether the privacy policy is relevant at all.

After that, they should offer to release the information to Scotty (redacting the names of other people if needed). If they really believe he is MM, releasing information to him won't violate his privacy. He can then release it to others as he wishes. I'm tired of the idea that Arbcom is certain he is MM, but when being MM would help his case, suddenly they're not certain after all. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As has been noted previously, Kww, the issue surrounding the release of the information that supposedly proves ScottyBerg is MM is NOT one of privacy at all, but one of apparent 'trade secrets'. ArbCom has stated that they do not wish to "teach" the apparent sockmaster how to avoid being detected. I find the 'trust us, we're arbcom and we're sure' expectation somewhat appalling. Beyond that is the galling impression that ArbCom feels offended that we'd even bother asking. Come on, ArbCom. This is not going to go away. You think people aren't reading these threads? You think this won't spread beyond the confines of this talk page or this website? Wake up. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I certainly think it should go away. I never tell a sockpuppeteer how I know it's him. Never will. It's unreasonable to expect. What is reasonable to expect is that Arbcom will perform its functions. If you don't like the way it does it, propose a better solution that doesn't have worse side effects than the problem it is solving, or elect people you trust to Arbcom. So far, all that has been proposed is that Arbcom release the information it used to make the decision, which will either violate privacy policies or educate a sockpuppeteer. There's no path in that direction that actually leads somewhere.—Kww(talk) 00:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That makes no sense, Kww. There is no privacy to violate, if ArbCom is so all-fired sure they have the right man; MM's identity is clearly known, and has been alluded to by several of the less subtle of our editors. Either SB is MM, and no privacy is warranted, or he isn't, and privacy would be in order.

Secondly, we only have ArbCom's word that their "evidence" would educate a socker. We have no proof whatsoever that this proof in fact exists, is based in measurably accurate information or was obtained without delving into - at best - gray areas of the legally obtainable info. Due to the aforementioned trust gap, I think more information (or at least, outside confirmation of that information by someone like Jimbo or whatever) is needed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the bizarre aspects of this case is that Arbcom (or people who seem to be speaking for it) can't even get their story straight on whether there are any privacy concerns or not. How are we supposed to meaningfully comment when we have no idea what Arbcom even claims to be doing?

I would still say that if there are privacy concerns, most of them could be alleviated by giving the information to Scotty and allowing him to release it as he chooses. If you believe he is MM, you're not violating his privacy by giving him information about himself. (And if he's not MM, falsely accusing him was a much bigger mistake than violating anyone's privacy in the process.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Here we go round the mulberry bush

Why are you guys still going on about secret evidence? The only evidence you haven't been given is Scotty Berg's IP address, and I've said repeatedly that IP evidence wasn't a smoking gun, it just didn't rule him out. Everything else - as I have said ad nauseam - is onwiki. You can see all the edit histories, all the socks are recorded, you can compare Scotty to Mantanmoreland and his socks yourself, you can compare Scotty's edits with Weiss's blog if you believe Mantanmoreland is Weiss, or edits according to what's in Weiss's blog for some other reason. There's nothing else. If you think the decision is bad, just say that you think it was a bad call.

Also, for those of you advancing the 'editing productively' argument, you should note that Arbcom is in another place being ferociously castigated for not instantly blocking Rlevse's PumpkinSky account, even though some would argue that edited productively. And of course we couldn't have blocked it instantly because believe it or not, we don't actually check every account daily to see if it's a sock.

So, joining up several discussions it seems-

• Editors want full disclosure of all information - unless it's their information, when they want it kept private
• Socks that manage to edit productively should be kept - unless they are Rlevse
• Review by Audit Subcommittee and a dozen Checkusers doesn't count as a review - only review by (insert your name here) counts.
• Pointing people at the evidence onwiki doesn't count as disclosure - only including public onwiki information in a private email and then posting the email onwiki counts as disclosure

I think the only thing you guys have picked out as a significant are -

• When an investigation is carried out into a non-vandal editor without a Sockpuppet investigation, the blocking admin should post a summary of the evidence onwiki (as for example in the PMA/JCS block, where the summary evidence is on my talkpage). You might even want to suggest that they must create an SPI and post to that, so there is a record somewhere findable.
• A non-vandal editor accused of socking should be given a reasonable chance to clear their name - for example by accepting technical evidence, or confidential disclosure of identity.
• There should be a community discussion about "rehabilitation of offenders" to find out what if any community consensus there is on allowing the return of a sockmaster.
• Anything formulated must not interfere with the ongoing prevention of disruption from the likes of Grawp, Jonny the Vandal et al. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I heard, Rlevse was continuing his copyvios through PumpkinSky, was he not? If so, then I wouldn't really consider that editing productively. Silverseren^C 17:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There is that. "Trying to edit productively" is probably a better way of putting it. But there was WWIII over Law/Undertow as well, although that was before my time. I'm just frustrated because it feels like this is always happening - the community seems to be always campaigning for two opposing outcomes at the same time. I think there are things to take forward here, I'm just still not sure what outcome people are looking for. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I definitely like all of the things you listed as significant. Silverseren^C 18:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Elen, I can sense your growing exasperation with the discussion, and trust me when I say that I share it, but for somewhat different reasons. I think that the Rlevse issue is only tangentially related to this (ie. a sockblocking), but the differences far outweigh the similarities - enough so that comparing the two only muddies the waters and prevents a clear discussion. Don't misunderstand me; I'm upset as hell that the former arb has gone off reservation and is apparently smoking the Happy Grass and doing whatever the hell he wants, but we're talking apples and pomegranates here. Let's stay on target here.

Elen, though meant as a tongue-in-cheek assessment, you are correct in stating that the information being both obvious and onwiki does not count as dull disclosure. The term onwiki covers a massive amount of information. If ArbCom has already sifted through that (which, unless I am mistaken, they are contending to have done), why not share it with the community? If the damning evidence is onwiki and out there for anyone to see, then it is - by definition - not private. No security is being compromised.

While the initial comment appears to have been overlooked, one of the two reasons for the sockblock (as per User:AGK, an Arb) was that checkuser data was part of the evidence and couldn't discussed. We get that (or at least, I do). Checkuser info should remain private. That said, I think its been clearly established that CU data isn't incontrovertible; if it were, it wouldn't have been "part" of the evidence but the entirety of it. If that is set aside (or kept private), then all that remains is the supposedly damning behavioral evidence present onwiki and out in the open. I say to this: "habeas corpus''. Arbcom says they compiled it; now show it. There's no decoder ring or cabal to hide. It's really that simple. Put up or shut up.

I do not think that socks that edit productively should be given a free pass. If someone is editing like a sock, then they cannot remain. I firmly believe in the one-man, one vote principle: Wikipedia cannot be said to be an encyclopedia that everyone can edit if someone is manipulating viewpoint by pretending to represent their viewpoint as more prolific than it might otherwise be.

That said, if a sock (or a user incorrectly accused of being a sock - there is a difference) genuinely wishes to return to edit productively, there should be avenues to do so. Not amnesty for a sock that edits productively, which doesn't work (imo), nor given credit for a sock that edits productively (they are still socking, right?). So long as reasonable restrictions are applied and cheap shots aren't continually taken at the user's expense, I don't think its a reasonable proposal.

Your final four assessments as to what are significant as spot on. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for bearing with my dodgy humour. Does example block explanation work. It doesn't happen often that I have to block someone I consider a serious editor for something as stupid as socking - there was a lot of evidence sent privately by email, but it's not private evidence (other than the CU data) it's a massive analysis of edits. I felt when I did it that there ought to be somewhere to record why, what evidence linked them, because people would be bound to ask, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Your contributions here are much appreciated...thanks for taking the time to address these issues.--MONGO 23:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a discussion of a more appropriate forum to discuss the three issues I mention at the top of this section. The second I think can easily be dealt with at an RfC regarding Wikipedia Review in general with community-imposed sanctions. Has there been such an RfC before this? As to the first and third issues I raised, I am not sure exactly how to approach them. Both might be handled through more clear proposals here or maybe they need to be dealt with in some other procedure. I'm not sure.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to presume the worst, but I fear that some Arbs might not be taking this seriously for two reasons. The first is that every time they make a decision, someone complains about it. Vociferously. Therefore, when a legitimate concern pops up, the thick skin they tend to develop may miss the legitimacy of that concern. Secondly, they may not want to expend energy on something that either makes their job list longer or doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of being implemented.

I do think that to address both issues, we have to address the problem of venue. Without putting our concerns in the right place where they stand a chance of being taken seriously and eventually finding implementation, we are giving the arbs more than enough reason to marginalize our concerns. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I don;t want to be a PITA, but I'm a bit concerned about the accuracy of "tells". I know they're supposed to be unique traits, but I can't blind myself to the possibility that people with similar interests, coming from the same geographical area, and possibly having gone to the same school or even being in the same workplace, could perfectly reasonably and innocently have similar styles in the minutest of things. Heck, my own school even had a recognisable "accent", for those who had been there. Minutely, minutely different from the other local(ish) accents, but it was something which we shared. With things like edit summaries, for instance, it's possible that two people went to the same college, or whatever, and the college "style" was to use a particular type of "shorthand". This becomes all the more likely when two people are living in the same city. Just how unique are the "tells"? We don't need to know exactly what they were, but would it be reasonable to consider that more than one person, coming from the same area (and possibly school, college, workplace, club) might have the same apparently-unique "tells"? I'm not saying that this is a miscarriage of justice, but the possibility that it might be, and that others might fall foul of the same "these are unique 'tells'", worries me for future cases.

P.S. How very interesting! I've just looked at the example block explanation, and by the mightiest of coincidences, I use semicolons in edit summaries, too! How weird is that?! Pesky (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposals

I am going to try and list a few ideas of where I think these issues should be taken to get a more clear discussion about it. Anyone else with proposals can feel free to leave them below.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal #1

Create a discussion at the policy Village Pump about modifying policy on sockpuppetry, specifically regarding WP:CLEANSTART, to provide a clear path for editors to return to editing after long-term sockpuppetry.

Editors who support this proposal

1. Proposing this because I think that might be an appropriate avenue for discussing a change in policy relating to sockpuppetry. Several recent cases have demonstrated split behavior on the question of editors operating multiple accounts. A clearer description might make it easier for such decisions to be made without controversy rather than the current ad-hoc process that appears to be in use.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
2. All things considered, that seems reasonable. It could even provide a way for the innocent to return, too. Pesky (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Support - this is the very least that should take place. There must be a process. Opening it to the wider membership will likely increase the noise/sound ratio, but that will certainly be better than arbs sitting around here waiting for us to lose interest in something that they clearly don't see as broken. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
4. Yeah, because at this point people just keep getting pointed to the standard offer, but things are often not as clear-cut as that. Silverseren^C 19:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
5. Certainly worth discussing. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
6. Definitely worth hearing the community's view on this. Reyk _YO! 01:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Editors who don't

1. Don't Support...procedures already in place...silly motion...just more drama.MONGO 19:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

   If they were, we wouldn't be here talking about this. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

2. Procedures are already in place. The standard offer plus BASC gives a path back to anyone that will admit they have been sockpuppeting.—Kww(talk) 03:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

   And yet completely fails where the user is in fact innocent. I'm sorry, but I am not convinced of ArbCom's infallibility. I've seen nothing here that convinces me that ScottyBerg is anything more than a self-involved douchebag. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

   All systems have a final arbiter, and no method to deal with that final arbiter getting it wrong. All you can do is move that problem, you can't fix it.—Kww(talk) 11:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

   Using that logic, slavery would still exist in the civilized world. Bringing matters out into the light of day helps prevent an arbiter from getting it wrong. The process is too closed, and there is no way to know when they make mistakes. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

3. All this is saying "I don't trust checkusers/arbcom" and the comparison to slavery above is as close to a non-Nazi Godwin that you'll ever see. Moral Panics do not replace measured discussion. SirFozzie (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

   And a discussion on the Village Pump about this wouldn't be measured discussion? Silverseren^C 17:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

   Wow, I've never been accused of invoking Godwin's Law before. Just...wow. Allow me to restate the problem with the idea that the problem is 'unfixable'. If we elect arbiters to fix problems, and they consider some problems unfixable, then ipso facto, they need assistance in accomplishing their tasks. The procedures "already in place" aren't working. Period. The arbs must see that the rest of us don't feel that they are working. Maybe they are all defensive, thinking that we are considering them dishonest. I personally don't think this. Fallible? Yes. Employing an 'us-versus-them' mentality? Demonstably true. Misguided? Yep. Corrupt? No. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

4. Per failure to demonstrate how this would actually improve the encyclopedia (as opposed to creating more drama). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
5. We have checkusers for a reason. We have arbitrators for a reason. We have WP:BASC for a reason. We have WP:AUSC for a reason. For that matter we have WP:BAN and {{bannedmeansbanned}} for a reason. We already have what we need to deal with ban evading sockpupeteers, which is what Scotty was. We should not encourage banned users to edit in defiance of their ban, quite the opposite. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

   And if, if, he was not? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

   That's not what this proposal is about, it is about weakening the banning policy to let people we know to have evaded their ban keep doing so. Terrible, completely wrong headed idea that is never going to be accepted by the community. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal #2

Initiate an RfC regarding Wikipedia Review focusing on off-wiki coordination by active editors.

Editors who support this proposal

1. Seems this has not been attempted, even though editors who frequent the site have been a repeated source of contention within the community. The ongoing RfC regarding Fae is one indicator of where WR's activities have been the subject of controversy beyond just the mantan case. One desired outcome I think would be for certain editors to cease editing articles relating to Gary Weiss.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
2. If you contribute at WR, you need to admit such, so your edits and actions are transparent. Users like Cla68 deserve God's Own Beating (or at the very least a hefty block) for disrupting Wikipedia to chase after a suspected sockpuppet. It was part of a WR-coordinated attack on Wikipedia, and that shit needs to cease pronto. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Off-wiki coordination is definitely something that we combat. For one example, that's what the whole CAMERA issue was (among other things). We can't regulate what people say or do off-wiki, but we can certainly factor it in in regards to their on-wiki actions. Silverseren^C 19:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
4. Editors who use Wikipedia Review to mock and harrass WP editors while they are WP editors themselves are not constructive contributors. PaoloNapolitano 10:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Editors who don't

1. Don't support...we cannot regulate what people do off wiki...MONGO 19:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

   See my support comment up above. Also note that we do actually use off-wiki attacks on users as admissible evidence on-wiki, per policy. Silverseren^C 19:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

   Well...good luck with that...you have to prove contributions made off wiki belong to a wiki contributor...not always easy to do, unless there is a real give away such as a confession or poorly covered up evidence.MONGO 20:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

   Well, you are able to detect sock-puppets apparently using the Force, so I think that argument about proving contributions to WR by editors here is a fairly disingenuous one. And, as a point of clarification, we are talking about editors who organize themselves into cabals to screw with Wikipedia are not only deserving of protection, they are deserving of any punishment we can possibly devise. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

   There may be a half dozen editors that endured equal or greater offsite coordinated attacks brought onto this website...WR used to have a section devoted to MONGO...there's an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica about MONGO...the GNAA also came after MONGO...MONGO 21:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

   Again, we aren't talking about people going after Mongo (because "Mongo only pawn in game of life"). We are talking about those muppets over at WR disrupting Wikipedia for their own little pointy reasons, none of which have to do with creating an encyclopedia. Calling someone a douchebag isn't very friendly, but it doesn't directly interfere with the operation of the encyclopedia. Creating stupid edits to elicit a reaction does. The distinction isn't all that fine, really. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

   Those "muppets" over at WR? WR has plenty of banned editors and also some current wiki arbcom members that contribute there...the founder of WR was just recently allowed back into this website after a 5.5 year ban...so what on earth are you planning on doing?--MONGO 04:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

   Again, if you are an editor who contributes to WR and can keep your editing life and WR views separate, great. If you edit transparently, again great. If you dislike a particular WP policy and voice such in WR, still acceptable. If, however, you - along with other WR contributors - work to undermine the efficiency of the encyclopedia via disruptive edits and mindgames, you need to be shown the door for a time. In fact, I think people who coldly calculate this sort of disruption are worse than the manchild who loses his temper and has an emotional outburst. Wikipedia is not the venue for mindfuck games. Full stop. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Organizing witch-hunts of what editors may say and do off-site is quite outside the scope of an encyclopedia project. In response to the CAMERA analogy, I was one of the primary targets of the CAMERA case back then. CAMERA was taken down because we had clear and undeniable proof that members were conversing off-wiki about how to circumvent Wikipedia policy and to target specific editors for deception and harassment. That's not even remotely in the ballpark of "they said mean things about me at WR!" Tarc (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

   And we aren't talking about people saying "mean things" at WR; we are talking about people planning out and then executing the disruption of Wikipedia in pointy little ways. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm considered a supporter but I think these proposals are overkill. I'm concerned mainly with one issue: suppose this happened to me; what could I do to prove my innocence and/or to return after failing to prove my innocence? I want a policy that prevents the answer from this from being "nothing". Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, a discussion at the village pump could address that question of how one proves innocence as well. The second point was exactly what I mentioned.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't happen to you Ken unless your a sockmaster...or a previously banned editor.--MONGO 04:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Or, as the case may be, simply accused of being such. Since no compelling evidence has been presented confirming SB's guilt, and they are being rather creepily silent on the subject, I am not really convinced by any arguemtn asking us to trust them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Too easily gamed -- we have no way of verifying identities of WR posters. So, if I want to slam someone I'm annoyed with who does not have a WR account, I go create on, pretend to be them there, say vile things about me, come back here and raise a fuss... Nobody Ent 21:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal #3

Create a discussion about modifying policy on sockpuppetry, to provide a clear process for editors to challenge evidence against them and prove their innocence. Additionally a discussion about route back for those maintain their innocence (hence can't use the standard offer).

Editors who support this proposal

1. Support per Ken Arromdee above - I want to know that if this happened to me there would be a process beyond Jimmy Wales offer of a Skype Chat. (Which only worked on the basis that the Sock Master had been Outed). Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
2. May be a good plan. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Seems like a process of challenging evidence should already exist. Otherwise, it's not so much a normal court system as it is a military tribunal. Silverseren^C 17:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
4. In any judicial or quasi-judicial process, there absolutely must be some way for the truly innocent to "come back". No such process is perpetually infallible, even if it has been infallible "up to now". I still want to know just how fallible, for instance, those "tells" are — particularly bearing in mind that, although apparently almost nobody uses semi-colons in edit summaries, I do! And no, I'm not a sock of anyone else who does, no matter how "distinctive" such a tell might be. There must be a just, fair and reasoned way for people who've been "victims of false positives" to be allowed back without having to tell lies, pretending they were guilty. This is a matter of pure principle. Pesky (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
5. Definitely. After this whole ScottyBerg mess and the way Arbcom have dealt with it, I feel much less likely to get a fair hearing from ArbCom if I were ever accused of something. Reyk _YO! 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
6. Clearly support this as well. It's a process clearly in need of adjustment. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Editors who don't

1. This proposal is conflating two different issues. Why are they grouped into 1 proposal? Is the 2nd sentence different from proposal #1? Kaldari (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

   Both issues in this proposal are based on the accused (for want of a better word) being innocent and it's a two part process there should be a community means to verify your identity (Jimmy already offers this in the Skype offer above - but it only works if the RL identity of the master is known) and a means to get back in when you can't take up the standard offer (because you never had access to the sockmaster account in the first place) - Proposal #1 in it's current wording appears to relate to editors who are guilty but reformed/productive coming back into the fold without being forced to take the standard offer. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

   If you can prove your innocence, you don't need a route back, you just get unblocked by an admin. I would support the 1st sentence, but not the 2nd. Too bad they aren't presented separately. Kaldari (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

   As I say to Starblind below: we already have an unblock process for those who admit their guilt in the original account. The second part only acts as a failsafe for those who actually are innocent but have been unable to prove it (for instance if the real life identity of the sock master is unknown) and it may be something as simple as wait 6months with no sockpuppeting, log in to the suspected account, leave a request for unblocking and get it (essentially the standard offer moved away from the sock master account) but how to implement it and whether the terms should be different from the standard offer would be part of the discussion. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

2. Wikipedia is a website, not a country, and has no need for due process, courts of law, and the like. The fact that some of our processes do use terminology (like "case" etc.) associated with real-world legal systems apparently confuses some people into believing WP does or should have a full judicial system. I would challenge those people to come up with examples of other websites that DO have a full judicial system, as without concrete examples of how such a thing could possibly work in an online, volunteer-oriented and largely anonymous community, the very suggestion is ridiculous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Just so we're clear if you did act as a sockmaster there is a way back into Wikipedia - wait 6 months post an apology in the original account. If you are found guilty of being a sockmaster but it's a genuine mistake - you can't return to that original account so you can never get back in. Whether or not we have need for due process we do have a need for a way back in for those wrongly banned since we already have a way for those rightly banned. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal #4

Open a discussion whether bans should ever be 'indefinite' or 'indefinite'-like (some ArbCom bans read 'you are banned for the period of at least <timeframe>'), especially in perspective of WP:CLEANSTART, innocence, and double jeopardy.

Editors who support this proposal

1. As proposer. Do note that this does not need to exclude an option of 'auto-reban after one year' for the really malicious - We do not block school IPs indefinitely. We do block school IPs whose first edit(s) after a one-year block are (all) vandalism, often again for a lengthy period. Also, we do not block if there are good edits coming after the 1-year block, but if that is followed by a spree of vandalism, they may get a (lengthy) block again, without discussion. If there are hundreds of good edits coming from that school over a long stretch of time after the one year block, and then (even if it is for a couple of days) only vandalism, a new block of 1 year is difficult to defend. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

   Two additional notes:

   • The cleanstart account, created after the end of a definite ban, of a user who for sockpuppetry should not be regarded a sockpuppet (as long as old accounts were not used again, and not multiple accounts were used after the ban, etc. etc.)
   • There may be another way out, indefinite(-like) bans are automatically evaluated after one year - without discussion with the editor. Although this is a dangerous one, all editors obviously need a say in this, and if the editor is convicted, but innocent, that may not be appropriately weighed in such a discussion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Editors who don't

1. Ridiculous. The ban that has the proposer worked up is a community ban, the best way to open that is to open a formal community un-ban (which can happen at any time already) and in each and every case where the Committee has issued an indefinite ban there is a good reason. Forcing the re-fighting of issues over people who were banned for really good reasons is a non-starter. SirFozzie (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

   There needs to be no 're-fighting', and whatever the good reason is, there is always a chance of mistake, and there is at this moment no way around that, nor a really fair chance to cleanstart. It is equally ridiculous to consider that ArbCom decisions are infallable. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

   There has to be a last stop in Dispute Resolution, and ArbCom is it. You're just opening the door to endlessly fight over things. SirFozzie (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, and ArbCom is effectively closing the door so there can not be discussion, even if they would make a completely wrong decision at some point. "You're convicted to the electric chair, and in case we did make a mistake in our decision, remember: shit happens". --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

   That's why the community has the power to change things every year when candidates run for the committee. Again, there needs to be a "last call" on dispute resolution otherwise nothing will ever get settled. SirFozzie (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

   Which is exactly why these things need to be transparent. How can the community judge whether the individual committee members are worthy of their office if all we ever see of the decision making process is pronouncements handed down from above like the Ten Commandments? "We can't tell you what we're thinking because BEANS" is a flimsy excuse. ArbCom is answerable to the community 24/7, not just around election time. Reyk _YO! 01:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

   The voting records are public in most cases, even when based on [some] private evidence, e.g. in the Will Beback case. What I would support here, is a minor amendment: whenever a decision like that to block Scotty Berg, especially with a tagline of "contact ArbCom before unblocking", we should be able to get a clear on-wiki voting record, like a motion or something similar. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

   It must be a great comfort for the innocent on death row to see that their judge gets fired next year (if they live to see that happen). No, SirFozzie, that is certainly not a solution to the innocent people you did ban (and note: I'm not saying that you did). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

   First off, not being able to edit Wikipedia is not like being on death row. Secondly, never mind that caveat you threw in, you ARE accusing me of that, so don't try to hide it. I suggest that your view in this case is lacking perspective. SirFozzie (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

   First point, that is true, nonetheless, the risk exists that an innocent person is being accused, and 'punished', without any possibility of parole - second point, I apologise for the choice of words, I thought that the caveat would cover it properly. My apologies for implying something different. All I meant to do, and all I can do, is to question decisions, if there would be definite proof, we would not be here. My perspective is that the possibility exists that ArbCom does make a mistake, your perspective is that even if that would be possible, that that does not matter, someone has to make a final decision. I hence don't think that my view is lacking perspective. I suggested here a point of discussion, a thought experiment maybe. If the final decision process of a system can make mistakes, and we can come up with a system or idea to solve such problems, then that should be done, it is all too easy to say that if I make mistakes, vote me off and let the next person solve the problem. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

   Not to pester you, but do we have any examples where it was clearly shown that what was thought to be the sockpuppet of a banned editor was blocked and then subsequently shown to not be a sockpuppet? I only ask as I do not know.--MONGO 04:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

   I don't know if it is easy to search, but I do see SPI cases being closed as 'unlikely' and 'likely' - it happens very often that the cases are borderline. I presume (I've never played with the tool) that it is something like 'the IPs come from the same area, but their timings don't exactly match up', or 'the service providers are from the same area, but they do not use the same service provider'. Not all cases are 'this account uses this IP, and that account uses the same IP, and there are no other editors using that IP and no edits from the IP iitself, so those two editors are the same'. The other extreme that I could imagine is a student house where all students use the same IP, and having only two students interested in editing Wikipedia, and both studying law in the same school. They obviously interact, so they may edit with the same ideas, though different personalities. Such cases may be false positives on checkuser, while the worst thing they do is unintended meatpuppetry (if they are so careless). CheckUser is not something God-like which gives absolute answers, CheckUser does not switch on the webcam and takes a picture of the editor and compares it with it's database, and I do suspect that this is a 99.9% case, or maybe even a 99.99% case, because I am afraid that they can't defend 100% cases (unless one of the accounts outs themselves). Whether it is 90 or 95 or 99.99% - I haven't seen that the ArbCom said that the editor outed himself and therefore it is a 100% match, all they seem to have is a very, very, very likely match (it is a user compare, they don't want to reveal the methods, hence the secrecy). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

   I honestly do have no dog in this particular fight; I'm only here on a matter of pure principle. Every judicial process has its flaws, every such process occasionally convicts and punishes the innocent. And though not being allowed to edit can't be compared to a death sentence, being wrongfully found guilty of something of which one is wholly innocent is emotionally traumatising. It causes a lot of distress, and only those who have never been there wouldn't appreciate just the sheer amount of damage it does. In Real Life, in the UK, we have the Criminal Cases Review Commission which (though far from perfect) offers an independent review process; we also have the Independent Police Complaints Commission (which is even less perfect, but the thought is there). Any system where your only route of review or appeal is to the same set of people that convicted you in the first place causes problems, sooner or later. My concern here is with the truly innocent, the false positives. What can they do? At present, it seems there is nothing they can do apart from crawl away with totally lost faith, and lick their wounds. There is no way for them to clear their name, and they have the added hurt that their reputation is permanently damaged among those who had become friends here. If "The System" (whichever system it is) blackens your character wrongly and loses you both your hobby and your friends, it damages you. I think we need to ensure that we do everything possible to reduce the number of wrongly-damaged people we leave behind us to as close to zero as can be achieved. I think that without any independent review available, we are, in however few cases, actually causing emotional harm to real, live people, and that is something absolutely to be avoided in any humane community. Pesky (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

   To this, I completely agree. ArbCom decisions are affecting real, live people. Legal systems are supposed to be independent, objective, and have for the serious crimes several saveguards in place. It is not some local judge who is placing a death sentence on a person, and then there are still several safeguards in place after that moment, and possibilities to appeal - and that system makes mistakes (see Miscarriage of justice)! Here, it is a group of co-editors that is making the decisions, of who we have to trust they are objective in their decision, fair, and that they don't make mistakes. The former two we assume, the latter we know that they inevitably make, they are not infallable. The only 100% proof (and even then!) is if a person says 'I am a sock of that account', all other cases are less than 100%, and hence, it can be a mistake. And even if that person is a sock, but has truly changed their way, then still there is no escape from the previous account - You HAVE to ask for an unban, you HAVE to do a false confession, and that has to be published on-wiki, and for those, there is no WP:CLEANSTART - because that past that the ArbCom are putting on people, inevitably ([22], [23]), follows you around. Forever. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

   Me being me, I'm also looking at this from what one might call "the criminal's point of view". It would be all too easy for someone with malice aforethought to drive an opponent off Wikipedia altogether, if they knew (or could work out) who that person was IRL. It wouldn't be hard to pretend to be a sock of another user, by using the same school, college, local library, or workplace net-connection, and even real-life stalking them home, sitting in their road with a laptop, and piggy-backing on their home broadband connection. Combine that concerted effort with wikistalking their obvious interests, and making a darned nuisance of yourself, and Bingo! You've labelled your opponent comprehensively as a sock, and got rid of them forever. The only way for the innocent to get around that would be (possibly) to provide alibi evidence (such as dated and timed shop receipts, or holiday bookings, or whatever) to prove that they simply could not physically have been using that connection at that time / date. I'm sure there must be ill-intentioned Wikipedians who are just as capable as I am of coming up with that as a way to get rid of someone. Pesky (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

2. Ridiculous. It's already pretty tough to actually get banned at WP (unlike blocking, banning is rare and always the result of serious infractions), and for the few users who are disruptive enough to actually get banned, enough is enough. Both the banned user and the community need to move on. Regarding due process and the like, see above. Wikipedia is not a court of law or a judicial system, nor should it be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

   It is pretty tough to actually get banned, yes, sure, and rightly so. But this system at the moment does not allow for any independent, objective review, and if it makes a mistake, you're forever doomed. We are talking about real people here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

3. Terrible idea that needs a dose of reality thrown at it. Some people are completely unable to work in this environment and will never be able to be productive members of it. Those of us that are adults and deal with the public in our real life jobs know that sometimes a person needs to be banned for life from an establishment due to the disruption they have caused. That's just life. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

   Absolutely true, but doesn't address the problem of the innocent-falsely-accused. Pesky (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

   Neither does this proposal, it just seeks to do away with indef bans, which is not something the community is going to support, as evidenced by how often they do in fact indef block or ban disruptive users. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

   I am not doing away with indef blocks, and I would not do away with lengthy bans either (though some maximum length should be defined). In the current system, there is no way of true WP:CLEANSTART after an indef ban - the system is broken, some form of discussion about this is needed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

   It is not a mistake that there is no mechanism by which someone who is banned can evade the ban and it's ok as long as they don't cause any trouble. It makes no sense to kick someone out the front door and invite them to sneak back in through the back door, either they are banned or they aren't. This would completely overturn the entire idea that we can ban anyone. You may have some support for it at this RFC, but the manifest fact that the community bans people all the time indicates that, thankfully, this will not have the needed support to fundamentally change the nature of what banning is. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

   No, that is true, someone who is trying to break a ban should not be given a possibility to break a ban. However, they should be a proper chance for a WP:CLEANSTART (whether after 5 years or 10 .. but it should be a true cleanstart), and we would need a way to protect the innocent who get banned (true, it is not that easy to get banned, but I am certainly afraid that innocent people can get caught in the cross-fire - it is absolutely not impossible that after someone is banned, a new editor who is absolutely not the editor that is banned is using the same or similar range of IPs and has similar interests and who then gets blocked for sockpuppetry of the banned account, and sockpuppetry is added to the list of offenses of the previous account). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

4. Indefinite is frequently the right amount of time precisely because it is ... indefinite. indefinite ≠ forever. Nobody Ent 21:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

   And that is where I think where the problem is .. I am afraid that certain forms of indefinite are, like, forever. There is no clean start, only an appearance of it - you get banned, BASC unbans - but the past will indefinitely forever follow you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

   Trouble is, on the internet, nothing ever goes away. Unless the user gets a personality transplant, someone is going to pick them up. It's a problem with every cleanstart, even if the user didn't get into trouble, just decided to abandon the name for a more anonymous one - it's not actually possible to escape your history. I can't see that limiting the sanction to a set period is going to help that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

   True, but CU does not need to become a tool in that. Someone gets banned, stays away for a long time, does not edit at all. Then does a clean start without notifying the ArbCom (well, involving ArbCom is not a cleanstart anyway). Then that editor is active for years without coming into significant trouble, until one edit shows who you may have been (not a true 'I am that editor', but something vague - and not related to a bad edit, not a cause of disruption, not a vandalism edit, not anything negative). Since you are a sock of a banned editor, CU can be used to check you out and confirm it (they do keep the records of 'bad' cases). First, I do not believe that CU is infallable, and secondly, if this is a true clean start, abandoning previous 'bad' behaviour, then CU should not be a tool in taking out a good editor. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

   There seem to be a lot of threads mixed in this. Firstly, no, Checkuser is not infallible. It's not magic pixie dust either. In fact, all it catches are the recent, the stupid and the ones using open proxies. Like several others here, you are completely ignoring the fact that ScottyBerg was not identified by CU evidence but by behavioural evidence (if it was CU evidence, we'd have to block most of NY). So your little rant about checkusers is irrelevant, and this is turning into a landscape of blazing strawmen. Second, as I said before, if a banned editor returns with a new name, the chances are very high that he will be recognised, and this is the case whether or not he has ever told anyone who he is. The problem you actually need to address is - what is the opinion of the community as a whole as to letting a socking banned user back. If you wanted to propose something that addressed that, it might be of more use than accusing checkusers - rather than his old friends/enemies - of fingering ScottyBerg. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

   I was not meaning to accuse CheckUsers - but they are the only ones who can put numbers on whether editors are the same as earlier. Behavior - sure, but that is even less objective than the checkusers. It comes then back to my main question that I currently have about these important decision - how objective are they. Is this a decision 'you are looking very much like a banned editor who is banned for good reason and therefore you are now banned as well', or is this a 'you are doing bad things which are just as bad as that banned editor and you look like him, therefore you are banned as well' - Akin 'you have been bad in the past, so you must be bad now, we ban you' in stead of 'you are obviously doing a lot of bad things, and you have been warned about that significantly in the past (you have even been banned before for it), so now you are banned again'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal #5

Open a discussion (probably on Village Punp: Policy) that deals with what to do when a user firmly states their innocence and doubts are raised about how the block/ban was enacted, because of problems with the evidence or other reasons. At the moment, there is currently no process to deal with a Checkuser that comes up with an inaccurate, or too broad, result and results in the ban of an innocent user. It is not possible for an innocent person to follow the sockpuppet return rules, as they would not have access to the sockmaster account.

Editors who support this proposal

1. As proposer. Silverseren^C 00:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
2. We need to have something which addresses the problem of the genuinely-innocent. An awful lot of people fall into the one-sided argument of "Guilty people always say they're innocent"; that is often the case, but it fails to address the fact that innocent people tend to do that as well. One must always ask oneself the question, when thinking / saying "Guilty people always [whatever]" – "Okay, so what do innocent people do which is different?" Otherwise you have a situation where "protestations of innocence equals guilt." I think it's possible that there are some folks in this world who will just never accept that people can get falsely accused and wrongly sanctioned. And there will be some folks who mutter to themselves "Okay, then, I sincerely hope that it happens to you; maybe that might make you understand the problem." I try not to do that unless I'm having a really bad day. Pesky (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
3. This system needs to change - a discussion on how to change it is the least we can do, see where we get in an objective way. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Editors who don't

1. When DOESN'T a user firmly state their innocence? Again this would just perpetuate arguments forever. And the rest of the proposal is no better, because the only way the public would know if a CheckUser comes up with an "inaccurate/Too broad result" is if the WMF privacy policy was breached. So in other words, the proposer doesn't trust checkusers to get it right. SirFozzie (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

   • No, I don't believe Checkusers are infallible. Because unless they are God (or gods of some other religion), they are still people and are fallible. There have been too many errors in the past and, in my opinion, in this current situation to just blindly trust that Checkusers are correct. To build a better system, you don't blindly follow the current one. You question it, you doubt it. Because the only way to make something better is to see what it's doing wrong. Silverseren^C 05:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

2. Per SirFozzie. Virtually all sockpuppets maintain their innocence. If you're going to force the evidence to be public, why do we have a private system to begin with? Either we need to modify our privacy policy and open up checkuser to more people, or we need to trust the people using it to make the right decision. Any other proposal is a waste of time. Kaldari (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

   • Considering that the checkuser in Scotty's case has already been revealed by Elen to be the general ISP of New York, having 6 million people on its network, would you not consider that to be too broad to actually count for anything whatsoever? If you read the rest of the RfC above, you'd see that SirFozzie refuses to even consider that a Checkuser can be wrong, even though it has happened in the past and has already been shown in the current situation to be inapplicable. Silverseren^C 05:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

   • Then create a proposal to allow more people to use Checkuser so that other people can verify the conclusions. Creating more process on top of the current process is a waste of time and energy. Kaldari (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

3. Recipe for quagmire, and changes a system that has a resolution point to one that never does.—Kww(talk) 11:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Exactly. Besides, people are amazingly adept at trying to avoid responsibility for things they've done. Even if the exact IP can be proved beyond any doubt, they'll say "maybe one of the neighbours is hacking my wi-fi" or "it must be my flatmate using my PC when I'm asleep" or similar. Again, the community's need to move on and get back to building an encyclopedia trumps the need for even more beaurocracy and endless appeals. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

   Which works fine and dandy until you're the one out on your ass, innocent without chance of appeal. I refuse to allow anyone, much less a collection of (by their own admission) extremely fallible arbs to play kino or fortune teller with our rights. This proposal may not be the best one put forth, but suggesting that its stupid for us to even question their decisions is itself stupid beyond measure. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

5. Proposer is apparently unaware that we already have checks and balances in place for checkusers in the form of WP:AUSC. These are users who are not using checkuser or oversight permissions whose job it is to look at actions taken by those who do use them and insure they are using the tools properly. What they can't do is reveal any of the highly personal information they see in the course of doing their job, just like all other holders of these advanced permissions. We can't go posting personal, private material on-wiki just because there was a surprising result, as in this case. Just because you guys aren't the ones doing the double checking doesn't mean it isn't being done. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

   Elen already pointed out the extent of the information above. The Checkuser info is pretty much useless, because if taken to be useful, that means we should block all editors from that ISP (out of the 6 million) who also edit New York related articles. And the behavioral issue is based on two or three instances of using either rply or -- in the course of several years. That's not very compelling evidence in the slightest. Silverseren^C 02:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

   Sorry, I thought we were talking about this proposal, not one specific case. My bad. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

   I'm using this case as an example. Silverseren^C 19:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

6. I'm not getting where this is coming from. If a CU comes up with a result that's too broad to be of use, they have a nice little  Inconclusive template, usually followed by "have to rely on behavioural evidence". In the ScottyBerg case, all the sock hunters familiar with Mantanmoreland who had access to the tool agreed that the CU didn't prove anything, other than the user was in the right part of the planet. All of them (as I have said repeatedly) formed their conclusion based on behaviour. So your problem is actually with experienced sockhunters who are interpreting behavioural evidence in a way that you don't agree with. But anyone can look at behavioural evidence, you don't need tools. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
7. You does the best you can with what you got. Nobody Ent 21:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
8. What we need here is for some to cease the demagoguery of asking for an "objective way" to deal users who sock but cannot be proven to have done so beyond a reasonable doubt. Dynamic IPs are not going away and the CU logs are deleted after some months. Even providing detailed behavioral correlations (which was done in public in the Mantamoreland arbitration case and later in some similar, more recent events) still leaves the true believers in the innocence of their wikifriends just saying "nay". Just like with real justice, there's no robot or algorithm that's going to decide guilt of innocence. One may object that ArbCom elections are too political for the resulting Committee to be a jury of peers, but ultimately you'd have to entrust this type of decision to a set of people. ArbCom decisions are more like a bill of attainder, but unless you have a practical proposal for electing the deciders using a different system, an open ended discussion will just turn into another round of demagoguery and rants. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal by Ebe123

Proposal #1

ArbCom is going out of place. ArbCom should only be used to resolve disputes. Nothing else, socks should be reported to SPI for appropriate action, private matters to the foundation or OTRS, auditsubcom to the Ombudsman commission, and before doing a thing like that, consult the community. A thing like that is not considered private. Also, ArbCom should be reversible by a admendement or by a new committee for reversing them. Private cases and evidence will not be used. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 14:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Oppose Yeah, great idea, a committee whose sole purpose is to overturn decisions by another committee. Can't see that being an endless quagmire of nonsense and circular arguments, kind of like this whole RFC... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Did you get anyone from the WMF volunteering to solve these "private matters"? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose Replace ArbCom with (ArbCom + 1)? Nobody Ent 21:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal #2

(Just edited from previous)
ArbCom should be here only to solve disputes, and should be reversible by the community. Audit Subcommittee should be stoped, for the Ombudsman commission, a group of users for these sorts of things and is more official. Private matters may be dealt with, but should not interfere with the existing community. Also, about Clean-start, no notification should be required, as it's just unessesary bureaucracy. Private cases should be abolished (exempt for privacy concerns) to be on-wiki. Private cases are just bad for all (exempt for the Government of the English Wikipedia (aka ArbCom)). ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Again,l if the community could solve it, it wouldn't have gone to ArbCom. THere needs to be a last stop on the DR chain. This just perpetuates it forever. Oppose. SirFozzie (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Oppose The "community" is simultaneously a powerful abstraction and ideal to describe the vision of Wikipedia and a fantasy when describing the nuts and bolts functioning of it. There is no "community;" there are multiple subcommunities overlapping temporally and spatially. For better or worse, ArbCom is our elected Republic that we have both empowered and dumped upon the dirty task of being the final stop when all other methods of consensus forming have failed. If ya don't like the bums throw 'em out at the next election. The decisions I have reviewed show a great deal of restraint; while findings are frequently broad, in ruling on sanctions they consistently applied them quite narrowly without any attempts to make new policy. Nobody Ent 03:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
3. LOL. Sorry, it's all can say about this stream of consciousness "proposal". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal by ThatPeskyCommoner

A way for the innocent to be allowed a fresh start.

1. Identify to ArbCom
2. Write a short essay (maybe up to 1000 words) from a non-personal viewpoint on why socking is a "bad thing" and should never be done
3. Agree to whatever other restrictions would have been placed on them if they were a returning guilty-of-socking editor for n-months (e.g. 1RR, topic bans, etc.)

• Note well: any "oppose" responses should clarify exactly what is wrong with this proposal in terms that could provide possible solutions to those concerns. Responses should come from a presumption of innocence - after all, we're discussing the genuinely innocent here in this particular proposal. Pesky (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

1. oppose: it doesn't prove the innocence (hence it would not be a clean start (and I do not mean a clean start in the form of WP:CLEANSTART)), and it is massively bitey for the editor. I am pretty much against this - someone who starts clean should start clean - assumed innocence, not assumed guilt, but the system does not seem to be willing to allow that, if ArbCom finds you guilty, you are guilty forever (and not 'for an indefinite time'), even if you are another editor who looks very much like someone who ArbCom found guilty. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

   oppose When I wrote the complaints procedure for our local authority, a key point was that where an individual member of staff is accused of sanctionable wrongdoing ("he called me a [insert offensive words here]"), it is very important to make it clear to the complainant if their complaint is found to be without foundation. After all, the member of staff has to keep on working there, and may well encounter the complainant again. If a user is innocent of socking, they are innocent, and should be cleared of the charge, and that should be made public. If they are guilty, they should be sanctioned. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

   Oppose - This is not helpfulWhat is this, junior high school? Seriously, an essay? Why not have them write 'I will not sock' 100 times on a chalkboard? This still punishes the innocent - who did nothing more than get caught up by either a - and this is undisputed - imperfect CheckUser system or secret trial by emotion by Arbs, who make a point of crying out how they are not perfect at every given fuck-up they are caught at each time an error is discovered. I'm sorry, but this proposal is severely broken on its face, as it presumes a perfect guilt determined by imperfect means. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Jack, don't you think the abuse was rather unnecessary here? The most common reason for an erroneous outcome is neither faulty checkuser results nor your apocalyptic vision of Arbcom (who don't often get involved in sock investigations anyway) but simply that having one editor who edits like another is more common than people think. I'm not saying mistakes are not made, but I am saying that all the ones I've ever seen have occurred in routine SPI activity. Given that many of our worst vandals specialise in creating good hand accounts and sleeper accounts, its not surprising that the admins who work in that area can get a 'down the steps' mindset, and see more of a connection than a pair of fresh eyes would. At the same time, given etc etc, there is a danger that over compensating for this, could leave the project with a lot of accounts being operated by dodgy people for reasons other than improving the 'pedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Elen, you are right: my reply was too harsh (and I extend my apologies to PeskyCommoner for such). I think I am getting annoyed at attempts to turn this RfC into something completely different than what it set out to do. I mean, an indef blocked user above is looking for a way to justify his unrepentantly dodgy behavior by suggesting a loophole for him to sneak though. That cannot be part of what we are looking to do here. The point is to address ArbCom's handling of this matter, and to explore opportunities to address that handling. It is not a means by which the guilty can legitimize their antisocial behavior. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

As well, I don't thi

Oh, dear! I was trying to come up with something constructive, but seem to have misfired on all cylinders / barrels! Jack, apology accepted; I can totally understand where you were coming from. @Dirk Beetstra: I was kinda hoping that identifying to the Arbs might giv e an opening for proving innocence, but, failing that, ensuring that the editor could understand why socking is so dimly viewed might make others feel a bit more comfortable with the idea of an innocent editor returning (after all, it would also cover the possibility that, even if innocent in the past, they wouldn't be tempted to sock in the future). @Elen; yes, your points on clearing one's name are very important; again, identifying might allow that to happen, in which case the Arbs might be able to guarantee a vindication and so on. And yes, there will always be "criminals" who operate GHBH accounts; this is certainly something we need to consider, but whatever happens, whatever we come up with to protect the 'pedia, should also allow the innocent to edit (if they wish). My sole concern here is with the innocent. Pesky (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Refocusing/clarifying the discussion

I am seeing a lot of different discussions occurring here, which (imho) is serving to muddy the waters to such an extent so that no consensus is ever likely to be reached. A metaphor I made before is that this RfC started out as an attempt to make soup, and others have arrived with different agendas seeking to turn that soup into a seven course meal. It is, in effect, a clusterf**kery of a mess; each idea, in and of itself, is not wrong. It is just arriving too close on the heels of the previous discussion where a resolution hasn't presented itself yet.
The initial intent of this RfC was to draw attention to ArbCom's handling of the ScottyBerg indef block for being a sock of Mantanmoreland. There were legitimate concerns expressed that, due to what amounted to a "secret trial" (wherein neither the accused not the community at large was not allowed to see the evidence supposedly proving guilt), that ArbCom was sure enough of SB's guilt to block him, but not sure enough of it to allow its process of conviction to be made public. Additionally, concerns of an over-reliance upon CheckUser information was expressed.
Lastly, concern was expressed that once blocked, there was no way for the mistakenly accused innocent to return, unless they admitted to their supposed guilt.
The resulting RfC was meant to discuss what sort of change could/should be brought about to address the aforementioned concerns. To say we have wandered far afield would be a grand understatement. To that effect. I think we should distill the basic ideas set forth in the course of the RfC to see what, if any, of these ideas can effect an improvement on the current process. Here are some of the main ideas expressed thus far (feel free to remove the parenthetical comment' when addressing each - or any - of the subsections): - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

#1: Nothing is wrong with the process (leave it be)

• No protection or route of return for the genuinely innocent. That bit is "wrong with the process". Pesky (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The genuinely and demonstrably innocent don't need a special route. The mistake is rectified and apologies are made. The stumbling block here is demonstrating genuine innocence. What is the standard? Is the blocked party's repeated claim of innocence? Is it a failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt? Is it an insistence that someone is innocent? Is it community unanimity that the person is innocent? These are serious practical issues,  Roger Davies ^talk 12:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree, we are musing here on a situation that has serious practical issues. However, if, just if we are talking here about an innocent person, then we are blocking an innocent person. It will not happen often, but that is not a reason not to make an issue of those cases that do happen. Do we accept the option that every now and then we block someone who is innocent, or do we accept that every now and then we have to block a disruptive editor who attempts a clean start but does go back into their old, abusive behaviour? Banning an editor does not stop them from socking, we continuously have to handle those editors that do sock to perform their signature abuse. But if we start to block editors that do not show their signature abuse but who may be a sock of a banned editor, then we are getting close to a line. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
      • These issues are best addressed by tweaking the WP:BAN policy to explicitly provide discretion to ArbCom over whether or not to block. (Admins already have this discretion: they can just walk away doing nothing.) Specifically, policy says that "bans apply to all editing, good or bad". In the present case, a significant number of arbitrators felt that the evidence was sufficient to block (and we don't block for "maybe") but were uneasy about the circumstances. In any case, Cleanstart explicitly doesn't apply to banned editors. ArbCom doesn't make the rules, it simply enforces them.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

#2: Under what conditions are secret trials allowed/necessary (and do they apply in the matter of ScottyBerg?)

Note: I have changed the title to more neutral terminology. (and it was changed back; its the term being used -JS)
When necessary to protect the privacy of information of Wikipedians; as far as I know this includes web server log information (IP, user agent, all that jazz) and contents of emails sent via the Wikipedia interface. I have no opinion on ScottyBerg. Nobody Ent 15:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC) If the topic of discussion is melodramatically titled "secret trials," I have no interest in participating. Nobody Ent 16:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The conclusion of ArbCom was that ScottyBerg was in fact Mantanmoreland - a user widely outed by several members if not by Mantanmoreland himself. No privacy issues are on point here. The reason ArbCom provided was that release of the info would supposedly allow sockmasters to better conceal their socks - a laughable assumption that ArbCom is so very much smarter or technologically adept than the sockmasters out there. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel the use of the term 'trial' is inappropriate here. We are talking about being blocked from editing a website, not sent to SingSing for murder. The ScottyBerg instance isn't a secret trial - some information was covered by the WMF privacy policy and some discussions took place off wiki. But all the evidence is available onwiki for anyone to review, and people have reviewed it, and some have disagreed with the decision to block, but a consensus to overturn the block has not emerged, which it might have done. After his initial contact, ScottyBerg has made no further efforts to demonstrate a real life identity separate from the person everyone believes Mantanmoreland to be, has not contacted AUSC, the Wiki Ombudsman, Jimmy Wales, or continued his conversation with Arbcom. Just to confirm that - it's not that he's offered secret evidence and we've secretly turned it down. He has never offered any information on a real life identity, so the community know as much as anyone. There may be one or two out there who know more. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the term 'trial' is harsh, but it seem to be the most adequate definition of what happens. A group of users meet in secret and determine the guilt or innocence of another user, not allowing them access to either the discussion or the "evidence" being used to determine that guilt or innocence. It seems the best definition of 'secret trial' that I am currently aware of. At a determination of guilt, the user is expelled from sanctioned editing - not quite Sing-Sing, but pretty harsh, judging from the level of wiki-addiction present in our fold.

As well, I have a specific problem with being told that all the supposedly secret info is there for anyone to fond on-wiki. If ArbCom took the time to compile this info - and they are confident enough in the strength of said public info - why the hesitation in presenting it? The only conclusion one can draw is that the strength of the info isn't all that strong.

Lastly, while SB is (quite frankly) a moron for not seeking to prove his identity via the generous offer by Jimbo Wales, the fact that the offer had to be made is indicative that the protocol in place is not working. One shouldn't have to out themselves to prove themselves innocent. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Er, how many times do I have to say that all the evidence is onwiki. You just need to compare the behaviour of all the Mantanmoreland socks. Of course you might disagree with the interpretation of that outcome, but please stop this secret trial nonsense. Or say point blank that you don't believe me and you think there is some sooper seekrit evidence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Elen, you've admonished me for talking down to my fellow editors, so why are you suggesting a lack of intelligence (or spelling ability) from those who feel that not enough information was made public? I didn't say I didn't believe you; I am simply asking for qualification of your statements. If the evidence is on-wiki as you say, then it is - by definition - not private. I don't see a reason to hide that ready-made compilation behind closed doors. Why is it in fact secret, of all of the info is all public? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If there was no secret trial, release, redacted, all of the emails related to this "case," import, redacted, all of the history from the arbcomwiki, and let the community evaluate exactly what the court of last resort is doing with it's time. Hipocrite (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This. If you don't divulge what evidence you used or the reasoning by which you arrived at your conclusions, then it's a secret trial. It's no use saying that it's not really sekrit because all the evidence is out there somewhere so go and look for yourself. You can't have it both ways. It seems you want the evidence to be just secret enough to not have to answer to anybody and just public enough to not be accused of holding secret trials, like you wanted to be just sure enough of SB's guilt to block him and just unsure enough to deny him any possibility of a defense. ArbCom's cries of "BEANS!" and "Privacy concerns!" have been flimsy, self-contradictory, and unconvincing. And, in fact, the publically available evidence is really why we're here. We have looked at the evidence available to us and were astonished that SB==MM because, from what we can see, it doesn't seem to fit. A lot of this is no doubt because SB has given us a spirited, plausible defense whereas the prosecution has given us nothing whatsoever except "We're in charge so don't ask questions"; when you only ever get to see one side of an issue, that's the one that looks most plausible. The overall impression one gets of ArbCom is of an arrogant, entitled oligarchy intent on maximizing its own power and minimizing its accountability to the people that elected it. I don't believe that's a deliberate thing on the part of the arbitrators, but it's definitely the direction ArbCom has been drifting. This is an inevitable consequence of taking so much of your decision making offsite. You no longer understand or empathise with the community. Proof of this is the fact that the only arbitrator who has not treated these concerns with utter, utter contempt is also the youngest. Consider this a wake-up call. Reyk _YO! 22:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

OH for goodness sake I give up. I am taking this off my watchlist, and you lot can wallow in your belief that there is a vast conspiracy, that somewhere there are seekrit emails that you are not allowed to see, or that there is somewhere evidence on Wikipedia that you cannot find. Hint, try Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mantanmoreland/Archive. You'll need to uncollapse the box. That's it. That's the evidence. That's the content of the emails. He edited like Mantanmoreland, he edited like the socks, he covers topics that appear in Weiss's blog, and he's based in New York. If the issue is that you do not think that is sufficient evidence on which to base a decision, then for G-d's sake make that your argument, because you might have got some traction with that a few months ago when you started this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC) Striking over grump, but I do really need to take this off my watchlist I think. We are going round in circles, and the good points - about being really clear when a mistake is made, about avoiding 'down the steps' mindset, about encouraging a Freedom of Information mindset, about offering what appears to be an editor in good stead some prospect of sorting the matter out, about what to do with long-term socks who appear to have turned over a new leaf, even about finding someone better to deal with the policing job that keeps falling into Arbcom's lap (I agree - I signed up to settle disputes) - is being lost in this insistence that there was a secret trial and faulty checkuser evidence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

( ec ) See, what hope does anyone have of getting a straight answer out of ArbCom? The reason we thought there was secret evidence being withheld from SB (and us) because BEANS is that arbitrators keep implying just that. Now you're saying that the entirety of the evidence was at the original sockpuppet investigation. Why make such a song and dance about not being able to provide all the evidence in an easily digested format because BEANS if that's all there is and it's already been done? I must be missing some vital point, surely. Reyk _YO! 02:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have all of the emails (I believe, at least). I could just release them myself. Silverseren^C 02:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

#3: How much reliance upon/interference from Wikipedia Review are we prepared to accept?

Wikipedia Review should be ignored. We have no control over another website, nor any reliable way of verifying WR participants are who they claim to be on WP. Nobody Ent 15:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And yet, they precipitated the entire situation with ScottyBerg. User:Cla68, editing within WR suggested disrupting Wikipedia to supposedly smoke out MM - a violation so blatantly disruptive that I am still amazed that he's been allowed to continue editing (he should be blocked for a good long time). The discussion isn't whether they should be ignored. The question is about what we do when we see/sense that we are being manipulated. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If information is true, we shouldn't ignore where it's coming from. To do otherwise is to cut off our nose to spite our face. SirFozzie (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

So, the ends justify the means now? We're allowed to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point? We block users for that sort of crap. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"Suggesting to disrupt WP" ≠ "actual disruption". If he did disrupt WP, then file a complaint. This isn't the place for such a discussion. Buffs (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Jack: Let me acquaint you with some of the history here. Back when this whole thing started, there was a SPI filed by a user that sought to prove that Mantanmoreland and another account (Samiharris) were sockpuppets. The checkuser in this case came back with an unusual result: That no match could be conclusively be made or disproven, as one account edited solely by using open proxies. Shortly after that, the user who had filed the SPI was blocked as a sockpuppet of a user who had been banned for attempting to out Mantanmoreland's real-life identity. This put the encyclopedia and Committee ina delicate position where we pretty much knew that someone was violating Wikipedia's rules and norms to slant articles towards their POV. Your suggestion would only entrenchthings further, as those who could curry favor with admins (or the Committee) and get their opponents banned first would have impunity. (which is basically what the situation was in this case, where everyone who brought up concerns tabout these two users were attacked and branded as sockpuppets of WR etcetera,. whether they were or not). So again, I state it plainly. If we ignore inconvenient truths because we don't like where they came from, then the encyclopedia suffers.) SirFozzie (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sir Fozzie, don't think that the difficulty presented by the situation eludes me. I am suggesting that if we ignore WR's input entirely, two things are likely to happen. Firstly, we avoid being manipulated by an external site which - clearly - means us ill. Secondly, by treating them like the trolls they most certainly are (and yes, Cla68, I am lumping you in that list as well) and ignoring them as per WP:DENY, they are going to get bored and likely distracted by something shiny elsewhere. I am unsure how to address different socks engaging in covert war against each other within Wikipedia. Block them all until they can grow the fuck up? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You've encapsulated the problem.. just not the problem you think. Wikipedia Review is not one big monolithic site who wishes Wikipedia ill. Does it have a a high amount of people who were for one reason or another, rightly banned from Wikipedia, and yes, want to tear down Wikipedia... or at least highlight it's flaws. It also has a decent amount of people who acknowledge that Wikipedia has problems, yes, but they are fixable. In some cases, like the one I mentioned above, people get driven there because of what you complain about.. someone gets in the ear of an administrator (or the Committee) and they are looking for redress that's not available here (that's how the MM/Wordbomb thing started). There's also a decent amount of users who are administrators or even Committee members (note: I myself am a WR member, although I have not posted there in a while.. but others are there as well).

I said this back during the ArbCom elections.. if there was no WR, we'd have to invent one. It's a place where people blow off steam, rightly or wrongly.. (and in some cases it's nice to see what those opposed to Wikipedia are doing or thinking. I'm not saying we should take everything they say at face value (in fact a lot of cases, you'd need a grain of salt the size of a boulder), but if they're pointing out an actual problem with Wikipedia.. to pretend like the problem doesn't exist.. the encyclopedia suffers for it). SirFozzie (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, I think Wikipedia Review has turned out to be the best thing for ArbCom. The ArbCom leak material posted there, like Wikileaks diplomatic material, both confirmed a lot of what informed observers thought about certain political abuses, and all in all, ended up a rather good showing, everything considered. It's a complicated world, and sometimes the outcomes of events don't match up with a simple good/evil model -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

#4: How much emphasis should be placed upon CheckUser information?

• I think this entirely depends on what the Checkuser says. If it comes up with a maybe, then the Checkuser should not really be considered, because a maybe with Checkuser is essentially a no. I'm only saying this because it's very easy to pull the trigger and hit an innocent person if maybe's are followed. Furthermore, a positive match that is only a match for a generalized ISP and not a specific IP should not be used either. Silverseren^C 02:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Whether you're conscious of this or not, you're just writing a textbook for sockpuppeters. And even making it so that preschoolers can beat it. I suppose behavioral evidence is inadmissible too? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • The opposite side is to block anyone on a certain ISP because they may be a sock of a sockpuppeteer. Lets ask a question: what were we trying to prevent here? Socking or other abuse? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
      • How would you address a case like Wikipedia:AN#Call for wider review of SPI case -help needed? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
        • A good example of the latter answer of my question. You are trying to stop the abuse. But here we have the opposite I think - we have someone who was, currently, not disrupting Wikipedia (except for allegedly by socking), who was editing normally .. except that they were a sock of someone banned 2 years ago. IMHO, that is that you are trying to stop someone from socking (which they may not even do), not someone from disrupting (actively) Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Socking is abuse. It's a breach of the basic principles that allow a community to be formed of anonymous members and still be able to deal with each other as people.—Kww(talk) 12:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • OK, let me split it further 'socking abuse and other abuse' .. of course socking is abuse - but are you trying to prevent the abuse from the socking, or the other abuse? What if here there is that case of a mistake, and no other abuse then the alleged socking, which has been questioned? Because you can not distinguish the innocent from the guilty, you just choose to declare all of them guilty. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

#5: How infallible/fallible are ArbCom decisions?

Track has to end somewhere

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Unknowable. Generalized ArbCom bashing has no useful purpose, and there's no feasible alternative. The proposed solutions are either revolve around revealing private information or creating an (ArbCom + 1). Then, we don't like their decision(s), we can have an RFC on (ArbCom + 1).

(This is not to say we shouldn't politely request clarification/explanation of specific actions, where an answer can be reasonably expected to be compatible with privacy concerns.) Nobody Ent 15:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. That said, there is a prevailing view that ArbCom 'doesn't make mistakes', which, to put it mildly, is an inaccurate assessment of that group. By recognizing that they are indeed fallible, we move forward with suggestions as to how to address that fallibility, be it more public airing of decision processes, an oversight member to ArbCom or some other proposed solution heretofore undiscussed. This isn't meant to throw darts, but to illuminate the problem before proceeding with an accurate vision towards a solution. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be a prevailing view of one, Jack. I doubt you'd find a single editor, including the entire of current and past Arbcom, current and past Clerks, the WMF, and uncle tom cobleigh and all who would agree with the statement "Arbcom doesn't make mistakes." Pass the soda syphon, I believe your straw man may have caught fire. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Then by that admission, we need to account for - and hopefully prevent - mistakes in judgment for occurring. If they are fallible, then the rulings they make are equally open to fallibility. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, though that applies to every aspect of human decision-making in whatever context, including presumably your (fallible) opinion about how to react to ArbCom's human fallibility ;)  Roger Davies ^talk 01:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The point being, since they are fallible, it would seem all the more prudent to have better oversight. I am not suggesting they are corrupt. I think its far more likely that they get an idea in their collective heads (whether a particularly charismatic accuser or a WR-driven attack via socks), and it cannot be set aside. Even the smartest are prone to this. Once a cop has a suspect, they tend to stop looking for other theories of what happened. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

How would adding more layers of fallible humans remove the fallibility issue? Edit: Maybe a better way to phrase it is "does adding more layers improve fallibility while not becoming unduly onerous and becoming a drain. ArbCom cases take multiple months, and ArbCom is not always a big monolithic entity (you should see some of the disagreements I've had with my fellow arbs over the past few weeks, although it's nothing personal.. but adding another layer with the assorted arguments, different thoughts pulling them in different directions, etcetera, seems to me to be more trouble then its worth. Of course, I would say that, being in that top layer, right? But we are responsible to the Community (we reduced the term of the arb from 3 years to 2, for example, so fallible Arbs are more quickly replaced, while still having the ability to make unpopular decisions because they don't have to be constantly campaigning for re-election). Also, most of us DO get burned out and need a break, for example, when I ran in the december 2010 elections, I decided that if I was elected, I wouldn't run in 2012, because three years is long enough, Arbitrators are an area where you don't want to have the same people forever. SirFozzie (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

#6: Allowing previously blocked/banned users to return

standard offer. As we can't actually determine the justly vs the unjustly sanctioned, admissions of guilt or penance activities should not be required. Nobody Ent 15:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Agree 100%. Reyk _YO! 22:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• I agree as well. WP:CLEANSTART should really be a clean start. If you repeat old behaviour, even under an account which is not identifiable as an old account, that should be independently sanctioned - it may even need the full set of dispute resolution, and it should be done objectively. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• You realise, of course, that with some types of problem editor (civil POV-pushers are a prime example) it can take years to deal with them? Have you any idea how much of a drain that is on community resources and how much drama is caused in the process?  Roger Davies ^talk 01:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand that there is a lot of work going into banning editors, that that is a difficult decision, etc. etc. But the problem is, that if you make a mistake (and I hope that you never made a mistake, and never will make them - but I do not believe that you are infallible), the only way back is to plea guilty and be branded forever with, e.g., being a sock of a notorious POV pusher. And whether you are or not, that is what all your future decisions regarding that account will be on (ArbCom clearly does that for those who are guilty - [24], [25]). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• This premise is riddled with inaccuracies. People don't get banned for making "a mistake": they get banned for serial longterm problems. Pleading guilty is not a requirement for return.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• The "if you make a mistake ..." was pointed at ArbCom - let me rephrase: "if ArbCom makes a mistake (and I hope that ArbCom never made a mistake, and never will make a mistake - but I do not believe that ArbCom, or anyone on this site, is infallible), the only way back is to plea guilty and be branded forever". And yes, that is the only way back. You made a difficult decision, someone really messed up, you have, e.g., banned them for a reason. What possibility does such an editor to come back? Say "oh, I won't do it again" (which is a guilty plea in itself)? Or "I just want to edit again" (it is not a guily plea, but is that taken serious?)? What type of pleas would you consider for a banned editor to be allowed to return? When you decide to ban an editor, you rightfully do so on the evidence presented. But for those editors, there is no way back - they are branded forever. But if someone gets caught in the crossfire, someone who is innocent, they do not have a possibility to come back either. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that in order not to treat the innocent worse than the guilty, we have to look at an option which doesn't include an "admission of guilt". Pesky (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

(od) As far as I'm aware, ArbCom doesn't require an admission of guilt or a penance for ban appeal purposes. What it does usually require is evidence of insight into the issues that caused the problems in the first place. The reason for this is not to rub anyone's nose in the dirt but merely to ensure that they know what actions to avoid in future. This doesn't help the false positives but I'm not really sure what can be done about them. The fact remains that the threshold, right across the wiki, for blocking/banning socks is low (more likely that the editor is a sock than not) and because of the essentially circumstantial nature of the evidence that is probably the best that can be hoped for?  Roger Davies ^talk 01:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wait...so, in terms of Scotty, do you mean the initial issues of Mantanmoreland? Because Scotty hadn't done anything wrong with his account, as far as I know. Silverseren^C 02:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I was talking generally but I'm on record as supporting Alford pleas in this type of situation. Contrary to the inaccurate statement at the head of this section, people aren't required to do a public mea maxima culpa or even mea minima culpa before they're allowed back. I mention this because it's one of several memes which are being trotted out and such stuff really not help serious enquiry.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think a reasonable interpretation of "If we receive an appeal that is framed with an honest account of the situation," is that ArbCom is requiring a mea culpa. Nobody Ent 15:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't. And in any event it's a personal comment/view of the arbitrator who wrote it not the collective view of the Committee's (which comes before For the Arbitration Committee signature line).  Roger Davies ^talk 16:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

#7: Procedure for the unjustly blocked to return

Not a productive question; we can't distinguish the unjust nor the justly sanctioned. Nobody Ent 15:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I would definitely say for anyone who has been blocked by utter mistake (and it does happen - I've overturned I think two blocks on that basis...), the unblock should clearly say "blocked by mistake" or something similar, and the user should be entitled to have a note by the unblocking admin squirreled away somewhere that explains the mistake. As in point made previously - the user has to still edit here, and should be able to say - no that was a complete mistake. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART should be really thát, a clean start. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Meaning what? By press of a button all past sins are forgiven, forgotten and never to be spoken of again under the pain of banishment for those who don't follow the clear rules? I think one of the trolls who added some proposals to this page (and is now blocked) would have loved those rules of WOW. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That is not a clean start, is it? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And do read the title of this section, with emphasis: "Procedure for the unjustly blocked to return". --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you care to spell out your clean start musing in relation to that then? Are you proposing that anyone who believes that s/he was "unjustly blocked" can silently resort to WP:CLEANSTART and if discovered can just invoke that page as the ultimate wikishield? Would it apply in this instance, for example? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"Clean Start" depends on never getting caught. There's no amnesty involved. If anyone ever successfully makes the link back to the original banned account, it's just socking and block evasion: "If you attempt a clean start, but are recognized, you will be held accountable for your actions under both the old and new accounts." That means it can never be invoked as a shield: once you admit to having done so, the restart is no longer clean.—Kww(talk) 12:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, ASCIIn2Bme, maybe here you are right, but what if there are editors who are innocent and get blocked, what do you want to do about them? 'Sorry, you may be innocent, but we can't take the risk, you are banned anyway?'.

Kww - indeed, and I am not saying that it should be a shield. However, it should not be that 'If you are an innocent editor, but are confused for someone else, you will be held accountable for your actions under both the account you are not, and new accounts'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

@ASCIIn2Bme, I am not suggesting the cleanstart option for those who think they are unjustly blocked, but I do for those who are unjustly blocked, those who are NOT the person they are perceived to be. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

#8: Should there be community discussions regarding previously blocked/banned users to return?

Of course per being a consensus driven non-bureaucracy. Nobody Ent 15:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering that the ban of the user that precipitated this request was a community one, yes, the community can at any time decide to lift the ban. ArbCom bans are not reviewable by the community, however. SirFozzie (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Asserting present policy in an RFC discussion about the policy does not a compelling argument make. Nobody Ent 17:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Asserting policy endorsed by both the community (in the vote on the arbitration policy) and the WMF does. SirFozzie (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not set in stone, is it? Nobody Ent 17:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

To be clear (and I hope I've got this right) - Arbcom ban users following RFAR cases, so the whole sanction process is normally public, and overturning would require I suppose another public process. Arbcom also occasionally issue blocks - in this instance, the key thing is that an admin who wishes to unblock needs to contact Arbcom first. This is usually because the user has been blocked under WP:CHILDPROTECT, Arbcom has some information relating to the user in real life, or the user (or their supporters) makes a habit of targeting new admins, or admins who don't normally do unblocks, who they think are unaware of all the past history and susceptible to soft-soaping. The first two do make it difficult to hold a community discussion, but it's not impossible that another admin has more information that may result in an unblock. The last option can be referred back to the community, but there's often years worth of background to wade through. Interestingly, because the community ban process is now fully in swing, I believe we will see much less need for Arbcom bans relating to the last option, it arose in an era when community bans were very rare. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And again, SirFozzie offers as fact that the CommunityBanned Mantanmoreland is indeed ScottyBerg - a statement without sufficient, supporting evidence. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

In your viewpoint, maybe. But not in the viewpoint of the 10 or so checkusers (both on and off the Committee) who agreed that Scotty WAS Mantanmoreland. SirFozzie (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I just want to comment that if Scotty had shown an interest in remaining on Wikipedia, I would have already pursued a community unblock discussion. I haven't done so because it would be a moot point, since Scotty wants to be gone. Silverseren^C 02:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey, User:PaoloNapolitano wants to be back. He's made about 1000 useful edits, or so he says. Maybe you want to advocate for him instead? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • His is clearly a very different case. Silverseren^C 14:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • And if you could avoid detracting from the discussion with debate tactics, ASCIIn2Bme, that would be deeply appreciated. This is a good-faith discussion; let's try to preserve that, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

#9 What currently prohibits a banned/blocked user from returning? Do we need to better define this 'checklist'?

That all those decisions are done by the members of one committee - there is no independent overview on their decisions. You are banned because you were bad, and no matter how much you show that you can do good, you were banned and you should not even be allowed to show that you do good, and if the editor is allowed to be unbanned and show they can do a lot of good, then that is not good enough, one needs to be perfect - whether the mistakes are small or big, you were banned before, you must be bad. There is no return. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

#10 Arbcom should get out of the policing business and back in the court of last resort business

Seriously. That the bulk of ArbCom's time is taken up conversing off-wiki with each other and accused evil-doers is not what they were appointed to do. We need them to stop taking every single thing they do off-wiki, convince them to start deliberating in public (sunlight is the best disinfectant), and get them out of the policing business, leaving that to people who have not been appointed to the court of last resort. Perhaps we should strip them of Checkuser, forcing them to rely on checkusers to do the checkusering. Ruth Bader Ginsburg does not carry a gun or a fingerprint kit. Hipocrite (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Hipocrite (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Reyk _YO! 22:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Agree. See also transparency remarks below. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
5. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
6.  Liam987 06:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

• More rhetoric. I think you're ignoring WP:BASC, WP:AUSC, etc. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Prior to this RfC, I had never heard of either BASC or AUSC; I had thought the only way to address admins gone wild was WP:AN. I suspect that a great many more users are like me in this less than blissful ignorance. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, do understand that WP:BASC and WP:AUSC both have an 'SC' - 'SubCommittee' - no independence there, the policing is still done by the same people. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the condescending remarks. Rest assured, I do understand what sub-committee means. Do you have a problem with the CU overseers being publicly elected? Democracy sucks, I suppose. Maybe you can come up with something better? WP:CONSENSUS maybe? Or meta-wiki? Or the way the WMF board is elected? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, something really independent from that ArbCom and CU, or something significantly more transparent. I don't know about you, but I do see quite some editors around not being happy with the current setup of the system, we may be able to come up with something better. Or we can just stick our heads in the sand and hope it goes away. We block some innocent people left and right, ban some others because we can't come with something better and don't feel like looking at the problem. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

#11 "Transparency" idea

Wikipedia exists due to the efforts of a large number of users, or editors. A community of participating editors should have a role in the process that has been called a "secret trial". Secrecy or confidentiality can be useful in certain situations, but the body of editors that elects Arbcom should be able to oversee its processes, especially those that can deprive us of good editors. dci | TALK 01:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Silverseren^C 02:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. ArbCom really needs to improve the transparency of their decisions. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose WMF has promised to keep my IP address et. al. private and not publish my copyrighted email. Nobody Ent 03:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Where in this proposal does it say that your IP address and/or your email will be given out freely? I assume that that's not the sort of info that DCI is speaking of when discussing transparency. Silverseren^C 06:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• there is a lot of room between "", "they have the same IP" and "they both have IP 127.0.0.1" - the current state of the art in transparency is close to "". --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wishful thinking unless you can get the wmf:privacy policy (particularly wmf:access to nonpublic data policy) repealed and some of the copyright laws as well. Perhaps every editor should register their real-life identify with the WMF? Or every reader? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wish to explain how the statement 'they share the same IP' or 'they share the same email address' is violating privacy / copyright? I can see that for 'you use email johndoe@example.org' or 'you are on IP 127.0.0.1' .. but not for the former. However, ArbCom evidence sometimes is of the quality 'they are the same' ... and the latter is not transparent. Morevoer, apparently the evidence is on wiki in this case - and still the evidence is not declared or layed out. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"ArbCom evidence sometimes is of the quality..." No, you mean "CheckUser evidence sometimes is of the quality..." I see nothing worse in the quality of ArbCom reports of that kind compared to the run-of-the-mill, "non-powerhungry" CU. If you want to propose a reform for how CheckUsers report their results, I'm quite willing to listen and even support some changes. Holding only ArbCom to a special standard of CU reporting is just bashing, really. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Both. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The debate tactics are really quite tedious, ASCII. the fact is, the current process wherein relatively permanent decisions are rendered in private and then announced after the fact is just plain wrong. There is no bounce-bakc from that position, no defense and certainly no logical fallacy that would support doing so in Wikipedia. Undisputed is the fact that MM outed themselves. Undisputed is the fact that ArbCom claims that ScottyBerg and MM are one and the same. Therefore, there is no privacy at risk - unless there is a chance that ArbCom erred. Furthermore, that ArbCom doesn't allow the accused to see the evidence makes it - by any reasonable measure - suspect in and of itself. I've heard the tall tale of how 10 tifferent CU's claim with no equivocation that MM and SB are one and the same. If they are so sure, habeas corpus (produce the evidence). If you cannot do that, you should not be able to block/ban because of it. Anyone can get trapped in that particular Kafka-esque nightmare. Hell, I'm amazed that I haven't been accused of being either MM or SB yet. then again, maybe I have been judged in private already - what with the secret trials and all. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean to suggest that personal information of editors should be released to the rest of us. My point was that most other aspects of "secret" deliberations/trials/hearings/whatever you call them can shouuld be allowed to be scrutinized more closely by non-Arbcom members. Of course we can't release someone's personal info if that's not what they want, but we should have more of a say (and a "see") in what goes on. dci | TALK 19:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:AUSC has non-arbcom members. But we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a good rant or a RfC-full of them. asciin2bme@gmail.com (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I also don't mean to give the impression of a rant, and I'm sure that the other editors commenting here don't, either. However, we feel that there are problems, both historical, current, and potential, with aspects of the Arbcom system and are offering our opinions here, to receive feedback from other editors. dci | TALK 22:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

#12 Accountability

Per diff by Reyk: "The overall impression one gets of ArbCom is of an arrogant, entitled oligarchy intent on maximizing its own power and minimizing its accountability to the people that elected it.", "ArbCom bans are not reviewable by the community, however." by SirFozzie and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_3#.235:_How_infallible.2Ffallible_are_ArbCom_decisions.3F. The ArbCom is elected by the editors to be the last resort in dispute resolution. That means that every decision the Arbitration Committee makes must be fully accountable to the community, if the community, or even one member, asks for a decision to be spelled out, and that the community upon review has always the right to review, and overturn their decisions. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)(adapted --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC))

• Just so we're clear here- I'm not saying arbcom are an "arrogant, entitled oligarchy", just that they can often give that impression. Reyk _YO! 20:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, I am not saying that either here, however, already if it is only an impression, then that is detriment to their functioning. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

  In that case, if you wish to improve ArbCom's performance, I suppose the solution is to stop making misstatements that could create false impressions. 06:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

  Misstatements? I quote. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I venture that there's a flaw in that logic. Most democracies create some kind of judicial system, and these usually have some kind of hierarchy. In some democracies, judicial appointments may even be by direct election. However, the courts and whatnot answer up the hierarchy, not down to the populace. When a court makes a judgement, the appeal is to a higher court. I cannot think of any stable democracy where the public gallery gets to vote on whether or not to accept the jury's verdict - in fact, I cannot think of any stable legal system where that is the case. When the public are storming the courts to overturn verdicts, things really have broken down. Ergo, the idea that because the electorate voted for the judge, the electorate has a right to overturn the judge's decisions, really doesn't hold up as the normal operating model. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so the Arbitration Committee is now suddenly a full fetched judicial system. With several different levels of courts. And Wikipedia has turned into a democracy. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Just as a question, since we are using a normal operating model: are the different levels of courts all independent, have a proper system of what evidence is allowed and what should not be used in the proceeding of the case, avoid cases of circumstantial evidence, suggestive evidence, double jeopardy, etc., do the parties get appointed an attorney, does the court establish a jury when the case starts, and all the other things a court in most judicial systems would do? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not notice, that you already answered all this here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No response, Elen? Just to remind the ArbCom, in many countries there is a 'trial by jury' - where the judges (translation into Wikipedia: Arbs) do the case, but the decisions are made by the jury (translation into Wikipedia: Editors). The ultimate responsibility lies with .. the jury (the editors), not with the Arbs. On Wikipedia, we do not have that system, the ArbCom are judge and jury, the higher court, and even the executioner. The ArbCom can decide what evidence to use, how to look at it, how to interpret it, how to value it, and what sentence to give, how long to keep it, etc. etc. And that even without giving proper account of that when asked for that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't draw too many conclusions about lack of response. Wikipedia is not a country, it's a web site. (And jury trials are far less common than you imagine.)  Roger Davies ^talk 06:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of the problems with the 'lack of response' issue, Roger Davies. Indeed, Wikipedia is not a country, it is a web site. And I don't think ArbCom wants to have this discussion going down the road of 'jury trials are far less common than you imagine' .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm very happy to discuss it. Do you want to repost this bit on the talk page and I'll repond?  Roger Davies ^talk 11:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No, we can keep it here if you like. I just think that trying to compare ArbCom with a legal system, any legal system, is never going to hold. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, ArbCom is fairer than some real-life arbitration. Bwrs (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - I don't think that reasoning that ArbCom is more fair than some real-life arbitration is helpful. As long as it is more fair then what a murderer does when killing someone with who they disagrees, the ArbCom is operating fine? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: I just saw your edit summary, I think we share the same sentiment. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Summary of evidence

I think the best way to determine whether there are processes that Arbcom can improve on, in both finding evidence and using evidence to make a conclusion, is to use a case as a starting point. In this situation, Scotty's case would be best, since that's the primary one we have to go with right now and have been discussing at least tangentially.

So, from what's been stated above, the Checkuser evidence conformed to an ISP in New York that has 6 million people on it, the same ISP that Mantanmoreland used. The behavioral evidence, at least that of it which has been pointed out, was the use of "--" and "rply" in edit summaries, which were each done twice by Scotty. And...that's all that has been pointed out thus far. I assume there's more and, since it's public info, we should be able to come up with it.

Because, thus far, this seems to come down to that we should block any editor from that ISP that edits New York articles. Which I don't think is a conclusion we want to come to, as i'm sure there's a number of New Yorkan editors on that ISP that like to focus on local landmarks and areas.

So, what other evidence is there? This isn't really directed at Arbcom specifically, but anyone that can come up with something. Silverseren^C 21:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I missed the presentation of evidence? Do you mean '--' like I do? -> --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)forget it, saw User:Vee8Njinn/SB. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Vee8Njinn's evidence was what I was referring to. The editing overlap is extremely minor and the edits to Gary Weiss were already explained by Scotty. And it appears I was wrong about the use of "rply", as Scotty isn't listed there as having used it. So it's just "--" that is the connection. Like I said before, is this all? There has to be more than this. Silverseren^C 08:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that as well (maybe there are, but they are not mentioned). What do we have to do to finally get some transparency here? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything else at all, apart from the editing-interests overlap, and the use of -- ? Because, as that evidence stands, I personally couldn't say this was "beyond reasonable doubt". I can think of several quite reasonable reasons why two entirely unrelated accounts could produce this type of pattern. Pesky (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, if ArbCom/CU can not provide more evidence that, beyond reasonable doubt, suggests that ScottyBerg is Mantenmoreland, I suggest that we start a community discussion on WP:AN to overrule the ArbCom/CU. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons I made this section. Because, after thinking really hard about it, I felt that, even if Scotty wasn't going to come back after being unblocked, this is something that still needs to be done. Oh, and Scotty did tell me that if I did do this at some point, that he would be willing to come back for one day to say his goodbyes and then he would retire. Silverseren^C 17:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Silver, sock though he may have been, the editor was right about the "rply" usage: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. The editor changed to the more common "r" edit summary around that month, with the unique "rply" summary being the standard before.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I still think there should be more though, as rply is a pretty common usage. Most people just use re, while I use reply. A lot of people also use rply. It doesn't really stand out to me. Silverseren^C 21:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that, in every case where the account under discussion is in no other way acting disruptively, (I'm talking about ignoring the "I think he's a sock" thing), we have to be incredibly careful to take action only when it really is beyond reasonable doubt. And, to my mind, if people can think of perfectly reasonable explanations for why a totally unrelated editor could produce the same "patterns", then that is the definition of "reasonable doubt". If there is room for doubts, and they are reasonable, then in the absence of any other disruptive activity, no action should be taken. Adding: I have an abhorrence for any system which can inflict worse punishment (fewer means of return) on the innocent than it does on the guilty. Pesky (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Principles

1. Every system should take positive steps to ensure that the innocent are exonerated
2. Every system should ensure that the wrongly-accused innocent are treated no more harshly than the rightly-accused guilty

Pesky (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

To go a bit further in comparison:

• twk
  • ScottyBerg uses 'twk' [32], [33]
  • Mantanmoreland uses 'tweaking': [34]

@Dirk Beetstra: This is inaccurate. Both Mantanmoreland and ScottyBerg use "tweaking".

• Mantanmoreland: [35], [36], [37]
• ScottyBerg: [38], [39], [40]

As indeed do other Mantanmoreland socks. Roger Davies ^talk 23:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point. I probably also have used 'tweaking', and Bwilkins as well ('tweak'). So we are socks as well? It is utterly thin, Roger, and certainly not 'faulty'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)(use correct terminology --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The effect of circumstantial evidence is cumulative. In this instance, if you and/or Bwilkins:

1. were among the 3000-4000 active Wikipedians editing from New York;
2. AND your daily editing patterns were similar to Mantanmoreland's;
3. AND you were in the top four editors of the Gary Weiss article;
4. AND you heavily edit articles related to Brooklyn thoroughfares;
5. AND have an interest in classic movies;
6. AND you used "rply" frequently in edit summaries;
7. AND used "--" in edits summaries;
8. AND you used both "pls" and "please" in edit summaries;
9. AND used "tweaking" and other gerundives in edit summaries;
10. AND there were overlapping interests between a blog and your Italian Harlem edits;
11. AND your accounts started up shortly after the last Mantanmoreland socks were blocked;
12. AND you were obviously from your first edits returning editors;you'd pass a duck test with flying colours.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Finally, thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, so lets go into this:

1. They both edit from the same area, as do apparently 3000-4000 others
2. If they edit from the same area, they may very well have similar daily editing patterns (I presume you mean here 'a moment in the morning while breakfast, and after work except for dinner between 18:30 and 19:15 and the time that CSI New York is on on Saturday evening.')
3. If you look at the number of edits, that is likely true, but many are just reverts, and there is a long spree of a handful of edits which however mostly just rearranges text.
4. They were both from New York, how likely is it that they edit about subjects related to New York? I am working in Chemistry, see where most of my edits are. But this is a reasonable one, though not necessarily unexpected. Do note, that the number of actual article-overlaps seems to be pretty small (User:Vee8Njinn/SB
5. For an interest in classic movies they again had a significantly small actual article overlap (User:Vee8Njinn/SB) - many people have interest in classic movies.
6. I am not so sure if that is a tell-tale, it was excessively easy to find Bwilkins as a user of that as well (a fast hit in a look at recent changes ..)
7. And that one is also used by Bwilkins
8. I haven't caught Bwilkins doing that, he does use a lot of abbrevs tho.
9. And as I said, Bwilkins uses tweak, I am sure I have used it.
10. I also saw a lot of edits where I could not find that overlap between the blog and subjects in the time. Harlem .. New York areay! How many Italians live in New York/America?
11. That one is maybe suspect .. though we have accounts created every minute - and 3000-4000 editors in the New York area ...
12. Obvious? diff, diff, diff, diff (unsigned, talkpage). I don't think that is 'obvious' a returning editor (note, first deleted edit is months after these three, so I think I am not missing any deleted edits which were 'obvious' not from a new editor). Maybe ScottyBerg was a quick learner, but an obvious sock (except at that point unknown from who): no.

This 'evidence' still leaves the subjectivity 'having an interest in classic movies', 'overlap between a blog and Italian Harlem' (Note, Italian Harlem is, I presume, a neighborhood in New York, right?). So part is not impossible overlaps for editors who come from the same area, some interest in classic movies (all raise hands who did not see some Alfred Hitchcock movie!). And upon that overlap you decide to indef a non-disrupting editor who is very productive because he does have similar feathers as a banned editor - I haven't seen any 'qck qck' here! Upon what you presented here, I still think that this could very well have been another editor as well with an unlucky overlap in living in the same area and having seen some classic movies. But maybe you can show me a significant number of diffs for each case? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding to this, we come back to our discussion about legal systems. I hope that a jury will never put a person on death row because:

1. They were living in the same neighbourhood
2. The accused bought in the last month before the murder a knife that fits the wound in the victim
3. The accused hates dogs, the victim has a noisy dog
4. The accused hates Alfred Hitchcock movies - the main channel showed Birds that evening
5. The accused works in the local bus service - the victim regularly took the bus with the dog
6. The accused was seen at the local drugstore that evening, around the time of the murder, carrying a bag
7. The accused had one single parking ticket (only record in legal proceedings), parking was in the same street as the victim

And a total lack of direct evidence. I can see, that if there is a LOT of circumstantial evidence that shows that the person had all the opportunity that it may get to a sort of conviction based on that, since it is just too unlikely that that evidence is not pointing to it - but I sincerely hope that that will not result in a capital punishment. Now we go again towards 'you can hardly compare an indef block of a user with capital punishment, but here on Wikipedia the indef block simply happens without a Fair trial (and that was the path I hoped I did not have to go down). It happens in a secretive way, with public evidence that is there but simply not presented, apparently without any direct evidence. And then a final verdict is given, with (and that is why we are here) NO possibility to appeal. And when I point that way, I get told that what I suggest is not normal in a legal system? Do you really want to compare your practices to a normal legal system then? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are a few more coincidences

1. Both misspell permissible/impermissible MM, SB
2. AND the World Trade Center ScottyBerg: World Trade Center • Mantanmoreland: World Trade Center (film)
3. AND the Holocaust/Anti-semitism ScottyBerg: Herberts Cukurs, Hashomer Hatzair, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews. Mantanmoreland: List of Holocaust survivors, Jack Garfein, New anti-Semitism, On the Jews and their Lies, John M. Oesterreicher
4. AND journalism: ScottyBerg Shakaiba Sanga Amaj, Rick Sanchez, Sergei Dubov, 2011 Egyptian revolution • Mantanmoreland: Muckraker, Malcolm Johnson (journalist), The Nation
5. AND 9/11: ScottyBerg: Closings and cancellations following the September 11 attacks, 102 Minutes That Changed America, September 11 attacks • Mantanmoreland: John McLoughlin (9/11 survivor), Dave Karnes, Dominick Pezzulo, Jason Thomas
6. AND criminals/mobsters: ScottyBerg: Albert Gallo, Raymond Márquez, Ferdinand Waldo Demara, 1913 in organized crime • Mantanmoreland: Cornelius Willemse, National Crime Syndicate, The Commission (mafia), Meyer Lansky, Dutch Schultz, Eddie Egan, John M. Corridan.
7. AND financial BLPS: ScottyBerg: Michael Marcus (trader), Richard “Skip” Bronson, Stacy Horn, Leonard N. Stern • Mantanmoreland: Patrick M. Byrne, Mark Cuban
8. AND trading: ScottyBerg Journal of the Futures Markets, Angie's List • Mantanmoreland: Naked short selling, Pump and dump, Hedge fund
9. AND movies: ScottyBerg: The Caine Mutiny (film), The Circus (film), The Lost Weekend (film), They Call Me MISTER Tibbs!, Young Man with a Horn (film) • Mantanmoreland: The Quiet Man, The River (1951 film), The Wanderers (1979 film), Big Love
10. AND actors: ScottyBerg: Al Pacino, Charlie Chaplin, Corey Carrier, Juano Hernández, • Mantanmoreland: Paul Burke (actor), Ernest Borgnine, Charles Lane (actor), David Strathairn

Like I said, the effect of circumstantial evidence is cumulative.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll analyse this as well. But I remain, that circumstantial evidence alone does not make necessarily a solid case, it does make it only more likely. Do note that I could find reasonable explanations for quite some of the above cases. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to save you the time, I freely concede that there are very likely reasonable explanations for some of them. In fact, there may even be reasonable explanations for ALL of them. But that's not the point here. The point is that the chance of two accounts sharing a long list of intersections (and that's without taking a ton of other stuff into account) and them being unconnected is remote. A sense of proportion here might help too. This is not a murder trial and, to be frank, the evidence above more far exceeds usual community standards.
If you still have a problem (which is likely, because I doubt that anything will persuade you to change your mind), perhaps you should be focusing on changing community standards. In particular, your desire to set the bar at "beyond reasonable doubt" for socking and to turn a blind eye to returning socks is likely to attract very widespread resistance indeed. Roger Davies ^talk 07:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, is that not what a fair trial is all about? Beyond reasonable doubt - and I am sure that thát is what the community is asking of you, that your judgement is fair and beyond reasonable doubt. And I am surely not saying that we should turn a blind eye to returning socks (and the community is not saying that either), but I do think that it is inexcusable if ArbCom and/or CU is using questionable evidence to ban editors, block 'likely' socks, without a chance of appeal, basically a no-return road. If you are arguing here that it is fine to make a mistake in blocks for the sake of making sure that someone who may be (but for sure not surely is) a sock, a decision which is affecting a real life person, then I am sure that that will not be what the community is expecting of you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You're letting your flair for rhetoric get the better of you here :) In my review of this, (and remember I started off sceptical that ScottyBerg was a sock), I haven't found any dodgy evidence. What I've seen is trusted members of the community taking their responsibilities seriously, spending time looking like this (as I have done), and doing their best to make a fair call in difficult circumstances.
There is an argument - and it's a reasonable one - that returning socks who behave themselves should be allowed back but the community has historically resisted that on a variety of grounds so I doubt whether it would be possible to get sufficient consensus to change the various policies involved.
As you may know, the vast majority of sock blocks (99%+) are handled by admins/the community. Now you want all these hundreds of cases a year shifted to a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard and a fair trial for each of them. I'd be really interested in seeing community decisions made on that basis. Does the decision require unanimity? Or just consensus? What happens if a new editor turns up to raise reasonable doubts? How do you determine if the new editor is a sock, beyond reasonable doubt? Anyhow, it's all very interesting discussing this sort of stuff, but per various NOTs, it's not going to fly. ArbCom doesn't make policy, it just enforces it.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no doubt that they take their responsibilities seriously. I do however not think that even the whole collective of ArbCom and CU together is infallible in these cases.

That part is still another problem - the true cleanstart, and it is obviously here one of those which are 'on the edge' of that. Whether or not guilty, would we allow someone to truly cleanstart (I did not investigate this in full, but which I feel ScottyBerg pretty much did here and got pretty far in doing so - not exactly an account aiming for disruption). And we probably will not know if there are admins under us who are a cleanstart of a banned, sockpuppetting, disrupting mass copyvio vandal - until someone starts to see a pattern (if ever).

I do block sockpuppets (sometimes they are maybe more likely meatpuppet-like) myself. Most of them pass WP:DUCK with flying feathers, no need for CU (I sometimes use it to confirm or to record, but not necessarily), or community discussions. I do however allow for appeal, they can try to make a case. Most of them simply will fail, but I am not excluding that I make mistakes. But I will present the evidence promptly upon which I make the decision that someone is a sock/meatpuppet, and not try to walk away from that.

I know it is the community that makes the policies .. and I hope that parts of these thoughts (one day) will make it into them. As I say, the cleanstart option is something that really needs more thinking. Because, I am sorry, as it is now, it is not a true cleanstart. But maybe the time is not ripe yet. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I am copying this evidence down, with my previous analysis and will then continue to further analyse the evidence. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

addendum: and you have been asked over and over to give a full analysis yourself showing unambiguously that the editors were the same - clearly the on-wiki evidence is completely inefficient, but you are fully free to show at least what on-wiki evidence is there to show they are the same. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There's actually quite a lot of evidence on this page if you extract and consolidate it.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You just did that above? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• cmt
  • ScottyBerg uses 'cmt' [41], [42], [43]
  • Mantanmoreland uses 'comment' [44]
• pls
  • ScottyBerg uses 'pls' [45]
  • Mantanmoreland uses please [46]

@Dirk Beetstra: This is also inaccurate. Both ScottyBerg and Mantanmoreland use both "pls" and "please">

• Mantanmoreland: "pls" [47], [48], [49]
• Mantanmoreland: "please" [50], [51], [52]
• ScottyBerg "pls": [53], [54], [55]
• ScottyBerg "please": [56], [57], [58]

which is probably in itself significant.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

See above. You are exactly making my point that this evidence is utterly thin, and that you are not objectively looking at the evidence (or at the very least not presenting the objective evidence when there is a significant concern that the decision to state that ScottyBerg is a sock of Mantanmoreland is wrong. None of you have shown that you have entertained the idea that the decision may have been wrong, you insist that it is correct. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I took little or no part in the original discussions in January and didn't really form a view. I was initially sceptical but now I've examined it all for myself afresh over the last ten days or so, I think the case is strong.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course if we fail to look at it subjectively, then we only see a couple of matching overlaps (they both use '--' and 'rply'!). However, it is turning a blind eye to things are just common use: [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68] (note, I am not accusing Bwilkins of being a sock of either of them, or of both, but based on the 'evidence' that ArbCom/CU have presented, User:Bwilkins is a sock of ScottyBerg/Mantanmoreland).

I really, really hope that ArbCom/CU has more than this utterly subjective evidence that has now been used to block ScottyBerg as a sock of Mantanmoreland. This is as always the problem with evidence presented to ArbCom (and apparently CU suffers from the same): this is suggestive evidence (and that is also true for , it only shows the bad stuff, the overlap. It utterly fails to see the whole in the bigger picture. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Two other things to take into consideration (as you'll find I have said several times)

• is there an topic overlap between ScottyBerg, MM and the listed socks?
• is there a topic overlap between ScottyBerg and topics covered at Weiss's blog. Regardless of whether or not one thinks that MM is Weiss, a charge levelled at the socks was that they focussed on topics that Weiss was simultaneously covering in his blog.

Wikistalk is good for the first question - although it seems to have indigestion today, I'll have to give MzMcbride a ping. There are other tools.

The second one, you have to eyeball I'm afraid. I'll see if I can look out the topics that people felt this applied to. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The first one of that is done in User:Vee8Njinn/SB - at first eye that looks pretty thin.

For the second one .. if Weiss's blog is somewhat interesting, then it is not utterly impossible that someone interested in that is also following up on subjects here, that evidence would still be quite thin to base such a decision upon. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Re the second, it would be thin indeed to make a case that ScottyBerg was Weiss. But it was a characteristic. The question then becomes, I suppose, how many people live in NY, read Weiss's blog, edit Wikipedia based on the subject, edit Gary Weiss, have topic overlaps with the socks, have the tells outlined above. It's certainly not at the level found in a DNA match - is it sufficient to block a productive editor who is possibly a sock of a community banned user? We can go round in circles on this forever. Hard cases make bad law, here we see the consequences where a blind eye is turned to an editor returning under a new name. That case led eventually to a whole slew of changes, some of which are still working there way out here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: "whole slew of changes". Are you sure? Would we have had the whole Fæ RfC drama if changes really had occurred? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, in the end it will become a percentage: so much 'overlap' - but it should be 'beyond reasonable doubt', and I am not sure that we are anywhere close that at the moment (for three consequtive blogposts I checked, I did not see the overlap). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that the right standard though? Civil courts decide based 'on the balance of probabilities'. We are only talking about editing a website here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

In my view there was less behavioral evidence presented in the ScottyBerg than in the BarkingMoon case. (And some admins have threatened to block if I mention that again.) But the perceived level of threat against Wikipedia differs between these cases, surely as perceived by ArbCom. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Scotty is from New York, yes, he edits articles based on New York, yes. We as of yet have no substance to whether the topics he edits is in line with Weiss' blog. The topic overlaps with the socks are relatively minor. As explained by Scotty, the editing to Gary Weiss was minor and through Huggle. The two tells also don't say much, considering the other things Dirk pointed out above that don't overlap. In fact, the other stuff allows us to pretty much write out rply as a tell, since it seems Scotty shortened all of his edit summaries for other words in such a manner, while Weiss did not. Silverseren^C 14:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • That is incorrect. His first edit may have been through HG. The rest were not [69] [70] [71]. I find it interesting that Dirk, who is so concerned about COI in Wikipedia in general, does not see undisclosed self-promotion as potential problem. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, but those other edits were only made after the Huggle edit. So, just like any Wikipedian can, he began editing the article after coming across it randomly. And I don't see those edits as promotional at all. A search for Weiss would have that book be one of the first things to pop up. And, considering the time difference between the Huggle edit and the consequent one, it's clear that he spent time doing a google search on Weiss. Silverseren^C 14:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
      • It looks like an admin/editor disagrees with you [72]. Maybe you wanna huggle him? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Removing the first sentence that was referenced to Weiss' personal site, I can understand, but not the rest. Of course, that's the hard part when writing articles about journalists and reporters. You invariably can only find stuff about their work and its hard to find other people commenting on them, even if they are notable. Silverseren^C 14:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the "beyond reasonable doubt" (BRD) rule should be applied in any situation where the account under scrutiny is not being otherwise disruptive. If the account is disruptive, then "balance of probabilities" (BoP) would be fair; if someone could work out some kind of cute little tool to graph it, that would be cool. Disruption levels on the Y axis, and the scale from "BRD" to "BoP" on the X axis? Pesky (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, but framing edits as disruption depends on who's doing them sometimes. Having a couple of "newbie" accounts show up to complain at length about someone may be just a stretch of AGF until you discover they are a returning editor with a long history of disputes with the target of complaints. Case in point: WP:ANI#Kumioko block. I think he was another user with a 6-digit edit count. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • ASCIIn2Bme - I am not hunting for undisclosed cases of conflict of interest, and I read your suggestion here as that I should harass this editor, because I could perceive here a conflict of interest. That remark is well below your level, and chilling in this discussion. And could you please put away your sarcasm in this discussion, thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• So that's it? Nothing else? If so, i'm probably going to go and start a community unblock request. Just so Scotty can say his goodbyes and retire. Silverseren^C 21:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Perhaps you should reflect on this comment from a May 2008 Mantanmoreland ban discussion. It also worth bearing in mind that, if he is true to form, he'll already have his latest reincarnation up and running.  Roger Davies ^talk 22:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    • If there was better evidence to present that Scotty is Mantanmoreland, then we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. Furthermore, all that would have been needed was a discussion of the suspicions and then everyone would have agreed to a topic ban from Mantanmoreland's articles. If you guys had done that, then we would still have a productive editor without any issues. Instead, we have this situation where we have an editor blocked who may or may not be a sockpuppet, but who was certainly not causing disruption from his editing. Silverseren^C 22:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
      • There is other corroborative evidence, a lot more along with evidence of disruption, but there are privacy and legal (and indeed BLP) considerations. For information, [[Help:CheckUser#Guidance given to CheckUsers|policy says] "if you're in any doubt [about privacy], give no detail". In this instance, people with access to all the evidence are unanimous that the allegations are founded.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
        • If there is evidence of disruption, then that means it is on-wiki, which means you can tell us about it. Furthermore, I don't see how privacy considerations worked when you never asked Scotty about his opinion on whatever it is remaining private. Or BLP considerations for that matter. Silverseren^C 23:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Just because something has partially happened onwiki does not make it suitable for public discussion. Dealing with such stuff confidentially is explicitly part of ArbCom's and the CheckUsers mandate.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
            • I know for a fact that you haven't asked Scotty about anything regarding privacy or BLP concerns, so at this point, i'm doubting this info exists at all. Silverseren^C 00:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
              • [rolls eyes] What sort of questions do you imagine we need to ask about privacy and BLP concerns? And why precisely do you think it's appropriate to accuse me of, to put it mildly, making things up?  Roger Davies ^talk 00:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
                • Whose privacy issues are you talking about then? Who will the BLP concern affect? I assumed you meant him, which means it's something you can discuss with him. As for why I think the info doesn't exist, I don't see where else you could have gotten the info from. CU is out, behavioral has already been covered. What other technical evidence can there be? Silverseren^C 03:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess i'll be making a community unblock request sometime soon then. Not right at this moment though, too busy, especially since there's likely to be drama. Silverseren^C 00:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Roger's thoughts about evidence

Copied and reformatted from above evidence provided by Roger Davies in the last handful of diffs of this page, including my analysis of some of the points.

1. among the 3000-4000 active Wikipedians editing from New York;

   They both edit from the same area, as do apparently 3000-4000 others

2. AND your daily editing patterns were similar to Mantanmoreland's;

   If they edit from the same area, they may very well have similar daily editing patterns (I presume you mean here 'a moment in the morning while breakfast, and after work except for dinner between 18:30 and 19:15 and the time that CSI New York is on on Saturday evening.')

3. AND you were in the top four editors of the Gary Weiss article;

   If you look at the number of edits, that is likely true, but many are just reverts, and there is a long spree of a handful of edits which however mostly just rearranges text.

4. AND you heavily edit articles related to Brooklyn thoroughfares;

   They were both from New York, how likely is it that they edit about subjects related to New York? I am working in Chemistry, see where most of my edits are. But this is a reasonable one, though not necessarily unexpected. Do note, that the number of actual article-overlaps seems to be pretty small (User:Vee8Njinn/SB

5. AND have an interest in classic movies;

   For an interest in classic movies they again had a significantly small actual article overlap (User:Vee8Njinn/SB) - many people have interest in classic movies, most people in the western world have seen some classic movies.

6. AND you used "rply" frequently in edit summaries;

   I am not so sure if that is a tell-tale, it was excessively easy to find Bwilkins as a user of that as well (a fast hit in a look at recent changes ..).

   Regarding using abbrevs, see SMS language ("Had a gr8 time tnx 4 ur present. C u 2mrw") and Internet slang.

   You were probably lucky in your search :) I've only found one other person who uses it, Moxy.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

   Sure: RPLY - What does RPLY stand for? Acronyms and abbreviations by .... It is just common slang. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

   And User:Nimbus227, User:Hu12, ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

7. AND used "--" in edits summaries;

   And that one is also used by Bwilkins

   User:Cookiehead (note, also active on Gary Weiss - even used this on Gary Weiss)

8. AND you used both "pls" and "please" in edit summaries;

   I haven't caught Bwilkins doing that, he does use a lot of abbrevs tho.

   Regarding using abbrevs, see SMS language ("Had a gr8 time tnx 4 ur present. C u 2mrw") and Internet slang.

   User:Cookiehead (note, also active on Gary Weiss), User:SergeWoodzing, User:SandyGeorgia, User:Shovon76, User:Abhishek191288, User:Anna Frodesiak, User:Tao2911

9. AND used "tweaking" and other gerundives in edit summaries;

   And as I said, Bwilkins uses tweak, I am sure I have used it.

   User:Graham.Fountain, User:Adrian J. Hunter, User:Hebrides, User:Droll, User:Rufus-crowned Sparrow, User:Khazar2, User:Jeanne boleyn, User:Secret of success, User:F=q(E+v^B), User:184.76.225.106, User:Nickthestoned, User:ThatPeskyCommoner, User:JackofOz, User:Struway2, User:TransporterMan

10. AND there were overlapping interests between a blog and your Italian Harlem edits;

    I also saw a lot of edits where I could not find that overlap between the blog and subjects in the time. Harlem .. New York areay! How many Italians live in New York/America?

11. AND your accounts started up shortly after the last Mantanmoreland socks were blocked;

    That one is maybe suspect .. though we have accounts created every minute - and 3000-4000 editors in the New York area ...

    To put a number on it - 11 days (and note that one of the socks actually tried to request an unblock after ScottyBerg started, and I don't see evidence that ScottyBerg was caught in an autoblock there - though that need not be and probably would need CU data to ).

12. AND you were obviously from your first edits returning editors;

    Obvious? diff, diff, diff, diff (unsigned, talkpage). I don't think that is 'obvious' a returning editor (note, first deleted edit is months after these three, so I think I am not missing any deleted edits which were 'obvious' not from a new editor). Maybe ScottyBerg was a quick learner, but an obvious sock (except at that point unknown from who): no.

13. Both misspell permissible/impermissible MM, SB

    24 hits for the typo impermissable, 3230 hits for the typo permissable - FAR from uncommon (and I am sure that typo-bots would repair this). Note: Google does show also non-typo results (but 6 out of the first 10 are typo).

    As expected, AWB replaces permissable (not impermissable, though) (<Typo word="-missible" find="\b([Aa]d|[Pp]er|[Tt]rans)mis+ab(le|ility)\b" replace="$1missib$2" />). Still many occurances of 'permissable'.

14. AND the World Trade Center ScottyBerg: World Trade Center • Mantanmoreland: World Trade Center (film)

    ScottyBerg: a revert (diff) and some image work (3diff) in World Trade Center (no more edits to this page) - Mantanmoreland: working on the prose of the movie, trivia (diff), controversy (multiplediff, and more (see history of page - no image work if I see it correctly). The former a very visible article of an 'object' in New York - they both live in the area. I am sure a lot of New Yorkers have edited that article, and likely quite some the article of the movie (of the 3000-400 New Yorkers mentioned above). I deem this generally very popular pages. Not unlikely that they edit it.

    Indeed, but not all of them. So this, along with the others, is a subset of a subset.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

    'but not all of them'?!?! So it is very likely that there are 100 of them that edited World Trade Center, and another 100 who have edited World Trade Center (film), and you will also be able to find 10 who edited both articles? So because you can find 1000 New Yorkers who have not edited either of them, you say that it is likely that these two people are the same? Thank you again for proving my point, Roger. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

15. AND the Holocaust/Anti-semitism ScottyBerg: Herberts Cukurs, Hashomer Hatzair, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews. Mantanmoreland: List of Holocaust survivors, Jack Garfein, New anti-Semitism, On the Jews and their Lies, John M. Oesterreicher

    ScottyBerg on these three articles: one with a significant expansion of Herberts Cukurs, on Hashomer Hatzair only some vandalism reverts, and participation in a deletion discussion (with 83 !votes and maybe more participants (not sure if the 'comments' were counted - note that neither Mantanmoreland nor ScottyBerg edited the deleted article). No direct article overlap. Note that Mantanmoreland created two of the articles mentioned here, and worked on all of them. Broad overlap, overlapping this as 'Holocaust/Anti-Semitism' is really broadly construed - political parties, people, broad widely edited subjects in the field. Looking at Herberts Cukurs - the category Category:Holocaust perpetrators alone has 408 items (and many of these articles do not share categories. Birthday Paradox again?

    'I'm also interested in history, though I haven't had much chance to contribute on that or any other subject recently.'

16. AND journalism: ScottyBerg Shakaiba Sanga Amaj, Rick Sanchez, Sergei Dubov, 2011 Egyptian revolution • Mantanmoreland: Muckraker, Malcolm Johnson (journalist), The Nation

    Calling a subject that was covered by the news on a daily basis for a long time (2011 Egyptian revolution) proof of an interest in journalism is quite a leap. ScottyBerg removed a speedy from Shakaiba Sanga Amaj, further only categorisation/tagging (no content edit whatsoever), Rick Sanchez was not edited, just comments on the talkpage (first a BLP concern - in the time that there was an edit war resulting in a protection for BLP issues), Sergei Dubov again only tagging - in short, this is nothing more than just tagging, this is absolutely no proof of having an interest in journalism or likely editing those articles. However, Mantanmoreland created Malcolm Johnson (journalist) (one journalist out of thousands of American journalists, not counting subcategories), did some vandalism revert and libel removal on The Nation ('the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States' - what is the chance that a New Yorker has read that?), and only two consequtive edits on Muckraker (adding two names to the examples). It is even a leap to say that Mantanomreland had an interest in journalism.

    No. You may be missing the point here, He made 16 edits to the article of which 14 were to the section on Foreign journalists. This is a much more specialist area than the article overall. (Diffs, [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Egyptian_revolution&diff=prev&oldid=411835381], [82], [83], [84].) Anyhow, here's a slightly more specific Mantanmoreland interest in the topic: [85].  Roger Davies ^talk 10:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

    Even if we include that article as evidence of an interest in journalism, you presented one case where ScottyBerg was showing interest in journalism, no direct article overlap in journalism. And it still is (or was) a highly visible subject - ScottyBerg may have come there through normal RC patrol or from whatever source and seen a possible improvment. We can see here whatever we want to see in it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

    That diff by Mantanmoreland can also be read as an interest in history, or in Israel/Palestine related subjects. I don't see that as a definite proof of an interest in journalism, did Mantanmoreland say anywhere that he was interested in journalism. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

    Adding to this 'I'm also interested in history, though I haven't had much chance to contribute on that or any other subject recently.' - some journalists have a strong binding into history/historic facts - and the 2011 Egyptian revolution is certainly something that will make it into history books.

    Adding more to this, Muckraker is linked from Gary Weiss, not unlikely that someone who edits that page heavily ends up there as well.

17. AND 9/11: ScottyBerg: Closings and cancellations following the September 11 attacks, 102 Minutes That Changed America, September 11 attacks • Mantanmoreland: John McLoughlin (9/11 survivor), Dave Karnes, Dominick Pezzulo, Jason Thomas

    Another subject that had a major impact on New York and its inhabitants. Not unlikely that two different New Yorkers have interest in the same subject here.

    'I'm also interested in history, though I haven't had much chance to contribute on that or any other subject recently.'

18. AND criminals/mobsters: ScottyBerg: Albert Gallo, Raymond Márquez, Ferdinand Waldo Demara, 1913 in organized crime • Mantanmoreland: Cornelius Willemse, National Crime Syndicate, The Commission (mafia), Meyer Lansky, Dutch Schultz, Eddie Egan, John M. Corridan.

    'I'm also interested in history, though I haven't had much chance to contribute on that or any other subject recently.'

    Note that Gary Weiss wrote a book on 1950 organised crime, if Mantanmoreland had a strong interest in Gary Weiss, then that is not an unlikely point to end up. As I don't see that ScottyBerg had a strong interest in Gary Weiss (I know he edited Gary Weiss, but the first edit via Huggle, so it may have ended up on his watchlist, ScottyBerg's 'interest' in Gary Weiss certainly is not strong like for Mantanmoreland).

    ScottyBerg edited Albert Gallo, Raymond Márquez, Ferdinand Waldo Demara significantly (2 are BLPs, both born in 1930). 1913 in organized crime is nothing but a wikilink repair, so that does not say anything. Some of the pages mentioned here also fit in the 'Holocaust'-type grouping if we call that 'interest in Jewish history'. Significant edits by Mantanmoreland (one article created). Still no direct article overlaps, and noting that this may also come from snowballing from the book by Gary Weiss.

19. AND financial BLPS: ScottyBerg: Michael Marcus (trader), Richard “Skip” Bronson, Stacy Horn, Leonard N. Stern • Mantanmoreland: Patrick M. Byrne, Mark Cuban

    Reasonable overlap, some of these articles (not all!) are quite heavily edited by both editors. For Mantanmoreland, Patrick M. Byrne seems a major interest (this subject is related to Gary Weiss, not unlikely that Mantanmoreland is editing it hence), Mark Cuban does not seem to be heavily edited by Mantanmoreland. I am not sure hence if 'financial BLPS' are the interest of Mantanmoreland. And still, the group of 'financial BLPS' is quite big, and for them to have a proper interest in them it would be likely that they would have real article overlap, not some cross-section of categories. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

20. AND trading: ScottyBerg Journal of the Futures Markets, Angie's List • Mantanmoreland: Naked short selling, Pump and dump, Hedge fund
21. AND movies: ScottyBerg: The Caine Mutiny (film), The Circus (film), The Lost Weekend (film), They Call Me MISTER Tibbs!, Young Man with a Horn (film) • Mantanmoreland: The Quiet Man, The River (1951 film), The Wanderers (1979 film), Big Love

    overlaps with previous answer regarding classic films. 2 New Yorkers out of 3000-4000 with an interest in classic films (see Birthday paradox).

22. AND actors: ScottyBerg: Al Pacino, Charlie Chaplin, Corey Carrier, Juano Hernández, • Mantanmoreland: Paul Burke (actor), Ernest Borgnine, Charles Lane (actor), David Strathairn

    overlaps with previous answer regarding classic films. 2 New Yorkers out of 3000-4000 with an interest in classic films (see Birthday paradox).

    How many editors have edited the pages Al Pacino, Charlie Chaplin, Ernest Borgnine and David Strathairn - all four pretty well known, played in either well known movies or TV series, or are generally famous (who did not hear of Charlie Chaplin ..), no surprise that editors who go around edit those, that is just too likely an overlap. The other articles were all reasonably edited by the editors (Mantanmoreland created the article on Paul Burke). As far as I can see, those 4 have never co-appeared in movies. Note, we have 14,643 American film actors, and 12,228 American television actors (massive overlap between those two, but lets say 15.000 actors to stay on the save side?). Again, what is the chance that 2 editors with thousands of edits hit an article out of these categories - any direct article overlap here?

    Actual article overlap on Charlie Chaplin

End of list. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I freely concede that there are very likely reasonable explanations for some of them. In fact, there may even be reasonable explanations for ALL of them. But that's not the point here. The point is that the chance of two accounts sharing a long list of intersections (and that's without taking a ton of other stuff into account) and them being unconnected is remote. A sense of proportion here might help too. This is not a murder trial and, to be frank, the evidence above more far exceeds usual community standards. If you still have a problem (which is likely, because I doubt that anything will persuade you to change your mind), perhaps you should be focusing on changing community standards. In particular, your desire to set the bar at "beyond reasonable doubt" for socking and to turn a blind eye to returning socks is likely to attract very widespread resistance indeed.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, is that not what a fair trial is all about? Beyond reasonable doubt - and I am sure that thát is what the community is asking of you, that your judgement is fair and beyond reasonable doubt. And I am surely not saying that we should turn a blind eye to returning socks (and the community is not saying that either), but I do think that it is inexcusable if ArbCom and/or CU is using questionable evidence to ban editors, block 'likely' socks, without a chance of appeal, basically a no-return road. If you are arguing here that it is fine to make a mistake in blocks for the sake of making sure that someone who may be (but for sure not surely is) a sock, a decision which is affecting a real life person, then I am sure that that will not be what the community is expecting of you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the thorny issue (again) of whether Wikipedia is a nation state or a website. WP:NOT makes it very clear where policy standands on the matter. In fact, come to think of think of it, there is no policy that requires transparency, nor evidence to be disclosed, nor that the burden of proof be "beyond reasonable doubt".  Roger Davies ^talk 10:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

In other words, Roger, I can now just block you as a perceived sock? I don't need to be transparent, I don't need to disclose evidence, I don't need my burden of proof be "beyond reasonable doubt". A red herring, Roger. I would be desysopped by the community. And I hope that you have evidence beyond reasonable doubt, but I utterly, totally doubt that you have any reasonable evidence, because all this is just totally nothing. Even the direct article overlaps boil down to one or two cases of an overlap in interests, the rest is totally unrelated coincidental overlap. ScottyBerg is NOT a sock of Mantanmoreland. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Per that same policy: I did not know that we are here practicing an anarchy, Roger. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Note, I do think that finally seeing some of the evidence, something that you have been asked for a long time, evidence that is public, evidence that does not need any insight in private information, etc. etc., and which apparently needs an RfC, shows to see where the evidence is actually going. This was not necessarily about whether your decision was actually wrong. None of my complaints about ArbCom is about whether your decision was or is wrong. The problem is, did we really need an RfC to get a proper explanation when asking for that? Why did the ArbCom and/or CU have to be so evasive in their answers? See the opening statement: "This RfC is to discuss current and, potentially, past incidents involving the Arbitration Committee, where actions were taken against users, usually blocks, that involved a lack of information and transparency and often oblique, extremely generalized statements to both the accused and to other community members." Maybe it is time that we, again, discuss the merits of transparency here? Let me bring this into play:

I have encouraged the ArbCom to move slowly and thoughtfully. Gather all the facts. Don't have a public argument with each other that confuses people or gives trolls the opportunity to turn more people against each other. Figure out what went wrong, correct it, apologize where beneficial to do so, and build a better framework going forward. You don't get all that done in a weekend, and you don't further that kind of thoughtful and mature process with a hasty statement. I think the important statement has been made: no secret trials, and no convictions without giving the opportunity to present a defense. That's just basic justice, and I will overturn any ArbCom decision to the contrary. (Although, I should point out, there is ZERO chance of the ArbCom doing this in the first place.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This was a conviction without giving an opportunity to present a defense, this was not basic justice. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think one of the most useful things to do is not to find lots of ways how a "protect the innocent" system won't work, but to focus on the ways in which we can make one work. It's all too easy to knock ideas out of the water, but requires more creativity and persistence to keep on thinking up more ideas, knowing that some time we will come up with something that does work. We should never quit trying for something good / better just because of an "It'll never fly" mindset. There will be a good solution out there somewhere, all we really have to do is keep looking for it. Otherwise we're failing in our community duty of justice for the innocent. The only time we can call someone a failure is when they've stopped trying. Pesky (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

A very important point which is being lost here is that about 250,000 blocks are placed a year. ArbCom is directly involved in perhaps 20 of them. Admins use the block button very robustly indeed against socks and vandals; any systemic changes need to start there. I can't see the requisite changes to the various applicable policies happening myself (as there is no groundswell to do so), and in any event ArbCom explicitly doesn't make policy.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think any of the overlapping "subject areas" mean much if there isn't an actual article overlap. A lot of these seem to be very significant stretches, where you're trying to force a connection that really isn't there at all, the most glaring being the Egyptian stuff and calling it a journalism connection. There's nothing there at all, you're forcing yourself to see illusions. Going through an editor's article history who has as many edits as Scotty, you're going to find editing in practically all topic areas. Trying to form connections based on these isn't really giving evidence toward anything. Silverseren^C 18:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

  Indeed, Silver seren. This is the subjectivity that I am complaining about regarding ArbCom decisions. They call 1 or 2 edits in tens of thousands 'significant'. And then, obviously, they do not determine what is being edited, or how. If there is significant evidence, the ArbCom/CU is still keeping that away from us - here there is not proof of that, not even one or two example edits which are giving it away significantly. If it stays with "they both use '--' and 'rply'" then that is utterly thin. I repeat, this is not a textbook example of a fair trial, ArbCom. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  I think what you're talking about here is confirmation bias. With the best will and the best intentions in the world, confirmation bias is something that humans have naturally, so it's vital always to bear this in mind and write for the opponent really thoroughly before assessing reasonable doubt. Pesky (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  Now funnily enough both MM and SB used precisely that expression - confirmation bias - in their denials.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  Because that's what it is. It's not surprising if multiple people bring it up, because that is exactly the precise term for this. Silverseren^C 16:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  You're not seriously suggesting, I hope, that Mantanmoreland has never socked.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  No, and I hope you're not seriously suggesting that anyone that bring up confirmation bias is a sock of Mantanmoreland? I would have brought it up myself, but the name escaped me at the time. Silverseren^C 16:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  Yep. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra's comments on actual article overlaps

Moved, as is, from above. These are the actual editing overlaps between ScottyBerg and Mantanmoreland, prepared by Dirk Beetstra. This was tagged onto my 22-point list above, unfortunately, making it very confusing as to who was saying what. I've moved it to this new section for clarity.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Brownsville, Brooklyn 2/2 [1, 2]

   Both are from New York area

   Mantanmoreland did one edit regarding Murder incorporated. Hence, overlap with the mobster point above. ScottyBerg 2 sets of edits on two days in June 2011 (multiple diff on 17th (adding a see also, removing a sentence which seems trivial, remove a wikilink - the see also includes Murder Inc.), multiple diff on 26th (one reorganisation, adding an image)). Heavily edited page of very well known area. Maybe an overlap of interest

2. Grand Concourse (Bronx) 2/2 [1, 2]

   Overlapping with the 'thoroughfares in New York' point above.

   2 edits groups by ScottyBerg, group of edits, group of edits, significant expansions. Mantanmoreland similarly 2 edit groups, group of edits, group of edits. Also expanding. Maybe an overlap of interest

3. Harry Maione 2/2 [1, 2]

   Mobster (see above). Both only a vandalism revert (diff, diff), ScottyBerg used huggle on it (petty vandalism). Mantanmoreland removes unsourced statement regarding Murder Inc./Brooklyn Inc.. No evidence of overlap of interest whatsoever.

4. Henry Ford 2/2 [1, 2]

   Another very well known person, highly edited.

   ScottyBerg fixes a typo, Mantanmoreland is reverting petty vandalism. No evidence of overlap of interest whatsoever.

5. The Pawnbroker (film) 2/2 [1, 2]

   Movie of significant interest, important. Quoting the article: 'In 2008, The Pawnbroker was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant"' - 'Steiger received a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actor - Drama, the Silver Bear for Best Actor at the 14th Berlin International Film Festival, an Oscar nomination for Best Actor in a Leading Role, and received the British Film Academy award for best foreign actor in a leading role.' - certainly not unlikely that 2 editors saw the movie and read the Wikipedia article.

   typofix by ScottyBerg, major interest by Stetsonharry (in a way created by Stetsonharry by splitting of from the novel that inspired the film). Holocaust related. No evidence of overlap of interest whatsoever since ScottyBerg did only a typo fix.

6. Andrew Johnson 2/2 [1, 2]

   One of America's former presidents - highly edited page. Would not convey that they share interest based on that.

   ScottyBerg Huggle-reverted one edit. Mantanmoreland also reverted one edit. Did not go much further back, no evidence for a overlap in interest whatsoever.

7. Bean 2/2 [1, 2]

   Common subject, not even going to check whether they significantly had an interest in this. Feel free to do so if so inclined.

   SB: revert, obviously not a subject of interest to ScottyBerg. Did not investigate further, no overlap of interest.

8. Charles Dickens 2/2 [1, 2]

   Highly visible page. May check later whether this is significant interest - feel free to beat me to it.

   SB: revert, revert, revert, revert; Mantanmoreland: revert, revert - did not go further, no evidence of an overlap of interest

9. Christopher Reeve 2/2 [1, 2]

   Highly visible page. May check later whether this is significant interest - feel free to beat me to it.

   SB: revert; Mantanmoreland: revert - did not look further, no evidence of an overlap in interest.

10. Cracker 2/2 [1, 2]

    Common subject, not even going to check whether they significantly had an interest in this. Feel free to do so if so inclined.

    Disambig

    SB: revert, no subject of interest for ScottyBerg. Did not investigate further - No overlap of interest.

11. Donald A Wilson Secondary School 2/2 [1, 2]

    School page, generally get a lot of vandalism or inappropriate edits (see the number of IP talkpages that link here Special:WhatLinksHere/Donald_A_Wilson_Secondary_School).

    ScottyBerg has reverted a lot of vandalism here, Mantanmoreland on revert as well. This is a strange page where they both ended up. It is not a school in New York. To me this looks like plain coincidence due to RC patrol. Don't see an obvious link towards this article in Special:WhatLinksHere/Donald_A_Wilson_Secondary_School, does not seem related to a well known subject or place related to their common subjects.

12. Humour 2/2 [1, 2]

    Common subject, not even going to check whether they significantly had an interest in this. Feel free to do so if so inclined.

    SB: revert, revert - not a subject of interest to ScottyBerg - did not investigate further, no overlap of interest

13. MDMA 2/2 [1, 2]

    Highly visible page, highly edited.

    vandalism revert by ScottyBerg - did not look for the Mantanmoreland socks, obviously not an subject of interest for ScottyBerg, more probably RC patrolling.

14. Moo 2/2 [1, 2]

    I was considering to throw this one out as a common subject as well. However, it is a disambiguation page, there is a chance they added subjects which were closely related.

    revert of petty vandalism by ScottyBerg, revert of petty vandalism by Mantanmoreland. No shred of proof of an overlap in interest. However, more proof of them both doing RC patrol (see also the edits to Donald A Wilson Secondary School).

15. My Brother Sam Is Dead 2/2 [1, 2]

    novel, appears to be a highly vandalised page, seen so many IP talkpages are pointing to it ([86]). Maybe linked to history of America - interest.

    ScottyBerg vandalism revert, Mantanmoreland vandalism revert. Unlikely to have been an article of interest to either editors, more likely based on plain RC patrol encounter of vandalism.

16. Recreation 2/2 [1, 2]

    Common subject, not even going to check whether they significantly had an interest in this. Feel free to do so if so inclined while I am having a beer in the park.

17. Uranium 2/2 [1, 2]

    Highly visible page, lots of edits, lots of vandalism.

    SB: revert, revert, revert - obviously not an subject of interest to ScottyBerg, did not investigate further for Mantanmoreland, no overlap of interest.

18. The Lost Weekend (film) 2/2 [1, 2]

    Classic movie, 7 Acadamy award nominations, likely many people have seen this.

    Scottyberg did two consecutive edits to this page (adding an image, plot expansion); two consecutive edits by Mantanmoreland, expanding sentences (plot expansion, wikilink).

19. Talk:Humphrey Bogart 2/2 [1, 2]

    Well known subject, mainpage heavily edited.

    SB: strange reassesment diff (top to low), Mantanmoreland jokes. Seems to have some interest to both.

20. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities 2/2 [1, 2]

    likely trivial (not familiar with this page, will check)

21. Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism 2/2 [1, 2]

    likely trivial (unlikely they reported the same vandal)

22. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard 2/2 [1, 2]

    likely trivial (no chance they actually edited the same thread)

23. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring 2/2 [1, 2]

    likely trivial (unlikely involving the same editors - will check)

24. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 2/2 [1, 2]

    likely trivial (unlikely the same thread)

25. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard 2/2 [1, 2]

    likely trivial (unlikely regarding the same BLP)

26. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

    likely trivial (unlikely regarding the same page)

27. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard 2/2 [1, 2]

    likely trivial (unlikely regarding the same case - will check)

28. Wikipedia:Huggle/Users 2/2 [1, 2]

    likely trivial

29. Wikipedia:Huggle/Whitelist 2/2 [1, 2]

    very likely trivial

30. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard 2/2 [1, 2]

    likely trivial, unlikely regarding the same case

31. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 2/2 [1, 2]

    likely trivial, unlikely talking about the same source

32. Wikipedia:WikiProject New York

    Both are from New York area

33. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film 2/2 [1, 2]
34. Template talk:Did you know 2/2 [1, 2]

    likely trivial, unlikely to be related DYKs (will check)

35. User talk:Alansohn 2/2 [1, 2]
36. User talk:Anthony Bradbury 2/2 [1, 2]
37. User talk:Christofurio 2/2 [1, 2]
38. User talk:Jimbo Wales 2/2 [1, 2]
39. User talk:Little Joe Shots 2/2 [1, 2]
40. User talk:MONGO 2/2 [1, 2]
41. User talk:William M. Connolley 2/2 [1, 2]
42. User talk:Cla68 2/2 [1, 2]
43. User talk:DGG 2/2 [1, 2]
44. User talk:Dougweller 2/2 [1, 2]
45. User talk:Fetchcomms 2/2 [1, 2]
46. User talk:HJ Mitchell 2/2 [1, 2]
47. User talk:HelloAnnyong 2/2 [1, 2]
48. User talk:Lar 2/2 [1, 2]
49. User talk:NuclearWarfare 2/2 [1, 2]
50. They both do RC patrol.

    Seen the edits to Moo, Donald A Wilson Secondary School, My Brother Sam Is Dead.

    Would give a higher chance of accidental overlap on subjects in stead of them being proof of an overlap in interest or even being proof of them being the same person.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetstra (talk • contribs) 09:01, 27 March 2012‎ (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra's perceived differences

Making this as a list, feel free to rebut me here.

1. I have in the above articles encountered several occasions where ScottyBerg is actually adding images, I have not seen Mantanmoreland doing that at all
2. I have in the above articles encountered several occasions where Mantanmoreland is actually creating the articles (which clearly shows a Mantanmoreland interest in that subject(-group)), I have not seen any occasions where ScottyBerg is creating the articles.

I concede that these points are weak, Mantanmoreland can likely be found adding images somewhere, and ScottyBerg likely created articles elsewhere, but it is something that now sticks out in the edits which have been presented as 'evidence' for socking. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

People move on, change interests. There was a significant time gap between MM and SB editing. What the 22-points above do is help create a profile of the editor. The more things in that profile, the lesser the change of misidentification.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

See section below. Should I continue until I find 22 area's of interest between the two of us, and 4-5 article overlaps? What is needed to make you start consider that this evidence is maybe not showing what you think it is showing, Roger? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You can if you like :) I'll add an edit summary to this that will tie me in to MM et als. (Diffs: MM, SB, SB, JB).  Roger Davies ^talk 11:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I already found article overlaps between you and ScottyBerg - but since ScottyBerg is obviously a sock of Bwilkins and of you, I did not bother. I know you are not a sock of me, Roger, so that excercise is more entertaining. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra's perceived overlaps between Roger Davies and Dirk Beetstra

1. Sicily: RD: Salvo Montalbano, Andrea Camilleri - DB: San Vito lo Capo, Riserva naturale dello Zingaro.
2. Love: RD: Love songs, Romeo and Juliet - DB: Love letter
3. Germany: RD: East Prussian Offensive - CheMoBot/DB: Prussian blue
4. Muslim subjects: RD: Baha ad-Din ibn Shaddad - DB: Hadith of the prediction in Sura al-Rum
5. Cities, towns, and villages: RD: Tel Aviv - DB: San Vito lo Capo
6. Electronics: RD: Electrical telegraph - DB: Molecular electronics
7. Universities: RD: South Valley University - DB: KAUST (link from userpage)
8. Italy: RD Italians - DB: Riserva naturale dello Zingaro
9. War: RD Causes of World War I - DB: World war
10. United Kingdom: RD History of rugby union matches between France and New Zealand, St Edward's Roman Catholic Church of England School - DB (lived in Wales, UK), Jacksdale, Labour Party (UK)
11. Chemistry: RD: Kevlar - DB: see userpage, Molecular electronics, Prussian blue
12. Polymers: RD: Kevlar - DB: see userpage, Titanium(III) chloride, Cyclopentadiene, Methylaluminoxane
13. Cnidaria: RD: Box jellyfish - DB: Jellyfish
14. Wales: RD: Snowdonia - DB: lived in Wales per userpage

end of list --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the point, which I doubt you'll concede, is that between you and I have a combined edit total of 160,000 edits, made over a combined twelve years. Overlaps are inevitable. In sharp contrast, MM and SB have only a combined total of a tenth of that, 16,000 edits.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I know. But also for Mantanmoreland and ScottyBerg, overlaps are inevitable (do you want me to do this exercise on two accounts with ~10.000 edits each?). Have you actually read Birthday paradox? And do see, I have NOT listed any actual article overlaps, yet, and seen the list of 18 article overlaps between ScottyBerg and Mantanmoreland contains numerous which are not significantly edited by ScottyBerg and Mantanmoreland. I have not gone into the excercise of overlapping our edits - do you think it is going to be more or less than 200? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, did not give you time to answer, it is below (67 out of almost 160.000 vs. 6 out of almost 19.000). I've taken the liberty to do a couple more: Betacommand - Jclemens: a whopping 298 out of some 120.000 edits; Beetstra - ScottyBerg: 166 out of a 140.000 edits; Mantanmoreland - Jclemens: 5 out of 40.000, Elen of the Roads - ScottyBerg: 9 out of 27.000. Actually, having 6 overlapping articles in 20.000 looks a very normal overlap. But I doubt that that is a point that you will concede. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You know, I never had you down as an old Sicilophile romantic :)  Roger Davies ^talk 11:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was surprised that you went through the whole Montalbano series .. did you read them in Italian or in English? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

English. The only language I regularly read in recreationally other than English is French (though I did read a children's version of Pinocchio in Italian once).  Roger Davies ^talk 11:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I must confess - me too (though some are available in Dutch). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

User overlap between Roger Davies and Beetstra:

1. Adam Mickiewicz 2/2 [1, 2]
2. Afghanistan 2/2 [1, 2]
3. Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria 2/2 [1, 2]
4. Arthur Koestler 2/2 [1, 2]
5. Artillery 2/2 [1, 2]
6. Birth control 2/2 [1, 2]
7. Buchenwald concentration camp 2/2 [1, 2]
8. Chemical warfare 2/2 [1, 2]
9. Chinua Achebe 2/2 [1, 2]
10. Chris Langham 2/2 [1, 2]
11. Christian Dior 2/2 [1, 2]
12. Commonwealth of Nations 2/2 [1, 2]
13. DCO 2/2 [1, 2]
14. Dachau concentration camp 2/2 [1, 2]
15. Daft Punk 2/2 [1, 2]
16. Eastern Front (World War II) 2/2 [1, 2]
17. Emily Dickinson 2/2 [1, 2]
18. Fighter aircraft 2/2 [1, 2]
19. Forensic linguistics 2/2 [1, 2]
20. French Foreign Legion 2/2 [1, 2]
21. Frédéric Beigbeder 2/2 [1, 2]
22. German cruiser Emden 2/2 [1, 2]
23. Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette 2/2 [1, 2]
24. HMS Lord Nelson (1906) 2/2 [1, 2]
25. Henri Cartier-Bresson 2/2 [1, 2]
26. Hitler Youth 2/2 [1, 2]
27. Invasion of Normandy 2/2 [1, 2]
28. Jane Austen 2/2 [1, 2]
29. Jean-Charles de Castelbajac 2/2 [1, 2]
30. Jean-Paul Sartre 2/2 [1, 2]
31. John Mortimer 2/2 [1, 2]
32. John Tyndall (politician) 2/2 [1, 2]
33. Kevlar 2/2 [1, 2]
34. Khyber Medical College 2/2 [1, 2]
35. La Complainte du Partisan 2/2 [1, 2]
36. Madrid 2/2 [1, 2]
37. Major scale 2/2 [1, 2]
38. Manx language 2/2 [1, 2]
39. Normandy 2/2 [1, 2]
40. Omaha Beach 2/2 [1, 2]
41. Organised crime in India 2/2 [1, 2]
42. Particulates 2/2 [1, 2]
43. Patrick Bruel 2/2 [1, 2]
44. Petroleum 2/2 [1, 2]
45. PlayStation 2 2/2 [1, 2]
46. Poker 2/2 [1, 2]
47. RMS Lusitania 2/2 [1, 2]
48. Reverse osmosis 2/2 [1, 2]
49. Rice 2/2 [1, 2]
50. Robert Bresson 2/2 [1, 2]
51. Robert W. Service 2/2 [1, 2]
52. Rugby union 2/2 [1, 2]
53. Siege of Leningrad 2/2 [1, 2]
54. Snowdonia 2/2 [1, 2]
55. Stelios Haji-Ioannou 2/2 [1, 2]
56. Tangier 2/2 [1, 2]
57. Tank 2/2 [1, 2]
58. Tarte Tatin 2/2 [1, 2]
59. Thomas and Friends 2/2 [1, 2]
60. Tomb of the Unknowns 2/2 [1, 2]
61. USS South Dakota (BB-57) 2/2 [1, 2]
62. Universe 2/2 [1, 2]
63. Varna 2/2 [1, 2]
64. Vietnam Veterans Memorial 2/2 [1, 2]
65. Xylyl bromide 2/2 [1, 2]
66. Zimbabwe 2/2 [1, 2]
67. Zinc 2/2 [1, 2]

67 out of ~160.000 (127929 & 29848)

vs.

User overlap between ScottyBerg and Mantanmoreland:

1. Brownsville, Brooklyn 2/2 [1, 2]
2. Gary Weiss 2/2 [1, 2]
3. Grand Concourse (Bronx) 2/2 [1, 2]
4. Harry Maione 2/2 [1, 2]
5. Henry Ford 2/2 [1, 2]
6. The Lost Weekend (film) 2/2 [1, 2]

6 out of ~19.000 (12730 & 5801).

We have a higher 'percentage' of overlap, Roger ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Confession: out of that list of 67, I would consider ~10 pages to be within my field of interest (chemistry, mainly). I do not have a specific interest in second world war or war-related pages, perfumes or fashion, politics, or other possible interests that you can find out of that list of 67. However, it is declared (or at least, Roger Davies declared) that the overlap of those 6 pages constitutes an overlapping interest in Gary Weiss, Thoroughfares in New York, classic movies and Mobsters. It seems that the overlapping interest in automobiles was not detected. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we do have a big overlap but that's caused by the large number of one-off reverts we've both done over the years. What is interesting is if you compare Mantanmore to a random bunch (arbitrators in this case), you get a much lower overlap than the Mantanmoreland / Scotty Berg one. Thus: AGK (1); Casliber (0); Courcelles (21); David Fuchs (0); Elen of the Roads (0); Hersfold (1); Jclemens (5); Kirill (1); Newyorkbrad (2); Phil Knight (5); Risker (3); Roger (2); SilkTork (2); SirFozzie (2); Xeno (4), resulting in an average overlap of just over 3 edits. Obviously, Courcelles inflated that considerably because of his gigantic edit count. If you take him out of the equation, the average drops to 2 edits.

I started doing the same exercise comparing members of the New York Wikiproject with Mantanmoreland (but abandoned it after a dozen or so) with similar (overlap of 2-3) results. While this is great fun and so on, life is too short to spend much more time crunching figures.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Absolutely, Roger Davies:

1. Brownsville, Brooklyn 2/2 [1, 2]

   Both are from New York area

   Mantanmoreland did one edit regarding Murder incorporated. Hence, overlap with the mobster point above. ScottyBerg 2 sets of edits on two days in June 2011 (multiple diff on 17th (adding a see also, removing a sentence which seems trivial, remove a wikilink - the see also includes Murder Inc.), multiple diff on 26th (one reorganisation, adding an image)). Heavily edited page of very well known area. Maybe an overlap of interest

2. Grand Concourse (Bronx) 2/2 [1, 2]

   Overlapping with the 'thoroughfares in New York' point above.

   2 edits groups by ScottyBerg, group of edits, group of edits, significant expansions. Mantanmoreland similarly 2 edit groups, group of edits, group of edits. Also expanding. Maybe an overlap of interest

3. Harry Maione 2/2 [1, 2]

   Mobster (see above). Both only a vandalism revert (diff, diff), ScottyBerg used huggle on it (petty vandalism). Mantanmoreland removes unsourced statement regarding Murder Inc./Brooklyn Inc.. No evidence of overlap of interest whatsoever.

4. Henry Ford 2/2 [1, 2]

   Another very well known person, highly edited.

   ScottyBerg fixes a typo, Mantanmoreland is reverting petty vandalism. No evidence of overlap of interest whatsoever.

5. The Lost Weekend (film) 2/2 [1, 2]

   Classic movie, 7 Acadamy award nominations, likely many people have seen this.

   Scottyberg did two consecutive edits to this page (adding an image, plot expansion); two consecutive edits by Mantanmoreland, expanding sentences (plot expansion, wikilink).

6. Gary Weiss

   Both significant number of edits.

So, what were you saying about 'us having a large number of edits due to one-off reverts we've both done'? If we take out those we end up with 4 here, and unlike most of the Arbs you mention, both ScottyBerg and Mantanmoreland lived in New York. Do note, we both lived most of our life in Europe, and see where we do have quite some overlap ... No, Roger, I still believe it is insignificant, all of this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

And AGK (20); Casliber (50); Courcelles (489); David Fuchs (6); Elen of the Roads (9); Hersfold (28); Jclemens (84); Kirill (30); Newyorkbrad (17); Phil Knight (165); Risker (17); Roger (10); SilkTork (60); SirFozzie (2); Xeno (52).

Doing the same excercise for Wikiproject New York members .. 12, 5, 69, 66, 9, 0, 11 ...

So, while there is no overlap between the current Arbs and Mantanmoreland, and while there is just a slightly higher overlap between Mantanmoreland and ScottyBerg, a massive overlap between the current Arbs and ScottyBerg exists (an average of 70 edits, close to our overlap, Roger Davies), and ScottyBerg also overlaps more with the New York WikiProject. Those 6 are just as insignificant as all the other overlaps that were found .. they mean absolutely nothing. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Lets get back to this point, Roger Davies. You see that ScottyBerg has a lot of overlap between himself and the majority of the Arbs. On the other hand, Mantanmoreland has just marginally more overlap with ScottyBerg than with all the Arbs. So what do these overlaps tell us? I doubt that you will concede that the answer is 'nothing'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)(adapted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC))

?? I entirely agree that overlaps by themselves mean little, particularly when comparing people with high edit counts. What they do though is provide paths for further enquiry even if the results have been distorted by one-off edits.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the point is that, going through the overlaps, there's still nothing that pops out, so we still don't understand what this irrefutable evidence is that so many checkusers apparently saw. Silverseren^C 17:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Roger Davies. And you have given us quite some of those paths above (the 22 points). However, in many of those cases the overlap is so thin that the circumstantial evidence becomes practically inadmissible. You have, per Silver seren, still not shown any irrefutable evidence. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Using myself as an example

I just wanted to use myself as an example of how creepily close some user's edits can be. Doing a comparison between myself and Bongwarrior (I hope he doesn't mind me bringing him up), you get this. As you can see, there's a lot of eerily specific overlaps in there that even I can't explain. Silverseren^C 16:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not convinced of the true effectiveness of Stalker, though maybe i am not using it correctly. (On a side note, what do the numbers after the articles - 2/2 [1, 2] - mean?) I've done this a few times, and notice sizable overlap with users I barely know - sometimes even more than the overlap with those edits of my Dad, who retired from editing over a year ago. Is there a better tool (or a better way of using this particular tool) to detect overlap? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's very good for indicating where to start looking but it it would be much improved with the ability to set a threshold for overlaps, ie 2 edits or more, 3 edits or more, and so on.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The tool just shows which articles are edited by both. Unfortunately, you still have to dig for the actual diffs yourself. It can be an indication, but as shown in my analysis, a lot of it is just totally unrelated - 2 random editors may have a massive overlap (see the numbers in one of these sections comparing ScottyBerg with the Arbs, 70 on average), while known socks have hardly any overlap (try Mantanmoreland with his known socks, the highest number is about 12, average is 6). Based on the article overlap alone, almost all the arbs are likely socks of ScottyBerg, and ScottyBerg is unlikely a sock of Mantanmoreland. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but who relies on the raw data anyway? What it is useful for is pinning down where to start looking.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

And then you have to start looking at it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

0. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

MajorStovall

Regarding this: Mantanmoreland and MajorStovall have 0 article overlaps. MajorStovall has only done one. Now, MajorStovall was active during the other Mantanmoreland socks, so I have a question here regarding the CheckUser data: did the CheckUser data here reveal that the two editors actually were overlapping in IP (using the same IP at some time close together), or is the IP-address evidence of the same type as between ScottyBerg-Mantanmoreland (they were using the same provider). I know the data is stale, but, in the spirit of transparency, could we know what type of evidence showed the definite evidence that this was a sock, was this direct overlap of IP, was this 'they use the same provider', or editing overlap? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Question to ArbCom/CU initiated by the SirFozzie remark

SirFozzie stated (diff):

Third: Alison contacted the Committee to alert us she was on the verge of blocking the user, and carefully and congently explained why she was about to do so. We told her that we had no problem with the initial block, but would carefully consider any appeal from ScottyBerg. When that appeal was made, Nearly a dozen checkusers and arbitrators carefully scruitinized the evidence linking the two accounts. A couple of this number provided background information only, but recused from any formal decision as they were involved in the original case that ended up sanctioning the user that ScottyBerg was linked with. However, every arbitrator and check user who reviewed this case concurred with the finding linking the two accounts.

I have bolded one sentence there that attracts the interest. That sentence suggests strongly that there is somewhere a copy of evidence information, a long list of overlaps, tell-tale edits, unusual idiolects, strange word use, common typos, overlapping articles, &c. &c. And that ArbCom and CheckUsers have gone through that long list, confirming that all those points were overlaps.

My question to ArbCom or involved CheckUsers:

• Were all of the editors who scrutinised the evidence provided with said copy of the evidence that was collected by Alison, or were all those editors working on their own account trying to link the editors together without having seen any other evidence, collecting their own overlaps? How many editors did perform the analysis from scratch? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.