Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:03, 1 September 2007

Arbitrators active on this case

• Blnguyen
• Charles Matthews
• FloNight
• Fred Bauder
• Jdforrester
• Jpgordon
• Kirill Lokshin
• Mackensen
• Matthew Brown (Morven)
• Paul August
• Raul654
• SimonP
• UninvitedCompany

Away/inactive:

• Flcelloguy
• Neutrality (Ben)

RalphLender and Aweidman

What of these two accounts? There is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence linking them to the DPeterson sock farm. Is it too ambiguous to make a formal finding regarding these accounts? shotwell 00:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Matching concern to the above: if such strong behavioral evidence, combined with

1. Existance of 4 known socks (denied)
2. Apparent deliberate attempts to separate at least some of the proven socks to different IPs by using different computers for different socks ("It appears that the puppetmaster has attempted to keep the accounts segregated, but has occasionally slipped up.")
3. Continuation of DPeterson/RalphLender editing as identical editors even during arb

does not establish puppet status beyond reasonable doubt to an actionable level, then that's almost rewriting WP:SOCK to state that behaviorally evidenced socks cannot be actioned without IP evidence. It's an extreme take on the appropriate evidence level. A principle that strong enough behavioral evidence alone can be enough to demonstrate puppetry (or likely puppetry), would be useful to establish. FT2 01:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

NB - Often, behavioral match is the most reliable formal evidence that will exist, as DPeterson appears to have attempted in this case. FT2 02:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

For anybody bright enough to use two computers, behavioural evidence is the only evidence that ever will exist. Fainites 21:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also possible to check the location of the IPs, right? If the IPs are different, but from the same place (here, the Buffalo area, where Dr. Becker-Weidman is based), that seems like good evidence. Of course, that won't be the only relevant consideration, because it would be easy enough to use a friend or colleague from a different city as a meatpuppet. StokerAce 23:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

RalphLender

I note with great concern that no sanction is yet proposed for "RalphLender".

To recap, the "RalphLender" account has co-warred indistinguishably from DPeterson and his other 4 socks, has engaged in the same smears and rhetoric, has moved to the same articles at the same time to co-war with DPeterson against the same "opponents" on many (not just a few) articles and occasions, and is very strongly linked by behavior as the same person.

Checkuser matching is almost superfluous to ID these accounts as either the same user, or at least as indistinguishable POV-war accounts. Their behavior and behavioral evidence, along with the known mass creation of socks already, with the checkuser's comment that there have already been persistent attempts visible in the existing socks to keep them segregated, is sufficient to evidence this, and in the past users have been identified as socks and indef removed on similar or less behavioral evidence.

With all respect to the private discussions of the committee, it would presently be incomprehensible to me if these two accounts were not treated, as they have warred, the same.

FT2. 17:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Closing would be premature

As I see it, it would be a mistake for the Committee to close this case without addressing three very important items:

1. The fate of "RalphLender".
2. The role of AWeidman.
3. The disposition of the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy article.

Each of these issues have been raised as fundamental to the dispute, and leaving them unaddressed is, in my opinion, disrespectful to those who have taken much time and effort to bring them forth. (Note that I said, "leaving them unaddressed" as opposed to decided in a certain way.)

While a parsimonious approach to arbitration is desirable, it is hardly the primum mobile of dispute resolution. The community needs to know that not only is there a resolution process for disputes, but it is one that is reasonable, accessible, understandable, and not arbitrary. Can any of the arbitrators presently voting to close this case honestly say that such standards have been met by the totality of the remedies presently adopted?

Anyone attempting to understand the evolving "common law" of Misplaced Pages by studying this case would, I think, be baffled. Why was DPeterson blocked for only a year by the Committee though there was substantial evidence of significant disruption by him for over a year. Meanwhile, why was a conspirator, RalphLender, banned indefinitely -- not by the Committee but by the Committee's clerk? Why was AWeidman never formally brought into the case, despite substantial evidence of his centrality? Why was the unrefuted evidence of advertising for Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy ignored altogether? Meantime, a number of accusations from the "other side" were also left unaddressed, leaving some reputations besmirched.

User:Shotwell warned the community, through the megaphone of this case, that allowing editors to use, with impunity, this dispute-resolution process to defame other editors was a "deal breaker" with him. This Committee apparently is prepared to ignore his warning. Without knowing Shotwell's ultimate decision here, I think the Committee ignores such sentiment at the project's peril. If people with intelligence and integrity are treated in such a manner, word will spread and contributions of true value will dry up. As the community serves only a few callow enthusiasts, the project will dry up.

Maybe all this is as it should be. Maybe Misplaced Pages, as a first attempt of its kind, should fail, so that successors can arise that do not have its shortcomings. Sort of web-based natural selection, perhaps. If I were on this Committee, though, I wouldn't want it to happen on my watch.

Larry Sarner 04:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• I can answer some questions easily. First of all, ArbCom never bans anyone for more than a year. AWeidman was never brought into the case because he's made exactly two edits in the last ten months, and so didn't seem to be an issue. RalphLender, on the other, was blocked as an abusive sockpuppet; he's blocked indefinitely in the same way all the DPeterson sockpuppets were blocked -- it doesn't take ArbCom action to do that, just identification as an abusive sockpuppet. We are not empowered to deal with content issues. --jpgordon 05:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)