Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:29, 12 February 2008

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 02:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 18:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC).

• Mantanmoreland (talk · contribs · logs)
• Samiharris (talk · contribs · logs) (Account has left a statement saying that he's left Misplaced Pages)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

There has been concern that User:Mantanmoreland, who had previously been warned by former ArbCom member User:Fred Bauder for using an alternate/additional account, User:Lastexit in ways that violated Misplaced Pages policy was using the account User:Samiharris to violate Misplaced Pages's rules on multiple accounts. A CheckUser was performed between the two accounts, and came back Inconclusive, for one account had only edited via open proxies. Since a technical match could not be made, it fell to a less precise, more imperfect way to compare the two accounts, via details such as time of edits, as well as common targets, and editing style to determine if the two accounts could be considered a match via The Duck Test. An investigation was performed, and the details are available via the following pages: my initial investigation, and Additional evidence compiled by interested editors. It is time to take the next step with that evidence at hand.

Desired outcome

The community needs to view the evidence and come to a consensus on whether the accounts are to be considered a match via The Duck Test. I invite the greater community to view the evidence provided and to determine if the accounts are the same. If there is no consensus that the two accounts are the same via this test, then no further action needs to be taken. If the two accounts are considered the same, then further action needs to be contemplated, whether to restrict one or both accounts via blocks, topical restrictions, up to a sitewide ban.

Description

The most telling bits of evidence compiled in the evidence gathering phase of this project:

1) The two accounts never edit at the same time, going back to January 31st, 2007 (when the Samiharris account was created). That means that despite the two accounts having roughly 4000 edits combined over the last year, and having roughly similar editing habits (there is a graphic on the sandbox page that shows how similar editing patterns the two had by time frame), the edits are always one account, then the other. There are rare occurences where they edit on the same day.

2) There is a long list of grammatical similarities, uncommon phrases, and shorthand that the two accounts share, that other accounts do not share.

There is numerous other bits of evidence that provisionally links the two together.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.) See the following evidence pages generated during the project:

Investigation page diff as of when this RfC was started
Investigation Sandbox page diff as of when this RfC was started

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:SOCK
2. WP:CIVIL

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. Myself asking Mantanmoreland for an explanation of the evidence I've found
2. Durova asking Mantanmoreland to post any exculaptory evidence that he has. Mantanmoreland later calls it a kangaroo court and withdraws without answering publicly.
3. Cla68 participation in WP:AN discussion concerning possible sockpuppeting in which Mantanmoreland is also involved.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Realized I never signed this as the initator of this RfC. My apologies. SirFozzie (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
2. With respect toward all sides, I believe community input is required here. This dispute has been festering far too long. As of now I am neutral regarding the merits of the sock investigation, and request all participants to communicate here in a productive manner, without harnessing personal theories about Misplaced Pages dynamics. Let us examine the facts both pro and con and try to come to a rational consensus. Durova 03:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
3. I have been heavily involved with this issue for more than a year in which I have interacted extensively with and observed both Mantanmoreland and Samiharris in both project and article space. The diff showing my participation in the discussion about this particular sockpuppeting allegation is included above. Therefore, I believe that I can also certify the basis for this dispute. Cla68 (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. krimpet✽ 04:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
2. I can't certify because I've not asked Mantanmoreland for any action, but this is all true. Cool Hand Luke 04:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Whenever any editors display the same singlemindedness on the other side of the issues Sami/Mantan are preoccupied with, they're bound to be blocked as sock/meatpuppets of WordBomb... it's time to drop the double standard and treat the opposing sides identically. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Per observations and input at the Investigation and Sandbox, and per Dan T's concerns. Achromatic (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Everyking (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Not having been involved in any of this, but reading the recent materials, I agree that this statement is accurate as to both information presented and goals/objectives. I am concerned that DanT's comments are closer to the 'truth' than is good for the encyclopedia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Having read through the evidence in detail to-date - Alison 16:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Yes, I've read through the evidence closely and the statement appears to be accurate. Whitstable 17:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Cool Hand Luke

It's important to remember that Mantanmoreland has abusively used at least two sockpuppet accounts in the past, Lastexit, and Tomstoner. He never admitted to this, nor did he apologize, but the accounts fell into disuse after User:Fred Bauder warned him. With that in mind, consider these facts:

• Samiharris always used a proxy.
• Mantanmoreland and Samiharris shared a POV, and were especially prolific on articles related to Naked short selling, Overstock.com, and Gary Weiss.
• They edited dozens of the same articles at similar times and to similar ends, and !voted on several issues together.
• Mantanmoreland and Samiharris edit at precisely the same times of day. (see chart, details)
• In spite of this fact, they have only edited within 30 minutes of each other five times over the last year. (details)
• Both accounts have used uncommon expressions such as "asked and answered many times," and "lipstick on a pig"—in fact it appears the latter expression has only occurred 14 times in talk space, and two of those instances were from Mantanmoreland and Samiharris.
• A lengthy catalog has been compiled of editing traits which these two accounts share. Of particular note are edit summaries using the strings " -- ", "rply", "duplicative", "Talk" (capitalized referring to talk page), and "as per" (instead of simply "per"). These traits are seen in several edit summaries by both of these accounts. Mantanmoreland's previous socks also shared many of these traits. However, these traits are uncommon among editors at large, based on cross-section of Misplaced Pages editors. (summary table)

Given Mantanmoreland's history of abuse, and given that these accounts shared interests, ideologies, "phraseologies," editing traits, and hours of operation, this is an easy case.

These are sockpuppets.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Cool Hand Luke 04:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
2. The evidence is strong. But even if it weren't, they'd certainly be meatpuppets at least, by the standards that are constantly used on anybody who displays similar zeal for the opposite side of the culture wars. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Endorsed. CHL gives a good summation of investigation. Achromatic (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Cla68 (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Endorsed. Too many "coincidences." Huldra (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
6. No reasonable doubt. Everyking (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
7. The evidence Luke has presented is just far too strong to ignore. krimpet✽ 16:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
8. hard not to say yes to at least meatpuppets. And plenty more than is usually required for an AN/I duck test. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Endorsed. CHL's work has solidified a lot of links that were vague and unclear when this started. SirFozzie (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
10. - Alison 16:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Some very useful evidence, thanks to hard work by CHL, that for me shows the difference between possible meatpuppets and possible sockpuppets. Whitstable 17:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Quack. Too much evidence, coincidence, commonality and similarity to ignore or explain away. Strands make a rope. Open to an explanation, as always. But this does not preclude forming of a working conclusion given the evidence. FT2  18:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Durova

To paraphrase and expand upon my query to Mantanmoreland of a few days ago:

• Mantanmoreland formerly used a second account in a way that brought a reprimand from Fred Bauder.
• Possibly the Tomstoner account is also related; Mantanmoreland appears to have modified a Tomstoner edit and referred to it in the first person, and refused to answer queries about that.
• Either Mantanmoreland or Sami Harris always edits from an open proxy.
• Both the Mantanmoreland and Sami Harris accounts share a lot of common interests, edit dozens of the same articles, and tend to agree with each other.
• Both accounts have rich edit histories containing thousands of edits, and often edit the same article during the same week.
• Both accounts edit during the same time of day; their average edit stamp is 10 minutes apart.
• The two accounts are never or almost never actually online simultaneously (out of 4000 combined edits during calendar year 2007, only five possible overlaps have been found).
• Per findings described here, Mantanmoreland edited several articles in summer 2007 in a manner which, at minimum, looks like the two bypassed normal onsite input to redirect several articles into a newly created article of their making.

That's enough to raise a reasonable person's eyebrow. We assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary, yet this rises to a level that merits a response and I'd like to see reasonable explanations if such can be made.

Likewise, a few words for the people who have been pursuing this for months. Per a new section I added to a site essay:

If something's wrong and it's not getting fixed, please be patient and keep working on fixing it the right way. If you let your own standards drop because you get frustrated, people will go ewwww and walk away. Then it'll take even longer to get your problem solved. That's not a happy place to be.

I considered looking into this matter nearly half a year ago, but backed away out of distaste at the methods that were being used to pursue it. Since then those methods got worse. SirFozzie and I made a hard decision to overlook that side of the equation when we dug into this. So to make this clear: that didn't get my attention; it slowed things down. And in the future I'd likely turn my back entirely. People who countenanced those things say they had to because Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution doesn't work. That claim might hold water if this page were named Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mantanmoreland II or Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mantanmoreland III or Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mantanmoreland IV. So I ask all Wikipedians, onsite and offsite, to stand up for fair play. Durova 05:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. At this point I find the evidence to be rather strong, but per Durova (and comments I once made in a somewhat similar case in terms of the nature of the investigation) I want to remain open to a reply from Mantanmoreland, including more convincing exculpatory evidence than that which was provided here. I also echo Durova's enjoinder that we proceed in as fair and meticulous a fashion as possible on this controversial matter (which has, I think, been the case so far).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
2. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
3. SirFozzie (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
4. - per Bigtimepeace, awaiting a reply from Mantanmoreland - Alison 16:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Bigtimepeace

I'd like to consider a hypothetical situation, or put the cart before the horse, or get way ahead of myself and the facts of the matter in an ill-advised manner, or whatever else you might like to call it. At this point I find the evidence rather persuasive while still remaining open to evidence that leads me in the opposite direction. However I'm going to offer an opinion on how, in a very general sense, we ought to proceed if the community comes to some agreement that these two accounts are controlled by the same person. To summarize the key point at the outset: I would consider that behavior an extremely egregious abuse of the community's trust and one warranting severe sanctions.

If the sock accusations are found to be true, based on the evidence I think we would have to conclude that the user in question engaged in double !voting and collusion between supposedly distinct accounts to create consensus on certain issues/articles. Obviously this is not an acceptable use of sockpuppets per policy. Beyond this fact though I would offer the simple point that the editor in question chose to repeatedly deny that the Samiharris and Mantanmoreland accounts were operated by the same person, apparently going to great lengths (to cite just one possible example) in order to do so. It is the manner in which deception would have been compounded by deception that I would find so deeply disturbing - again assuming that the accusations are generally agreed to be true.

It is entirely possible that there will not be agreement that Samiharris is a sock of Mantanmoreland and in that case this comment will be irrelevant at best. But if there is agreement on the sock accusation I think we have a serious problem. This whole issue is (and has been) a dramafest wrapped in a dramatic festival for reasons that will be obvious to most folks who comes to this RfC. But of course all that should be quite irrelevant to how we proceed (and here I think I am echoing Durova's comment above).

If the community decides that Mantanmoreland has engaged in abusive sockpuppetry and lied about it afterward to boot (which of course comes on after the sock!) then the editor in question should - regardless of the history of this dispute or the good contributions the user may have made in the past - face severe sanctions as would any less-well-known-and-respected (or - importantly - less-controversial) editor in the same situation.

But again, and I mean this in all seriousness, this is an opinion based on a hypothetical situation which may or may not come to pass. However I also believe it is an opinion that needs to be expressed from the outset.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.