Misplaced Pages

User talk:ScottyBerg: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:40, 12 January 2012 editScottyBerg (talk | contribs)12,729 edits →Update on indefinite block of ScottyBerg: r← Previous edit Revision as of 23:40, 12 January 2012 edit undoScottyBerg (talk | contribs)12,729 edits →Update on indefinite block of ScottyBerg: otherNext edit →
Line 309: Line 309:


::@Scotty: If you don't trust ArbCom, can you e-mail me a copy of your driver's license? ] (]) 23:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC) ::@Scotty: If you don't trust ArbCom, can you e-mail me a copy of your driver's license? ] (]) 23:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Quest, I'll think about it. I resent the whole issue, candidly, while I appreciate your offer. Cla68, if you look at the edits, I originally simply reverted Cookiehead's edit adding an entire section on Weiss' weight. He reverted me. Instead of taking it to the talk page or DR, as I should have done, I went to the source he quoted and broadened that section to include his speaking engagements. In retrospect that wasn't very good judgment, as it didn't help the UNDUE issue much, while ameliorating the BLP concern. While at that site I saw something that needed to be added, which is that he has a friggin book coming out! That's a lot more important in the BLP of an author than his weight, don't you think. So I added it, using the publishers site as a source. I don't see anything wrong with using the publisher's site as a source for that kind of edit, and I stand by that edit. Right now the article is odd as there is a book in bibliography that isn't mentioned in the article. ] (]) 23:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC) :::Quest, I'll think about it. I resent the whole issue, candidly, while I appreciate your offer. Cla68, if you look at the edits, I originally simply reverted Cookiehead's edit adding an entire section on Weiss' weight. He reverted me. Instead of taking it to the talk page or DR, as I should have done, I went to the source he quoted and broadened that section to include his other speaking engagements. In retrospect that wasn't very good judgment, as it didn't help the UNDUE issue much, while ameliorating the BLP concern. While at that site I saw something that needed to be added, which is that he has a friggin book coming out! That's a lot more important in the BLP of an author than his weight, don't you think. So I added it, using the publishers site as a source. I don't see anything wrong with using the publisher's site as a source for that kind of edit, and I stand by that edit. Right now the article is odd as there is a book in bibliography that isn't mentioned in the article. ] (]) 23:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:40, 12 January 2012

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
User talk
  • If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
  • Please click here to leave me a new message.
New messages appear at the bottom of this page.

This is ScottyBerg's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Bowery song

It came up in a Google search when I searched precisely for Bowery + "Trip to Chinatown" http://www.archive.org/details/TheBoweryFromATripToChinatown. I am staying at a hotel on the Bowery and I remembered this song from the America Sings ride at Disneyland :) Keizers (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


Thanks, that's good to know. I'm surprised it's in the public domain as it sounds like a recent recording. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Filipa Moniz Perestrelo

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Filipa Moniz Perestrelo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you please review my article?

Hey :) I am kinda new here and slightly clueless. I do understand that you are busy but I made this new article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Chhundo. I do know that it is a low priority article etc but want to be confident if this is how good articles are started. Do you mind reviewing it for me, please? :) Or, could you redirect me to someone who may be free to help? Thanks! Noopur28 (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I didn't create Dabeli but I will try to contribute to it. Most references are not digitized hence finding them is a problem. Thanks for the speedy response :) Noopur28 (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thanks for taking time out and explaining! Cheers :) Noopur28 (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Abbas

Hi -- you are asking good questions at the AfD, but they are based on a false premise (not one introduced by you). There is no BLP violation on the talk page -- it has been a very sensible discussion about whether to include information on the basis of the sources available. There is no small amount of misinformation in the AfD nomination and certain contributions by some delete !voters. I have been the main established contributor keeping watch over this article for the last two years -- if you have any questions about it I'll be happy to address them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying - I appreciate it. I'm just trying to figure out why people are so vehemently in favor of deletion. I really respect DGG, and he's no deletionist as you know. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a legitimate broader concern about BLPs containing untrue negative information. In this case, that concern is misplaced: the information is negative, but it's not untrue (as evident for the fact that Abbas apologized for his errors ). JN466 has been very keen to give a different impression, and I agree that the reason is a puzzle. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
At this point there is no negative information of any kind. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
True. JN466 is nominating it now because I proposed to add a single sentence (based on the source above, with NPOV as a perfectly reasonable rationale), and it was becoming apparent that he was likely to lose the argument. It's a content dispute masquerading as a deletion discussion, in which JN466 is happy to foster the impression that there is some massive BLP violation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, I haven't followed the underlying dispute very closely. I know that there are good reasons not to include negative information apart from sourcing. Perhaps it's undue weight. Right now I have a fairly open mind, and I was hoping to get a response from DGG or another of the "deletes" that might address my concerns. I'm happy to change my vote to delete if there are sufficient grounds. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity, how are you able to read Jayen's mind to know just what he is thinking? Also, why do you desire so badly to include the negative information about that person in the article? Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really interested in your first question -- mainly because JN466 has repeatedly declined to answer some of my own questions about the basis for his actions. As for the second, it's really very simple (and I have been saying it consistently now for many months): NPOV, and the fact that the information (i.e., retraction of a scholarly article on grounds that parts were copied without proper attribution, a.k.a. plagiarism) is unquestionably true. It's not a terribly strong desire -- I'm likely to lose this argument and I won't shed any tears. But I do think it's the right approach. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
As long as you've dropped in, perhaps you can explain to me what harm is done to Abbas by that article as currently written. It seems fine to me. Can the problem be addressed by keeping the article, keeping out the plagiarism stuff if it's problematic, and nuking whatever in the talk pages or archives that doesn't belong there? ScottyBerg (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
From what I understand, the guy has asked for the article to be deleted. If an individual arguably does not meet WP's notability standard, which is the case here, IMO, then I think we should delete the article. Also, after what has happened to this article in the recent past, do you think if you were Abbas you would be inclined to trust WP's administration and its promises to watch his article and keep it clean, especially with established editors continuing to campaign to include a mention of the pejorative information? Cla68 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the article history, but I'll take a look. I understand why the subject would want it deleted, but I don't think that's enough. He seems pretty prominent, yet I'm struck by the vehemence of the deletion !votes. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
In giving the article history a skim, I understand more fully why the subject wants it deleted. The problem is the article in its previous version, but also the talk page. In effect, the talk page became a chat room where he was raked over the coals. I'm still not sure that deleting the article is the optimal way to deal with this. However, if policy allows subjects to request deletion in situations like this, then perhaps it should be deleted. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd be grateful to have a couple of examples of the BLP violations on the talk page. I'm fully committed to BLP myself, and it would help to have a better sense of what others in the community consider to be violations -- I will take seriously the possibility that I should consider them that way myself. As for the article, I too can understand why the subject wants it deleted, but I take a different view as to how much weight that desire should carry in situations like this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm talking about the extensive discussion, throughout the page, of plagiarism. Reading the page cold, without any preconceived notions about this dude, I came away with the view of him as a plagiarist who was fighting via IPs to keep this out of the encyclopedia. That was my overall impression, totally objective, uninvolved, not giving a hoot. I don't think we can properly subject subjects of BLPs to that kind of treatment if there is a valid reason not to include the plagiarism stuff, as apparently there was. In effect, it negates the decision not to include the plagiarism allegations because it's all laid out in the talk page. I'm not pointing figures or accusing anyone, just sayin. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. It puzzles me, however. My view, rooted in sustained close attention to the article, the talk page, and the relevant sources, is that he was a plagiarist fighting via IPs to keep it out of the encyclopedia (after his primary account, Drtahir007, was blocked for sockpuppets). Certainly prior to the point at which the Times Higher Education article was removed from their website (only a couple of weeks ago), there wasn't a valid reason not to include it. Even now, we know via the Citizenship Studies retraction linked above that, whatever its problems might be, the Times Higher article was not incorrect in its claims about that journal article. What I find so unfortunate about the AfD discussion is that many of those voting delete appear to believe he has been mistreated insofar as the plagiarism allegations are untrue, when in fact at a minimum the CS-related claims are true -- in which case it is not a BLP violation to include them (though of course also reasonable to take the other view), still less to discuss them on the talk page. I imagine this discussion might start to test your patience, and again i'm grateful for your thoughts so far. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Nomo, with all due respect I think you're missing my point. As you know, I voted originally to keep because I didn't see what all the fuss was about. It was a positive article. He seemed reasonably notable. But when I turned to the talk page and weighed the delete comments, especially DGG, I began to understand the problem. It's not that random vandals have stopped in at the page to heave insults at Abbas. It's that respectable users, with unimpeachable motives, have been focused on the plagiarism allegations, giving the impression of him as an unethical and dishonest person. Previous versions of the article gave undue weight to the plagiarism allegations. Since evidently we allow subjects of biographies who are marginally notable to request deletion, I changed my vote. I am by nature a deletionist who believes that there is far too much in Misplaced Pages that just doesn't belong there, and that paring it all down is a good idea. Keep that in mind. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings


<font=3> Wishing you a
"Feliz Navidad and a Prospero Año Nuevo"
(Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year)
Tony the Marine (talk)

Thanks very much! My best to you and your family. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

A Barnstar


 The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For participation in this discussion. Thanks for your input. Acps110 18:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. It's greatly appreciated. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012


Please comment on Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

Please comment on Talk:Peter Stanley

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Peter Stanley. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:User Box

Heck no, for me it is an honor. You know Scotty, to tell you the truth, even though at the beginning we got got off on the wrong foot, I too have come to appreciate your work and have learned to not jump the gun so quickly on issues. Thanks. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

Hi there. I'm blocking your account indefinitely as a sock of banned editor, User:Mantanmoreland. I've already discussed the matter and the evidence (including checkuser evidence) with the Arbitration Committee before blocking your account and I suggest you defer to them for unblock requests - Alison 18:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know what's going on here? The Mantanmoreland case was before my time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Scotty, can you e-mail me and tell me what's going on? Are you this Mantanmoreland? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I would like for you to e-mail me too about this. Acps110 18:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
For everyone's benefit, here's a link to the evidence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Ha. The person who reported Scotty was also blocked as a sock. Don't you love Misplaced Pages? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I just saw this. It's absolutely insane. What "contributions"? What "checkuser evidence"? If there is checkuser evidence, then it just proves that checkuser evidence can be wrong. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Wait, this report is from September of last year. Am I looking at the wrong one? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing else to which I have been notified. Just what you see from Alison. "Contributions." "Checkuser." WTF???? ScottyBerg (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what's going on. No one has even edited Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mantanmoreland since 17:42, September 12, 2011. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The nexus of that SPI was that I had edited Gary Weiss (the alleged RL identity of Mantanmoreland) hence I must be Mantanmoreland. That was absurd, because I blundered into the Weiss article via Huggle, which is an automated tool. I recently edited the article again, which I see has resulted in chatter off-wiki. Yes, I've watchlisted the article and yes, I edited it again. A user had wanted to add a section that was contrary to BLP. Those are the "contributions." I can't speak to the checkuser. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
HelloAnnoying closed it as a bad faith report. This is all so weird. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's what makes it weirder: I'm in this mess because of an automated tool. They should check my contributions and my original involvement in Gary Weiss. I'll go back and find it myself. That's what it all boils down to, if you read Misplaced Pages Review, as obviously Alison does. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Here: my first edit to Gary Weiss was 17:14 12 May 2011. It was a Huggle edit. I had been on Huggle for the preceding 20 minutes, long before the vandal arrived in Weiss.. That's how I became involved in that article. Those are the "contributions." So it's that, recent editing that raised the ire of people at Misplaced Pages Review, and, what, I am in the same ISP as Mantanmoreland? For that you ban an editor who has been here for two years and has 12,000 contributions?
Is Alison suggesting that I had clairvoyance that a vandal was arriving at Gary Weiss, began editing that article twenty minutes (or more) in advance, and then swooped in so that I could then watchlist it and do Mantanmoreland-like editing? And doing this approximately eighteen months after creating my account?ScottyBerg (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Relax, it might just be some crazy mistake. I'll start a discussion at ANI. I think Alison may have gone offline. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I certainly hope so. Since I'm blocked, I can't contribute to the discussion. Perhaps I can be unblocked for that purpose. It doesn't seem fair to not be allowed to participate. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, I started a discussion at ANI. I'm hoping that this is all some crazy mixup. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Obviously, no one at AN/I can or will do anything in regards to a CheckUser block. The proper avenue is appeal to ArbCom. I suggest both of you stop complaining here and at AN/I, and ScottyBerg email ArbCom for appeal. Otherwise, you're just wasting your own time. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I have contacted Arbcom, of course. But Alison said this block was based on contributions as well as checkuser. It would have to be, because otherwise it would not make any sense at all, given that I have been here for two years and have made 12,000 edits. I've just explained how contributions couldn't possibly justify a block. Since that is the case, what difference would it make if I used the same ISP as a banned user? ScottyBerg (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
It looks like this is too scary for any of the brave people at ANI to touch William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I can understand why they don't want to discuss checkuser findings, at least publicly, because of the privacy policy. But what about my contributions? How can anyone seriously suggest that my contributions are suggestive of sockpuppeting? If they are suggesting that there are multiple articles that suggest sockpuppeting, what are those articles? Were they also Huggle contributions? ScottyBerg (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
They're saying a CheckUser was performed and apparently it said you were this other person. They're also saying that your only recourse is to appeal to ArbCom. If the allegation is true, I suggest that the best way to move forward is to admit it. You've been editing Misplaced Pages for two years without any problems AFAIK, so I don't see a need to keep a block on a productive editor. Of course, that's just my opinion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
But I'm not that other account, and (as far as I know) my first edit suggesting otherwise took place eighteen months after I started editing! ScottyBerg (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Scott, if you like, I can file an appeal on your behalf to ArbCom. If I were to do so, I would argue you've been editing productively under this account for 2 years, have 12,000+ edits, and you've been able to do so without any issues. There's no point in blocking productive editors who aren't causing any problems. Perhaps WMC might be willing to jointly file the appeal with me? Many editors have a lot of respect for Dr. Connolley so his endorsement might help a great deal. But here's the thing and I cannot stress this enough: If you really are a sock of this other user, it's best to just fess up and come clean. Lying will be held against you. Please think about that carefully before responding. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and yes, I would appreciate it if you could appeal. I have an appeal myself pending with Arbcom, but I don't see how it can hurt. As for your final point, I don't have to think carefully because I am not a sock of anyone. One question: I can't find the wikistalk tool, so I can't compare my edits with Mantanmoreland. Does it still exist? My top edited pages and his bear no resemblancce. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
wikistalk --SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, there are two ways we can appeal:
a) The sock puppet allegation is wrong.
b) It doesn't matter whether sock puppet allegation is correct or not. People who can productively edit Misplaced Pages for 2 years without any problems shouldn't be blocked.
The problem with a) is that I don't know anything about sock puppet investigations. I don't know how they're conducted. I don't know what sort of evidence is considered acceptable. I rarely, if ever, comment on them. IOW, I'm not qualified to make that argument. I'm willing to make argument b) but a) is not something I know much about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Stalker report--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Is that good or bad? For comparison, here's me with Mantanmoreland, ScottyBerg, Sphilbrick, William M. Connolley, and Silver seren. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Quest, to answer your first question, what is galling to me is how I'm being blocked for an article that I found through Huggle. It's really that simple. I wouldn't be in this mess if I hadn't been Huggling. I have asked Arbcom to reinstate and I don't want to prejudice that, but I just don't think this is even remotely fair. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Amusingly if you compare Alison to Mantanmoreland (as a random related example) there seems to be more intersection than with yourself. Which doesn't give me a lot of faith in the tool ;) --Errant 23:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
(Stop edit conflicting me, gosh darnit!) User:Edinburgh Wanderer reverted my comment for some reason, here's what I said.
"Oh no, look. I have 7 articles in common with A Quest For Knowledge, we must be the same person! Oh no, Phil, I must be you too!. I bet you didn't guess that I was Alison all along, did you?" Silverseren 23:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's me with Alison and Jimbo A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Silverseren, before you were reverted, you also said, "That's it? That's all there is? 6 actual articles in total. This is absolutely worthless." ScottyBerg (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm hardly an expert on the tool, have only used it a couple times, but I'll take mild issue with errant's "lack of faith". The tool isn't making any pronouncements, simply identifying overlap, which gives pointers to investigators. It might be useful to look up known sockpuppets, to get a sense of what a true positive looks like.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I apparently have a ton of overlap with Bongwarrior. It's kinda freaky. I can see why ED thinks we're the same person. Silverseren 00:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
@SPhilbrick; oh, sure, I can see how it could be useful. Unfortunately it runs afoul of statistical fallacy - which means on such low numbers I wouldn't trust it to tell you much. I suspect you could get greater intersection with any number of regular editors on here (for example anyone on BLP watch will probably intersect heavily with me; i.e. Off2riorob and I share over 100 articles in common: http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/stalker/?db=enwiki_p&user1=Off2riorob&user2=ErrantX&namespace=0&namespace=1&) --Errant 00:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to be a broken record, but based on the previous report and the thread at Misplaced Pages Review that instigated this, the "contributions" element relates to one article. I implore all to please be aware of the circumstances in which I initially edited that article: randomly assigned to it by Huggle eighteen months after I began editing. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify: in blocking me, Alison did not cite contributions. Her exact words were: "per behavioral evidence and per CU." So it's my "behavior," whatever that means. I suspect that must have something to do with my contributions. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
This sort of reasoning has been submitted before and I seem to remember, in previous times, the "evidence" didn't hold up to scrutiny. And what happened to the transparency pledge, anyways? Silverseren 00:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I've had my differences with Scotty in the past and have come to respect his work and integrity in this project. I refuse to believe the "sockpuppet" allegations made against him. There has to be some mistake. He deserves to have his reputation restored by who ever accused him of such after this whole thing is cleared up. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This doesn't make sense. According to HelloAnnyong in the SPI linked above, Mantanmoreland and all his socks were Stale for checkuser purposes in September 2011. None of them have edited since (last edit by anyone in the confirmed socks cat was 22 February 2010), so where on earth has the checkuser evidence linking this account to Mantanmoreland come from? Copyedede, a suspected sock that isn't blocked, edited recently, but that wouldn't be grounds to either a) block ScottyBerg without blocking that account too (it hasn't been) or b) tag as confirmed if the link is to a suspected sock. It's be interesting to know what the behavioural evidence is; apart from the not unreasonably large overlap in articles edited I can't see a similarity. Anyone else think we've just lost a good editor for no real reason? Alzarian16 (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope we haven't lost him, he's still commenting here after all. We'll get this fixed up, Scotty, don't worry.
Does anyone else feel like this is a repeat of the "saving old CU data" no-no that was revealed in the Arbcom email leaks? I don't see where the info could be coming from, other than someone saving the info on their computer. And we've already established that do that is a BIG problem. Silverseren 00:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I hope you're right. One comment: This Copeyede also seems to have been swept into the "Gary Weiss dragnet." I see in his contributions one contribution to Gary Weiss and the rest to Press TV. I haven't done a thorough check, but I have never edited that article to the best of my knowledge, unless I was brought into it by Huggle too.
@Tony, your support is really appreciated. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, there's secret evidence. I don't know how you're supposed to respond to secret evidence. Does anyone have any experience in this sort of thing? I don't and I'm at a loss. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I guess we should wait 24 hours. If you don't get a reply by then, Scotty, we'll probably have to escalate this to ANI again, hopefully more successfully this time. Silverseren 01:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, we don't want to escalate to ANI because apparently that's the wrong venue. We have to escalate to ArbCom. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Haven't we done that already? I thought they were the ones we were waiting for a reply from. Silverseren 01:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I just wanted to mention that not all of the evidence is secret. There is "behavioral evidence." Here's the behavioral evidence: I've been here two years, I have just under 13,000 edits, and I have edited over 4,000 articles. I fell under the Gary Weiss Dragnet after coming to that article through Huggle eighteen months after I started editing. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec)@Silver seren: From what I understand, Scott's appeal to ArbCom isn't public. No one knows what's going on there. What I am proposing is a public appeal to ArbCom that the whole community can see and weigh in on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
If that's going to happen I would like to be unblocked for the purpose of participating. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
What?! Arbcom be transparent??? Whoever heard of such a thing! I must say, you've completely lost your marbles. (Though if you make such an appeal, I will immediately go there and support it.) Silverseren 02:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the discussion could be limited to my contributions, horrific as they are. I see on AQFK's talk page what one editor sees is a smoking gun in my East Harlem contributions. He doesn't explain that, and no Mantanmoreland sock has edited East Harlem as far as I know. If we're going to examine my behavior, what about examining the fact that I have not edited any articles in the "locus of dispute" of the Mantanmoreland arbitration case except for the one that I was automatically referred to by Huggle? Yes, I would like to see my "behavior" publicly explained, this recurrent bullshit laid to rest and my name cleared. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I got an email from ScottyBerg, saying "Hans, have you seen my talk page, and how I've been banned?" and nothing more. I vaguely remember interacting with ScottyBerg in one way or another a long time ago, but don't remember where or whether it was positive or negative interactions. However, recently my immediate associations with the user name (which I keep seeing in various contexts) were those of a mature, intelligent good-faith user whose opinions are worth considering, and this likely results from those interactions. The Mantanmoreland Arbcom case and banning happened around the first half year of my account, and I know very little about them other than that there seems to be an association to a real name that does com up occasionally. I have never paid much attention to these things, but I seem to associate that real name with 'elder banned editor' type comments.

There is no arguing with secret evidence, of course. I looked at the "extended evidence" in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Mantanmoreland/Archive#Evidence, which is remarkably unconvincing. I use Wikistalk regularly when I suspect someone of sockpuppeting. The editing overlap in this case is so marginal that I would personally consider it exonerating evidence. (My own overlap with the two Mantanmoreland accounts is even less, although I have twice as many edits as ScottyBerg. But I have never used any automatic vandal fighting tools, and my number of unique pages edited is less than ScottyBerg's.) The regular use of "rply" in edit summaries is not very common, but is an extremely weak bit of evidence. My superficial examination of ScottyBerg's contributions history showed a natural progression from no edit summaries via longer abbreviations such as "rply" and "cmt" to a preference for extremely short abbrevations such as "r" and "c". The use of "--" in edit summaries also seems in no way remarkable to me. I don't know why it is so common among other groups, but among mathematicians it's a very widespread practice because it is the standard in TeX source code.

Based on all this, it is inconsistent with my good opinion of Alison that this 'evidence' factored into the decision in any meaningful way, and I guess that there is other behavioural evidence. There may be valid reasons not to disclose it. E.g., if the operator of the Mantanmoreland account has a history of unusually good dissimulation and the socks are genuinely problematic, then any signature traits that have been isolated should not be made public and other efforts should be made to minimise the danger of false positives.

I certainly support the Arbitration Committee giving ScottyBerg a fair hearing, but this seems so obvious that I doubt my opinion is needed here. As the real name of Mantanmoreland is known and ScottyBerg appears to be a real-name account, I guess that a driving license faxed to the Foundation could play an important role in resolving this matter. Hans Adler 08:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I found some additional evidence that tends to exonerate you but might explain a false positive. I sent the details by email. Hans Adler 09:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Reading into the situation I believe the "secrecy" due to COI/Privacy is because the alleged Sockmaster account is linked to a RL name. Really the cat is out of the bag with that one, so it doesn't seem to matter all that much (it's even mentioned directly by an editor on AQFK's talk page). --Errant 09:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • ScottyBerg, I suggest you forward any evidence to the Arbitration Committee (even if it was uncovered or written by Hans Adler or another user) so that we can consider it during your appeal. Thank you, AGK 11:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
My evidence consists mainly of potential outing information about ScottyBerg. Before the mailing list leak I would simply have CCed it to Arbcom to expedite things. My theory is that ScottyBerg has a lot of things in common with Mantanmoreland that could explain false positives, but does not know him personally, or knows him personally but does not know he is Mantanmoreland. If my guess is correct, ScottyBerg may be able to clear things up simply by providing certain information about himself. But it is for him to decide who to trust. Hans Adler 12:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hans I appreciate your suggestion but it is based on a surmise about my identity that's not correct. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I think it's obvious to you how I came to my conclusion. I'm sorry I couldn't help. Hans Adler 17:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Update on indefinite block of ScottyBerg

For the benefit of those members of the community who are monitoring Alison's indefinite block of this account: the Arbitration Committee has received, and is considering, an appeal by Scotty of his block. Due to the nature of the evidence for this block (that it was based in part on checkuser evidence), the ban appeal must be discussed in private. We will keep the community informed of the progress and result of the appeal on this talk page (or on our Noticeboard in the event the appeal is successful). As a personal comment, I would emphasise that, although behavioural evidence is sometimes as inconclusive as technical evidence, there is a substantive basis for this block (which is why Alison's prior consultation met with our approval). However, in addition to the behaviour evidence, there is also compounding technical evidence that makes this block more solid than might appear to editors without access to the checkuser tool. In anticipation of your patience and understanding, thank you. AGK 11:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

AGK, you seem like a fair person so please put yourself in my position. Do you understand how textbook Kafkaesque this is? I was suddenly blocked for the vaguest of reasons ("behavioral evidence"), along with secret evidence of a "technical" nature. I can't face my accuser, who immediately vanished, and I have to surmise what the accusations are by trying to guess at what my behavior may have been that warranted a block, as I've tried to do. I have to "appeal" based on that surmise, and not on what actually is being claimed. You say that there is "substantial basis" but you still won't tell me, privately or publicly, what it is. That's just wrong.
Since you won't tell me, and since I can only guess what that "evidence" may be, I've had to comb through the Mantanmoreland case and associated dramas. I immediately saw that it involves articles that (with that one exception) I've never even remotely edited. I have no interest in business or theology, and never have. Mantanmoreland engaged in misconduct such as using multiple accounts simultaneously and tendentious editing pushing a POV on business and theological topics in a narrow range of articles. So far as I know, no one has made that claim against me, but I don't know for certain because nobody has told me why I was blocked except vaguely.
The RL person allegedly associated with that account has just written a book on Ayn Rand. That is another subject that I have never touched on, even tangentially, in my two years here.
When the SPI case was brought in September by an editor who was actually sockpuppeting and who was blocked, the discussion spilled over to Newyorkbrad's user page. I think Risker's comments here are apt: "I believe that even the SPI was excessive and has a potentially chilling effect. The articles that were related to the Mantanmoreland case continue to seem to attract far too much suspicion aimed at anyone who makes even positive edits (including removal of poorly sourced material from a BLP, or addition/improvement of reference sources), and this is unhealthy for the encyclopedia. Simply editing that article is insufficient reason to initiate an SPI, in my books; that the edits were entirely within keeping of all policies, were in response to the addition of poorly sourced material, were edits that would easily have been seen on routine recent changes patrol....these are all reasons to believe that ScottyBerg was editing the project in good faith."
I was blocked after carrying out this edit, reversing on UNDUE and BLP grounds a bad-faith edit by an editor who I since seen posts copiously against the RL subject of the article off-wiki. My edit was in good faith, as I have been watchlisting the article since I was brought to it automatically via Huggle six months ago. I watchlist many articles I find through vandal fighting. I think it's amazing I should be blocked after doing that. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand completely, but I don't want to make any judgement until we have heard from Alison and the arbitrators who have not yet opined on the block appeal. For that reason alone, I'm reluctant to comment on the validity of the evidence at this point, but we will look into this fairly, and consider all the evidence - and try to do so expeditiousness. Thank you for keeping a level head during this discussion; most such blockees would lose their temper, not making the matter any easier (and probably worse). Kind regards, AGK 13:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
But how can you say you'll look at it fairly if I have no way of responding to accusations against me? There are also WP:BATTLE aspects to this, based on on- and off-wiki comments, that I find disturbing and which reflect on the integrity of the process. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Given the lack of problematic edits by ScottyBerg, I urge ArbCom to unblock ScottyBerg immediately, and then undertake an investigation into the allegations. That way, the committee can proceed without rushing. There is substantial evidence that allowing ScottyBerg to edit is not an immediate threat to the project, and the only reason to eventually block would be if the evidence finds conclusive evidence of sockpuppetry.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
@AGK: How can the community possibly review this block if you can't tell us what the secret evidence is? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I agree, and thank you for that. Whatever is done should be transparent, and I should have the opportunity to respond, and not just guess at what people may or may not be saying privately. That's just not fair. The BATTLE aspects of this bother me. This edit from about an hour ago by Hans Adler is almost identical to the edit that I carried out a few days ago, which was immediately leaped upon off-wiki by the editor perpetrated the edit and his associates, resulting in my block. I have been watchlisting that article because it was subject to this kind of BLP issue and tendentious editing. The article is indeed a toxic one as Risker pointed out. Ironically, disruptive editing such as what I corrected is supposed to be subject of Arbcom discretionary sanctions under the Mantanmoreland case. But the only sanctions seem to be taken against an editor (me) who corrects disruptive editing (i.e., adding a section on the article subject's weight). ScottyBerg (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with everything said so far - at least some indication of the evidence being used, as well comment as to the areas that are off-limits due to privacy. I have always found Alison to have sound judgement. However the circumstantial evidence and the off-wiki incitement (Alison notes she is a Misplaced Pages Review regular) worries me. I'd suggest we simply get the community to overturn this block for the time being. --Errant 13:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the correct approach to make the question formal, but I also emailed the committee. ScottyBerg, it occurs to me that the only potential reason for not unblocking pending a full investigation is the possibility that you might edit Gary Weiss or other related articles in the meantime. while that argument is exceedingly thin, as those edits would be easy to revert, if you were to voluntarily agree, pending the outcome of the investigation, to stay away from any articles edited by Mantanmoreland, it would remove the only rationale I can think of for not unblocking, pending the completion of the investigation. Perhaps that assurance would persuade the committee that they should unblock, and continue the investigation in non-emergency mode.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't object to that condition, as a voluntary step on my part. My only hesitancy is the implication that I've done something wrong, and I plainly have not. There has been problematic editing in that article, but not by me. Other than that, I don't object to not editing articles that I have never edited in the first place. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
In reviewing the relevant discussion at Misplaced Pages Review, I notice that Alison has been a regular participant in heated discussion about Gary Weiss dating back three years. Her name was very recently invoked there even though she hasn't been participating in that discussion lately. My block was instigated at Misplaced Pages Review by a banned editor, so my unease over this is greatly increased. The BATTLE aspect of the article is why I commenced watching that article, and seeing a drama played out off-wiki in this fashion and leading to my block I find deeply disturbing. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what sort of weight my opinion would have here, as I personally consider ScottyBerg to be a substantially-sized douchebag, but I find this block - and the subsequent actions by admins and ARBCOM - deeply troubling. From SB's account, he was blocked after making a single edit to an article once deeply worked by MM. No discussion, no completed checkuser and no endorsement by another admin (a practice that I think needs to be part of the indef blocking process). Then, the blocking admin vanishes like a fart in the wind. Unacceptable, Alison.

To make matters more troubling, AGK updates SB (who, to my complete surprise, doesn't act like a total choad at the accusation or block) that ARBCOM is aware of the problem but will be handling the matter privately. Say what? I cannot imagine what the need for privacy would be. MM's real life identity is, and has been made, exceptionally clear to even those (like myself) who don't have the time or inclination to read WR. The only reason the matter should be private in ARBCOM is if ScottyBerg was ambivalent or silent about the accusation, which he certainly is not. AGK needs to be far, far more specific as to the need for privacy here. Transparency is ALWAYS best. ALWAYS.
And I reject Hans Adler's suggestion that ScottyBerg should forward a copy of his real identity to ARBCOM; the user hasn't done anything to warrant proving anything to anyone. People are allowed to edit as douchebags in Misplaced Pages, so long as their behavior isn't destructive or inherently non-conducive to an encyclopedic environment. As much as I personally dislike ScottyBerg, I haven't see much of that behavior here. Unless their behavior is such that they have prompted a solid, verifiable need to prove their identity, they should be allowed to edit via a handle or even anonymously.
Lastly, I think SB should be unblocked, pending the conclusion of the secret ARBCOM discussion.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there was a single edit that caused immediate consternation, as I had the audacity to remove a section on the subject's weight. That was followed by edit warring by the account that added the "weight" section and a few others edits that (gasp!) added information to the article. The block took place a week later, after a checkuser was requested off-wiki by a banned editor having a RL issue with the article subject and with anyone who enforces BLP in that article. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I made my suggestion under an incorrect assumption that I won't explain on-wiki. You are of course right about ScottyBerg not being under any obligation to self-out to any functionary – as a matter of principle. However, whether this also holds in practice depends on the non-public evidence. It's the same as in real life. You shouldn't have to prove that you didn't kill your neighbour, but if your gloves are found next to his body that's precisely what you will be expected to do, even if you are innocent. Hans Adler 17:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Then the editors who have been defacing that article, adding sections on the subject's weight for instance, need to be treated similarly: blocked without notice on flimsy grounds, and then made to provide personally identifying information. I'll agree to that kind of fair treatment. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
We can't leave anything out. They need to be first subjected to discussion outside of Misplaced Pages. Then a regular at that website has to come on to Misplaced Pages to do the bidding of a banned editor. After that, they need to "appeal" against accusations that haven't been disclosed to them. They then need to expend considerable amounts of time trying to guess what kind of accusations have been made. In the midst of this, someone from arbcom has to come on wiki and say that things are a lot fairer than they seem, because secret "technical" and "behaviorial" evidence is "substantial," but still won't say what it is. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
@ScottyBerg: Has Alison or anybody from ArbCom shown you the evidence yet? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
No. However, someone was kind enough to email me this link. So I'm sure that in due course I'll be reading through the "evidence" at Misplaced Pages Review. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Scotty, how did you come to receive something by email, when you don't appear to have email enabled on your account and I've not seen where you've offered it openly. Just curious. --Purgedclub (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Good question, which deserves an answer. Also, Scotty, instead of campaigning on this talk page, why didn't you just discreetly email a copy of your driver's license and a utility bill in your name to ArbCom to show that you aren't related to Mantanmoreland? Cla68 (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't speak for SB obviously. The ArbCom is an organization that judges people in secret closed hearings and convicts them based on evidence that is withheld from the accused, for reasons that they also refuse to disclose. And you expect SB to trust this lot with personally identifying information like a drivers' license and power bill? Really? Reyk YO! 22:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Aren't we all supposed to be aware that we risk our privacy simply by interacting with others on the Internet? Another question...Scotty, why did you add Weiss' new book to his article, using the publisher's promotional page as the source? Cla68 (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
There's a big sliding scale of privacy risks on the internet, with incidental risks from ordinary day-to-day activity at one end and giving your internet banking password to a "Nigerian prince" at the other. You want SB to email personally identifying info to an organization that has already, by its actions, demonstrated that it doesn't wish him well and can't be trusted to be open and transparent in its dealings with others. Where on that scale do you think that falls? Reyk YO! 23:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
If you want to talk about why we're in a position where we pretty much have to trust ArbCom on certain issues, and why we have to accept that if we want to participate fully in Misplaced Pages, then we can take up that discussion on your talk page. In the meantime, I hope Scotty will answer how he was emailed the WR link when he has his email disabled, why he has been remonstrating so vocally here instead of quietly taking up his case with ArbCom, and why he added promotional material to the Weiss article. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

What would be funny is if we ran a CU on every single editor. I wonder how many socks from respected editors would be uncovered. IIRC, last year (2010), someone ran for ArbCom and ending up getting banned after it was discovered they they had dozens of socks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Alison has materialized on her talk page to say that she understands I am "working with Arbcom." I am not. Apart from providing Arbcom a list of my top edited stories in comparison with Mantanmoreland, and a few other things last night, there is nothing more that I can say because I haven't been asked any questions or shown any "evidence." ScottyBerg (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
@Scotty: If you don't trust ArbCom, can you e-mail me a copy of your driver's license? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Quest, I'll think about it. I resent the whole issue, candidly, while I appreciate your offer. Cla68, if you look at the edits, I originally simply reverted Cookiehead's edit adding an entire section on Weiss' weight. He reverted me. Instead of taking it to the talk page or DR, as I should have done, I went to the source he quoted and broadened that section to include his other speaking engagements. In retrospect that wasn't very good judgment, as it didn't help the UNDUE issue much, while ameliorating the BLP concern. While at that site I saw something that needed to be added, which is that he has a friggin book coming out! That's a lot more important in the BLP of an author than his weight, don't you think. So I added it, using the publishers site as a source. I don't see anything wrong with using the publisher's site as a source for that kind of edit, and I stand by that edit. Right now the article is odd as there is a book in bibliography that isn't mentioned in the article. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
User talk:ScottyBerg: Difference between revisions Add topic