Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:47, 20 February 2008

question from User:Whitstable

Wasn't sure where to include this but are we free to use a specific real-world name, if the need arises? I note that Jimbo did in the statement he emailed within the past 24 hours Whitstable 23:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure Rlevse will correct me if I'm wrong, but it's better not to use blp names if avoidable. That said, be clear with your presentation. If it requires names, then use them. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't use real world names. You can state you know it and are sending it to the arb com mail list (arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org) if you feel you have a legit reason to do so. I'm sure Jimbo had an extra valid reason to do what he did. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue that Mantanmoreland is claimed to be someone who in real life has a manifest COI on the articles in question is germane, but it's obviously just disruptive to give a name unless there is extremely good evidence for it-- better than what we've seen in the past. Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems the evidence is stronger now than ever before. Whitstable 19:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's really better to email specific details to the arbcom mail list. Onwiki it'd be good to say you have evidence on such and such and am emailing to arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment on order

I think it best to lay out and review evidence before proceeding to workshop. That includes allowing a reasonable interval for others to present evidence and you to review it. I know that this practice is rarely followed, but I still think it a good idea. GRBerry 14:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there are some pieces of the final decision that are known from the beginning, particularly principles and facts that are unlikely to change (such as checkuser findings). Entries that require more detail or a higher level of synthesis should wait until evidence is presented, of course. Avruch 14:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

COI, pseudonymity, and assumption of risk

CharlotteWebb asked a question about the risks of undisclosed COI. A good example of that would be last year's Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS case. Checkuser had concluded that some accounts were sockpuppets, and the editors in question argued against that, and also argued that they didn't have any conflict of interest because they were unpaid volunteers for a certain religious organization. In fact they were using official Church of Scientology computers to edit Misplaced Pages, and sometimes forgot to log in and revealed their underlying IP addresses, and were editing the topic of - you guessed it - Scientology. I was trying to explain to them how they were running a public relations risk, but all they seemed to hear was that I was a jerk who was telling them no. That arbitration case dragged out for three months and before it was over the WikiScanner came out. And headlines and bad press actually happened. Durova 23:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether you were referring to negative real-world publicity and/or loss of the community's trust for doing something which, while unethical, doesn't actually violate policy. The other possible interpretation is that it does actually violate policy, but 9 times out of 10, other users either will not realize what's going on or will have some practical reason not to acknowledge it, making actual enforcement rare. It's an obvious gamble in either case, and I suppose these these interpretations are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive (except for the overwhelming question of whether policy is actually being violated, or at the end of the day, whether it even matters). Thank you for clarifying here, but perhaps you could also expand the "proposed principle" to make it clearer, because I feel like I've been trying to solve a riddle here even though it sounds like you didn't mean to create one. Also it looks like at least one other user interpreted the principle differently than you intended . — CharlotteWebb 12:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It really works both ways. Too often, people take a myopic view of conflict of interest. When it comes to COI, site processes matter, yet they pale in comparison to the related real world consequences of exposure. And when people have acted deviously, they look worse then the exposure happens. Durova 12:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The trust of the community is of utmost importance. Publicity, whether for WP, or for individuals, and whether positive or negative, is simply to be bought and sold, is then a tawdry thing, of dissembling and unctiousness, and is no substitute for integrity. Chasing publicity, or trying to manage it a la some totalitarian regime is unsuccessful, in the long run. Newbyguesses - Talk 14:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Voting

I've noticed a trend of people saying they support or endorse or oppose each proposal - I'd like to point out that there are only 14 people whose vote counts, and they have their own page in which to do so. —Random832 20:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

People are allowed to comment on participant proposals. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly comments are more helpful to the Arbitrators than simple votes, though. Why do you support/oppose? Thatcher 21:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought that was weird. I haven't used it in previous ArbComs, but I noticed others using it so picked it up a little. It helps readers size up the positions quickly, at least. Cool Hand Luke 22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if i may have been one of those, but I think i put reasons for all my comments. The arbitrators sum up ,after parties and others give input, is my understanding. Did not mean to step on any toes.Newbyguesses - Talk 22:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think editors get in the habit of starting their comment with a support, oppose, or comment/neutral because that's what we do in other project forums. We state our opinion on the matter at hand then explain why we feel that way. Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support! Weird or not, I like the way it makes it easier to distinguish comments when you're looking over the mass of gray prose, and when you see a slew of "oppose" or "support" words in boldface, it gives you an idea that there's a consensus among interested Wikipedians (or not). Yeah, we all know it's what committee members think that counts, and they're certainly free to laugh at the rest of us in private, but it still feels comfortable to me, and that's why I do it. I like the bullets, too. Noroton (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with noroton, though I'm haphazard about using the convention. Sometimes proposals cry out for support or oppose sometimes they don't. I would also like to commend everyone involved so far, this is the least editorially contentious arbcomm hearing I've paid close attention to. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw it used in the first couple of ArbComs I participated in, and generally follow the practice. It does establish the platform on which subsequent remarks made. In those cases where I neither support or oppose I generally use comment to distinguish that that is what it is. Here, I just follow the convention of the proposer of first respondee. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The content of the comments is more important than any particular verbal formula that may be used. If I am reviewing a proposed finding of fact, one "oppose" citing a diff proving that the finding is incorrect will outweigh ten unreasoned "supports." On the other hand, if I am working on the wording of a principle, the fact that a number of well-informed users support a given formulation can be very helpful information. So, editors who have taken the time to study up on a case should please provide their input in whatever format strikes them as reasonable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

JzG's statements

I would like a check on whether I am overreacting, but it seems to me that JzG's recent statement should at the least be refactored along with either a stern warning or a request that he stop posting in this arbitration. I understand emotions, but this follows on his adding evidence which consisted of a number of similar attacks as well as a link to a clearly unreliable source for evidence that Bagley is a "vile agenda-driven troll." That issue was then discussed in detail on the evidence talk page, before JzG removed it with the statement that "User:Cla68 makes the case against Bagley far more powerfully than I could. It's very subtle use of irony, and tyook me a while to spot." Following this, he has now added a statement that WordBomb should not be allowed to comment in this arbitration because he committed "blackmail." To be clear, I don't see why WordBomb needs to present evidence in this arbitration and am not aware that he has asked, but these statements from JzG are making a mockery of Misplaced Pages's principles. I regret suggesting this, but it seems there is a very significant disconnect here that needs to be addressed. Mackan79 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• For crying out loud! Ask user:SlimVirgin for the original email. WordBomb attempted to blackmail an administrator when his attempt to abuse Misplaced Pages to promote his agenda was rebuffed. This is a simple statement of fact! I can think of very few banned users whose ban is more unambiguously correct. If you want to make a mockery out of Misplaced Pages's principles, unblock WordBomb. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem is that throughout this, people have kept making completely unnecessary allegations about a person that can't even be addressed. You say without any sourcing that he's committed blackmail, and now this is a fact? The last time you did this, you even went on to acknowledge that it wasn't relevant and thus that nobody needed to respond.
  • At least if we are discussing it, I have seen the email that you are talking about and that you linked to earlier; I think this can be discussed without making categorical statements that someone committed blackmail. For that matter, I can also see how someone would have been offended. Unfortunately what we haven't seen is any of the context that led up to it, or any of the other background. WordBomb suggests that the email followed him sending her unequivocal proof of Mantan's sockpuppetry in the form of the mistaken edit as Tomstoner, and yet that SV still claimed the evidence lacked substance. It's also evident from WB's talk page that she specifically said he was wrong about his claim when she protected his talk page. Is there any evidence, for that matter, that he was trying to get her to do anything illegitimate? At this point I think we can say that his actual claim was correct; is there any reason to think he wanted anything more than for this to be acknowledged? I am no expert in blackmail, but at least the Misplaced Pages article tells me that a statement is not blackmail if the person believes it is a legitimate action and a legitimate demand. If he had what he considered strong evidence that SV was at the least trying to protect a friend, and evidence of wrongdoing that he felt he was entitled to share, it seems to me this could very well be true.
  • Of course all of this is extremely tangential, and a discussion from no real evidence. This is part of why I think it's clearly the type of accusation that shouldn't be made unless we are actually going to discuss it. On that, I'll let you or anyone respond. Mackan79 (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To JzG/GUY/ : re Ask user:SlimVirgin for the original email. :wrong, it is not a matter of asking, if the email is not supplied here, it is not evidence, and proves nothing, except that you continue to make unsupported allegation and attacks.

and re This is a simple statement of fact! :Wrong, if the email is not supplied here, it is not evidence, and proves nothing.

and re If you want to make a mockery out of Misplaced Pages's principles :Please dont, just stop it. Do you understand even the simplest concept of evidence, and fairness? Newbyguesses - Talk 00:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

To everyone: The ban of wordbomb is not at issue, yet. One thing at a time, please. The issues around wordbomb deserve their own arbcomm hearing separate from this one. Let's finish with mantanmoreland and what ever administrative slaps on the wrist others should get, then look at wordbomb's ban and if it should be lifted. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that we are considering he-who-might-be-GW's identity as presenting a COI problem, I cannot imagine why we're worrying about Wordbomb all that much, seeing as how it is established fact that he has a huge COI on the disputed articles and has been blatant in applying his bias to them. Mangoe (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Point of order

Evidence sent directly to Arbcom is evidence, too, and can be done to protect the privacy of people involved. One does not have to out ones email address here on Misplaced Pages in order to show evidence of receiving harrassing emails - they can be sent to admins, or in the case of an arbcom case in confidence to Arbcom.

The assertion that evidence must all be posted is just wrong. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Any evidence regarding "blackmail" or other allegations of grave misbehavior, quotations from e-mails whose publication has not been authorized by the sender, and the like, may be e-mailed to the Arbitration Committee and will be considered as appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's up to the persons who received it to submit it or not, but... is it necessarily even relevant, given that it's misbehavior by Wordbomb, not Mantanmoreland or Samiharris?

Wordbomb isn't a named party here, and really shouldn't be - regardless of what he's done, the questions here are about what Mantanmoreland and Samiharris did, whether they're both GW and whether they're socks. If someone wants to claim that abuse justified hiding a COI issue behind a pseudonym, then they have some burden of proof to show Arbcom that they had reasonable fears of or experience with that abuse. Nobody has publically claimed that to my knowledge, but could, or could have directly to Arbcom. Tu Quoqe (spelled that right?) would still apply of course. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't about WordBomb, although I continue to strongly disagree with the characterizations that are applied only to one side based on inadequate and unreliable information. Mackan79 (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Apropos recuse

This gives reason to serious concerns imo. An arbitrator who cannot even maintain the basic decorum while having a strong opinion should most definitely recuse themselves out of respect for the process and the community. User:Dorftrottel 06:58, February 20, 2008

I'd say that the proposed decisions and resulting votes are going to be very interesting. Too bad we don't have a read-only view of their (presumably) ongoing case discussion. There seems to be some emotional investment in this case with at least a couple of the arbitrators. Cla68 (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WordBomb is not a party to this case. Bias against him is not grounds for recusal. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe this may be one of those cases that involves a lot of private discussion among the ArbCom members before they start posting their decisions so we need to just be patient, wait, and not bicker among ourselves on the case talk pages in the meantime. Cla68 (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If I read that right, JPG said that people are being paid to write for WB? Who is doing that? R. Baley (talk) 07:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WB is an openly acknowledged PR department employee of Overstock.com, and operates a website (now aledgedly hosted elsewhere, but for a while hosted on Overstock.com servers) that contains personal identifying information and various stalking of Misplaced Pages admins. WB is not paying to edit Misplaced Pages - (at this point, mostly harrass from afar rather than edit directly, though no doubt there are some undetected socks or meatpuppet associates out there somewhere), he's being paid to bother Misplaced Pages as part of his job duties, by the president of Overstock.com , who is a longtime Misplaced Pages critic. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I tire of this nonsense. Find a reliable source that says precisely that or I redact it from this page per WP:BLP. Can all you people not back off a bit? Or learn to moderate your language or hedge your bets? Relata refero (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I have not advocated the unblocking of WB. (redact my own comment. 09:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)) That there may be other socks 'out there' is not the issue (here anyway). On the project page, the unblock request reads, "Request that WordBomb be unblocked in order to be able to publicly present evidence with the condition that he only edit pages in this case. In response to this request JPG responded saying, "The people who have previously been acting as this banned user's amanuensis are certainly capable of continuing to do so" (italics mine). This clearly implies that people involved in this case are acting as paid proxies for WB. Surely he didn't mean to say that, but if he did who? And if they are, why are they not blocked? I hope that I am missing something here (it's happened before). R. Baley (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Bias against WordBomb is not grounds for recusal." — Maybe. How about bias and personal attacks against regular Misplaced Pages contributors in good standing? But ok, Cla68 is indeed right. User:Dorftrottel 07:45, February 20, 2008

This does not appear to be relevant to the stated scope of the case, which is "MM / SH / GW - sockpuppetry or not?". Either the case is as stated, or it's wider or another case needs to be filed for the wider issues, and the wider case has different conflicts of interest associated with it than the stated case. Asking people to recuse before the scope is determined to be one in which recusal might matter is premature at best. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The comment is still a point of concern for me. User:Dorftrottel 08:19, February 20, 2008