This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
|
New messages appear at the bottom of this page. |
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For participation in this discussion. Thanks for your input. Acps110 ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 09:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 10:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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 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)
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)
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 Wikipedia, 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)
(sock removed)
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)
(sock removed)
Is arbcom working off User:Vee8Njinn/SB...someone please track the IP that created that username...I haven't looked but is this a mirror of something posted at Wikipedia Review?-- MONGO 00:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Nevermind... Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vee8Njinn/Archive...by why does the page still exist?-- MONGO 00:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Arbcom...have you looked at User:Cookiehead?-- MONGO 03:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Quest, thanks but I think it's best to follow Fetchcomm's advice for the time being. ScottyBerg ( talk) 03:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Just thought I would put in my two cents. One point of comparison between Scotty and Gary Weiss/Mantan can be seen with this blog post from Weiss. Scotty has made a lot of edits to articles on Harlem. Specifically, the account has made nearly all of the contributions to the Italian Harlem article since 2010, a subject specifically mentioned in the blog post. Another point of interest is that Mantan created the List of Fordham University people and one of the alum listed there is Adam Clayton Powell IV, a politician from Harlem, whose article has numerous contributions from Scotty as well. On an odd side note, there is a Gary Weiss at Fordham University, but apparently not the same as the journalist (maybe he Googled himself?). On top of the edits to the Gary Weiss article and the two week gap between the Scotty account being registered and a group of Mantan socks being blocked, it seems reasonable to conclude that Scotty is Weiss/Mantan.
However, I also think this matter with Cookiehead needs to be looked at. From looking at Wikipedia Review it seems the initial, rather comical edit, was fully intended as a trap with the editor going to WR to boast of his success. That raises the question of whether the editor was just obscenely lucky, or whether Cookie knew the Scotty account was online somehow. Maybe there was some unseen off-wiki coordination on this little trap that was sprung on Scotty. Shenanigans like that are not much help to Wikipedia either and should be looked at.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 07:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Cookiehead is a WR meatpuppet...at the least. I'm not surprised that the same people who supported Wordbomb and banned editors like Rootology being able to return are involved in this. Frankly, even if Scotty is a reincarnation of Mantanmoreland, I'm not seeing any editing by Scotty that appears to be problematic in terms of the rationale behind the ban of Mantanmoreland. MONGO 18:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Scotty, I was going to reply to Purgedclub before you deleted his post but I think the comment is worthwhile for anyone with similar doubts. As the "email this user" form warns; "The form below will send a single e-mail message to this user. Your e-mail address (as entered in your user preferences) will appear in the From header of the message so that the recipient will be able to reply directly to you." Although your own account has email notification disabled it is clear from your talkpage that you have emailed a number of users who now have your address without you having to publicly offer it. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 19:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I am stunned that ScottyBerg's offer to stay away from Mantanmoreland articles while this is being sorted out was not immediately seen as reasonable. I say this, even with the possiblity that the evidence comes in against Scotty. Unless it is 100% certain, in which case, one week is not needed, what possible harm can come from letting ScottyBerg edit in the meantime?
I'm fully aware that I'm not privy to all relevant information. While I come down, in general, on the side of transparency, I've seen enough situations where in camera was warranted that I', not going to rail about the secrecy aspect. Nor am I going to complain about the possible one week to resolve. These are volunteers, this is potentially tricky, and I want it done right.
However, given that there is no evidence of an immediate threat, I don't understand the position.
I distinguish this from other cases where an editor is creating problems, and there is a block, and some question about whether the block should be lifted or not. I can understand, in those circumstances, why the default is to leave the block in place until the matter is settled. This case is different, and I have seen nothing from the Committee even hinting why the block should remain in place pending resolution.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I am largely unfamiliar with the background here, both of ScottyBerg and the Mantanmoreland case, but I think I get the gist of it. What I do not understand is why this particular block is any different than any other checkuser block. Checkuser evidence is generally not shared with the person being blocked and is definitely not shared in any detail. In that sense, all checkuser blocks are made using secret evidence. I do not see what makes ScottyBerg a special case. Nor do I understand why anyone would ask that Scotty Berg be allowed to continue editing while their block is reviewed by ArbCom. Yes, ScottyBerg has a large number of edits and some history here, but blocked users generally do not get "out" on "bail" pending appeal. Other blocked users make an unblock request or file an appeal to ArbCom and wait for the results. If it turns out that ScottyBerg has been incorrectly blocked, that is an unhappy situation, but it will be resolved and a few days without the ability to edit Wikipedia should not harm anyone. I should know better than to express my opinion in such a charged situation, but I do not see that ScottyBerg deserves any more or any less consideration than any other blocked user. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 19:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It didn't take long for the discussion to devolve into a recitation of why ScottyBerg is not a sockpuppet of Mantanmoreland, which is really immaterial to my original question. I'll be going now. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 20:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Is the response from Arbcom, which is to take about a week, counting from the time of the initial block, which would then be the 18th, or when it was stated it would be about a week, which would be about the 19th-20th? Silver seren C 02:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The good thing is that, if you are vindicated in the end (which I really, really hope happens), then we can start a community-wide discussion about reforming the atrocious oblique actions of Arbcom, which leads to division among members of the community and their lack of transparency causes conflict on all sides. At this point, i'm surprised anyone in the community trusts Arbcom to do anything right, as they clearly don't. Silver seren C 15:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmmmm, wasn't the Mantanmoreland case about COI editing and use of sockpuppets in some articles about financial markets? Surely Scotty hasn't done anything disruptive on Wikipedia in this area? Perhaps we need to think about building in a degree of amnesia in Wikipedia, so that people 150 years from now won't be blocked by mistake for being sockpuppets of Scibaby, Mantanmoreland or some other editor from ancient history.
Count Iblis (
talk) 00:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
It's been three days since AGK's comment above saying that it would take 2-3 days, so where's this full explanation for this? Like I said before, i'm not going to just allow this to fade into the background. If you're going to block someone for being a sock, then do it properly, not secretly. I'll wait 24 hours for an Arbcom reply to this. If one is not forthcoming, then I will take this matter to other, more public, boards. Silver seren C 20:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Scotty, I think we've made a decision, but we're waiting on some arbitrators to vote on the public statement for the appeal. I can only reiterate that clichéd, perpetual apology that, as a bureaucratic body, we are slow to make decisions. AGK [•] 22:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
On 11 January 2012, User:Alison blocked User:ScottyBerg as a sockpuppet of banned User:Mantanmoreland. The block was based on checkuser and behavioral evidence consistent with past accounts of Mantanmoreland, and an appeal was filed by ScottyBerg with the Arbitration Committee because the block involved checkuser evidence.
The Committee has undertaken an extensive review of the technical and behavioral evidence for this block, and notes that the appellant has maintained throughout the appeal that he is not Mantamoreland. Based on our review, the Arbitration Committee declines the appeal.
For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK
[•] 22:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Hum...feel like we just went back to 2007...aside from some possibly "promotional" edits to a certain bio, I still can't see any reason to support banning ScottyBerg! Whatever problematic editing that Mantanmoreland was "guilty" of, ScottyBerg has not been involved in those areas. I proved in the arbcom case Seven of Diamonds that one doesn't need checkuser evidence to demonstrate a sock...all one needs is behavioral stuff....nevertheless, Seven of Diamonds was even more problematic than his previous incarnation under NuclearUmph...in this situation, that is simply not the case....I really don't think anything was necessary here than for ScottyBerg to proclaim that he intended to stay away from the supposedly problem areas Mantanmoreland frequented. MONGO 16:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I empathise with much of what has been said above. However, it is difficult to provide the sort of information that people would like as it encroaches on two areas: 1) Our Privacy policy and 2) Our ability to conduct investigations into abuse of accounts.
There is an elephant in the room, but we cannot point to the elephant as our rules forbid it. We cannot explain how we discovered it was the elephant as that would assist this and other elephants to evade future detection.
Eleven Committee members and two check users were involved in the review. Two of the Committee members provided background information but did not comment on the evidence. Nine Committee members and two check users looked at the evidence and independently felt that it was compelling enough to make a link between ScottyBerg and Mantanmoreland. Nobody needed to be talked into accepting the evidence - it was difficult not to make the conclusion that the accounts were run by the same person. Is it possible we made a mistake? Yes. Is it probable? No.
There are aspects of this case that personally sadden me. I would prefer that accounts on Wikipedia were all registered, so that we could avoid this sort of situation. However, Wikipedia was founded and is run on the principle that people can edit privately and anonymously, and I will support that principle as it has wide consensus. There are many legitimate reasons why people may wish to edit anonymously. Avoiding a ban is not one of them. When people abuse the privilege of anonymous editing, it makes running Wikipedia harder for everyone. It creates a hostile and suspicious atmosphere. When people are not honest, it makes running Wikipedia harder. It creates a hostile and suspicious atmosphere. The little drama that is unfolding on this page is the result of the elephant in the room abusing the privilege of anonymous editing and in not being honest in their dealings with all of us. There is a route open to ScottyBerg/Mantanmoreland, and that is to refrain from creating any more accounts that abuse the privilege of anonymous editing; wait six months, and then appeal to the Committee in a frank and honest manner.
Like others on this page I feel that the ScottyBerg account has made some positive contributions, and it is clear that the person behind the account enjoys editing on Wikipedia. I warm to that person. We have something important in common. I also enjoy editing on Wikipedia. I regret that it has come to this. The solution, however, may not be difficult: it may simply be waiting six months. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Mongo's post pointed out something that I find deeply troubling, if indeed it is the case:
I am not sure if that had the impact on anyone else that it did on me, but I found it a rather shocking admission. Am I to understand that some of the data compiled in this matter was contrary to Mikimedia Foundation regulations? Did Wikipedia engage in 'extralegal' methods to compile this data, which - as it has been pointed out out repeatedly without redress - remains secret?
If so, we have a major problem brewing. We all have to follow the rules, or we are no better than those we contend we are protecting the project from. I think this has moved beyond a (apparently) simple blocking of a long-term sock to a critical problem of how arbiters conduct their business. They are normal users, after all, prone to mistakes and errors in judgment. We must have a method to address perceived malformed procedures and techniques. THAT is what prevents Wikipedia from being compromised, not some sub rosa meeting held in secret. The argument that it was held thusly to protect someone's privacy is only viable is Scotty Berg is not Mantanmoreland. The secrecy cannot be used to shield anyone who gathered data through illegal (and I believe we follow Florida law to determine such, as WMF is located there) methods. -
Jack Sebastian (
talk) 15:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
If the concern is that ScottyBerg was not allowed to review that evidence in order to rebut it, then what is the alternative? Is it the general sentiment here that users blocked for sockpuppetry have the right to review the evidence that led to their block? If so, what are the implications for other, perhaps less likeable sockmasters such as Scibaby or WordBomb? And what are the implications for the privacy policy if the accused does turn out to be a different individual? How are they to unlearn the data they have been given about the user account they were accused of being? It seems to me that the appropriate balancing check on the ability of a checkuser to examine evidence of sockpuppetry and block someone is the review of the evidence by an independent community-elected panel. Is that not what happened here? If the data can neither be made public nor released to the accused, then is there a system of independent review more likely to protect the accused innocent than what we have already seen here? alanyst 17:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how helpful it is to continue commenting here, as I feel it may simply be prolonging this discussion to no good purpose, and - limited as I am by what I can say - it seems that whatever I say is taken badly. However, I will make one more attempt to clarify the situation, and then remove this page from my watchlist. If anyone after this would like my individual perspective on matters, they can contact me directly.
The basic situation is that an account was identified as being that of a banned user and blocked. An appeal was made to ArbCom by the blocked user. An investigation confirmed that the blocked account was run by the banned user and so the appeal was denied.
The main concerns arising from the case are:
I hope these views are helpful. I understand some of the feelings being expressed on this page, and share some of the frustrations. However, as I said above, I will now take this page off my watch list, and am unlikely to respond here again, though I am prepared to deal with direct questions unless that also appears to no longer be productive. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a big question that needs to be dealt with. After the revelation from the Arbcom email leaks that showed that administrators were keeping CU data on their hard drives (something that could be technically illegal and is very against policy anyways), this case seems to be insinuating that this administrator practice is still being done.
When a CU was requested against Scotty back in September, it was stated that Mantanmoreland and his socks were stale (considering the last sock of his was a long, long time ago). So, if there are only stale accounts to deal with, what exactly are you comparing with the CU? There's no data available to compare Scotty with, so where did this Checkuser info come from?
This is a significant issue that, if it doesn't receive a proper response, would require full community intervention to deal with. Silver seren C 19:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
What do you think would be the best board to do so? ANI is way too much chaos to get anything useful out of it. Maybe Village Pump/Policy? What do you think, Jack, Acps, Edinburgh, Ken, MONGO, Cla, everyone else that i've missed? Village Pump/Policy? Silver seren C 22:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I think its important to offer some viable solutions to the problem. Arbs (and admins in general) hate the idea of change, and especially change which affects the abilities of the arb (and admin), so any proposal that changes the status quo is going to be an uphill fight.
Myself, I think that one solution is for special situations such as this (secret information and the like) are contrary in principle to what Wikipedia is supposed to mean (in much the way that special rendition is anathema to an open and lawful society) can be the use of a Sanity Factor. This would mean that two neutral, experienced users (and it cannot be stressed enough here, not administrators) be included in the closed door discussions, so as to keep things perceptibly honest. The problem here is that ARBCOM completely misjudged how their actions were going to be perceived here, and made several missteps. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 14:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
IP's need not be exact matches...they need only be similar...this combined with behavioral data such as found in edit summaries, grammatical similarities and a host of other clues, make sock confirmation not in itself that difficult. The IP's used by Mantanmoreland may be stale, but no doubt Wordbomb or some other Wikipedia Review denizen could recite them even if they are no longer stored on wiki. I was still wondering if arbcom had been iformed privately if ScottyBerg offered to do all he could to avoid Mantanmoreland edited articles...I suppose I'll not get an answer to that. MONGO 17:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Wanted to add that I should have used the word "compromising" rather than "compromise"...I wasn't trying to start some conspiracy theory or anything, just alluding to the reasons why arbcom and checkusers don't always provide all the answers we may wish since to do so might make it easier for ban evaders to create a new account. I want to empahsize that I still think this was a witch hunt since even if ScottyBerg is a previously banned editor, his current editing shows less than .01 percent of anything that is any way problematic. MONGO 18:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
An RfC regarding ScottyBerg's block has been created at at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 19:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
@Scotty, it is a shame that you are leaving, but under the circumstances I can understand why you would want to do so. In the past I have also felt like leaving. I don't know about the allegations against you, I just know that the only person that I can judge is Scottyberg and his contributions to the project and I know that no other editor has done more for the New York related articles and subjects then you. You have a lot of friends who believe in Scotty and his work. One of those people whom I would like to have in my corner if I got into a fight is User:A Quest For Knowledge. If your decision is final then I bid you farewell and the best of luck. Tony the Marine ( talk) 18:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
My first was sent to a specific arbitrator and then forwarded to the committee:
Being aware of the history of this, I don't see how you could possibly let Alison impose a block on me. I am not Manhtanmoreland. The only reason for suspicion is my editing of Gary Weiss, and as I just pointed out on my talk page, I only knew that article existed because of Huggle editing that commenced well in advance of a vandal arriving at that article.
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?
My second:
I don't see how you can rule on my appeal if I haven't made one. As I explained on my user page, the sole basis of this block is apparently the Gary Weiss edits that were the basis of the previous SPI, which was ruled out as a bad faith report. Nothing has changed since then except my recent edits, which resulted in a hue and cry on Wikipedia Review that I swiftly reverted edits there.
Do you or members of the committee disagree that adding a section on Gary Weiss' weight loss violates WP:UNDUE?
As I explained on my talk page, I originally became involved in that article via Huggle in May 2011, and was engaged in automated edits well in advance of a vandal arriving at Gary Weiss. Previous to that, which was 18 months after commencing my edits at Wikipedia, I had no involvement in that article. I'd guess it was approximately my 11,000th edit to several thousand Wikipedia articles.
If there are any other aspects of my contribution history that bother you, why not ask me about it? Or at least let me know what they are?
As for checkuser, how can that be used against me if my contributions don't indicate that I am Mantanmoreland?
I'm an established user with no history of disruption and no involvement in the articles involved in the Mantanmoreland case EXCEPT for that one article. It's outrageous that I was blocked on such flimsy, secret evidence, without even a hearing. I respectfully request that this block be reversed.
My third:
I cannot find the Wikistalk took, only Soxred's "top edited pages" tool. Here are the results for Mantanmoreland:
* 114 - Naked short selling
* 85 - Martin Luther
* 73 - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
* 44 - On the Jews and their Lies
* 39 - John M. Oesterreicher
* 37 - Louis Farrakhan
* 28 - World Trade Center (film)
* 27 - Patrick M. Byrne
* 26 - Gary Weiss
* 23 - On the Waterfront
* 23 - Paul Burke (actor)
* 23 - Henry Ford
* 22 - National Crime Syndicate
* 20 - Dave Karnes
* 19 - John M. Corridan
* 17 - Jews for Jesus
* 17 - Fordham University
* 17 - Cornelius Willemse
* 16 - John McLoughlin (9/11 survivor)
* 15 - Ernest Borgnine
* 14 - Shepherd Mead
* 14 - Will Jimeno
* 13 - Malcolm Johnson (journalist)
* 13 - Pump and dump
* 12 - Ethan Bronner
* 12 - Thom Calandra
* 11 - Joe Queenan
* 10 - Eddie Egan
* 10 - Burton Turkus
* 10 - On the Jews and Their Lies
* 10 - Microcap stock fraud
* 10 - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel
* 10 - Richard Price (writer)
* 9 - Big Love
* 9 - New antisemitism
* 9 - Short and distort
* 9 - 2004 Madrid train bombings
* 9 - Arthur Waskow
* 8 - The Quiet Man
* 8 - The Friends of Eddie Coyle (novel)
* 8 - List of Fordham University people
* 8 - Jordan Belfort
* 7 - Detour (novel)
* 7 - Herb Greenberg
* 7 - Church of St. Joseph in Greenwich Village
* 7 - Jack Garfein
* 7 - CounterPunch
* 7 - Mark Cuban
* 6 - Grand Concourse (Bronx)
* 6 - Charles Lane (actor)
* 6 - Dutch Schultz
* 6 - Rose Thering
* 6 - Carroll Baker
* 6 - Louis Buchalter
* 6 - Michael V. Gazzo
* 6 - Love with the Proper Stranger
* 6 - Jason Thomas
* 6 - Kossar's Bialys
* 6 - James Cagney
* 5 - The Wanderers (1979 film)
* 5 - David Strathairn
* 5 - Hedge fund
* 5 - Antonio Demo
* 5 - James Dale Davidson
* 5 - Yonah Shimmel's Knish Bakery
* 5 - The Nation
* 5 - Overstock.com
* 5 - Pat Reid
* 5 - Avery Corman
* 5 - Lee Harvey Oswald
* 5 - Murder, Inc.
* 4 - Harry Connick, Sr.
* 4 - Spencer Tracy
* 4 - Russ Tamblyn
* 4 - Market Wizards
* 4 - Meyer Lansky
* 4 - Ryan's Daughter
* 4 - Barry Foster (actor)
* 4 - The Sleeping City
* 4 - Roger Lowenstein
* 4 - Arthur Levitt
* 4 - Boys Town (organization)
* 4 - Chop stock
* 3 - The Seventh Cross
* 3 - Stratton Oakmont
* 3 - Joseph A. O'Hare
* 3 - Cong, County Mayo
* 3 - The River (1951 film)
* 3 - Havana Conference
* 3 - Mickey Spillane (mobster)
* 3 - Donald Henry Gaskins
* 3 - Alex Nicol
* 3 - Augustin Cardinal Bea
* 3 - Richard Conte
* 3 - Mission San Xavier del Bac
* 3 - The Lost Weekend (novel)
* 3 - Jack Ruby
* 3 - Fordham, Bronx
* 3 - Woody Strode
* 3 - Katrina vanden Heuvel
Here are the results for me:
* 89 - Nelson Antonio Denis
* 87 - Doyers Street (Manhattan)
* 85 - Steve Brodie (bridge jumper)
* 76 - Juano Hernández
* 74 - East Harlem
* 71 - Raymond Márquez
* 70 - Zahi Hawass
* 68 - IRT Third Avenue Line
* 60 - Chasing Mummies
* 57 - Bowery
* 53 - Sixth Avenue (Manhattan)
* 48 - South Bronx
* 46 - Seventh Avenue (Manhattan)
* 45 - World Wide Tours bus crash * 43 - Chinatown, Manhattan * 38 - Allen Street (Manhattan) * 36 - Time travel urban legends * 34 - Tenth Avenue (Manhattan) * 32 - TriBeCa * 32 - Occupy Wall Street * 30 - Harlem * 27 - Chinatown bus lines * 25 - New York City Subway * 25 - Spread tow fabric * 24 - Singer Building * 23 - Italian Harlem * 23 - R32 (New York City Subway car) * 22 - ServiceMagic * 22 - Edgar Allan Poe Cottage * 22 - Commissioners' Plan of 1811 * 21 - Herberts Cukurs * 20 - Gary Weiss * 20 - IRT Sixth Avenue Line * 19 - Chuck Yeager * 19 - 2011 Egyptian revolution * 19 - Koreatown, Manhattan * 19 - Bowery (disambiguation) * 19 - Climatic Research Unit email controversy * 18 - List of Puerto Ricans of African descent * 17 - List of Puerto Ricans * 16 - C (New York City Subway service) * 15 - Closings and cancellations following the September... * 15 - Manhattan * 15 - IRT Ninth Avenue Line * 14 - IRT Second Avenue Line * 14 - The Bronx * 13 - Houston Street (Manhattan) * 12 - Harlem Riot of 1964 * 12 - South Street (Manhattan) * 12 - The Circus (film) * 11 - Adam Clayton Powell IV (politician) * 11 - Donald A Wilson Secondary School * 11 - Richard “Skip” Bronson * 11 - Longwood, Bronx * 10 - New York City * 10 - Shakaiba Sanga Amaj * 10 - Angie's List * 10 - Brownsville, Brooklyn * 10 - Stacy Horn * 9 - Steve Brodie (actor) * 9 - Josh Franceschi * 9 - Stonewall riots * 9 - Arthur Avenue * 9 - Rick Sanchez * 9 - Siege of Richmond * 9 - Pleasant Avenue * 9 - La Marqueta (East Harlem) * 8 - Hashomer Hatzair * 8 - Ferdinand Waldo Demara * 8 - Jerome Tiger * 8 - Alvin C. York * 8 - Division Street, Manhattan * 8 - Eddie Chapman * 7 - RMS Titanic Lifeboat No. 6 * 7 - Grand Concourse (Bronx) * 7 - Robert Moses Playground * 7 - Berenice Abbott * 7 - Association of Naval Service Officers * 7 - Radio Row * 7 - St Andrew's College, Cleethorpes * 7 - List of Clark University people * 6 - Orwell High School * 6 - Mottephobia * 6 - List of Puerto Rican boxing world champions * 6 - Irwin Corey * 6 - Longwood Historic District (Bronx) * 6 - 18th Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line) * 6 - Stormfront (website) * 6 - David M. Gonzales * 6 - Young Man with a Horn (film) * 6 - Vesey Street (Manhattan) * 6 - Gotobus * 5 - David Guetta discography * 5 - You Me at Six * 5 - Space Cats * 5 - Michael Sorrentino * 5 - Malbone Street Wreck * 5 - Zuccotti Park * 5 - Battery Place (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) * 5 - Nolita
I'm not seeing any intersections except for Gary Weiss, which I have already discussed. I have shown no interest in any of the major subject areas of that editor, finance and theology.
An arb wrote back with a link to the wikistalk tool, which I then used and wrote back:
Except for Gary Weiss, which as I explained I was brought to by an automated program, there are five articles that I have edited in a very insubstantial way which Mantanmoreland also edited, also trivially, and one (Harry Maione) was a single automated Huggle edit. Considering that I've edited over 4000 articles and Mantanmoreland was also active, I'm surprised there isn't more.
What I didn't do was edit in a single one of the problematic articles mentioned in the Mantanmoreland arbitration, all related to finance.
In addition to the other points I've raised, I've noted that the Mantanmoreland's socks mentioned in the September SPI were socks who edited in league with each other. I haven't seen anyone suggesting that I'm tag-teaming and socking in tandem with another editor, not here or on Wikipedia Review, which is where this originated.
I think this was the fifth. First I asked for a provisional unblock then I said:
To repeat what I said in my response to AGK on my talk page, I do not know what to send you beyond what I already have. How can I appeal this block if I don't understand why I was blocked beyond "behaviorial evidence" and secret CU evidence? What behavior? Do you want me to respond to the issues the sock raised in his SPI in September 2011? That was so insubstantial that at the time it didn't even warrant a reply. Other things? Will someone please respond to this?
I don't understand why it will take a week to deal with this. I've already pointed out to you that I don't use multiple accounts, and that I have no interest in the subjects edited by Mantanmoreland, as clearly indicated in my contributions and that account's. My initial involvement in the Weiss article, the only article in the Mantan arbitration I've ever edited, was through vandal-fighting in May 2011, fifteen months after I began editing.
You are aware, I hope, that I encountered the Weiss article while using an automated tool, and that my use of the tool preceded the first contribution from the vandal at the Weiss article by about twenty minutes. It's not as if I was watching the Weiss article and then fired up Huggle when I saw vandalism there, and then hope it would get caught in the Huggle filter. I then watchlisted it and pursued the vandal who had attacked it, as I have done for numerous other articles I have encountered through Huggle and Twinkle.
If there are any other concerns about my editing, please let me know, as I am not a mind reader. I've responded to questions raised on my talk page, and I encourage the committee to read my talk page if you haven't already, such as my response to Cla68 at 23:40, 12 January 2012 and my post at 04:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC). Both involve my contribs to the Weiss article subsequent to its attack by the Cookiehead account. Beyond that I am not sure what to address. Since you haven't communicated with me, I don't even know whether this email should go to the entire committee or to any specific arbs.
Despite my making that last observation, not a single arb had the decency to to write back and say that the entire committee was considering my so-called "appeal."
Sixth:
Further on my msg. below, a Google search indicates that the alleged RL operator of the defunct Mantanmoreland account is a featured columnist for Salon and TheStreet.com, producing columns that appear at least twice weekly. See http://politics.php5.salon.com/writer/gary_weiss/ http://www.thestreet.com/author/1174453/GaryWeiss/all.html
Assuming the relationship between that person and Mantanmoreland is verified, I think that a review of those columns would totally exclude the possibility of me as a possible sock of Mantanmoreland. I just don't get involved in articles on these kinds of subjects. I did edit in the area of Occupy Wall Street article a bit at the beginning, mainly to deal with a BLP issue on the police captain and the pepper spraying incident, in a successful effort to delete that article. That is the closest I've come.
I've never edited any articles about Ron Paul or the Federal Reserve, or anything having to do with banks, Timothy Geithner, the mafia takeover of brokerage firms, the financial crisis or Bernard Madoff (see Weiss biography, TheStreet.com).
I'm really stunned that the total absence of connection between me and this subject matter hasn't already lead to the end of this completely unjustified block on that basis alone. I would have thought that the circumstances of my coming to the Weiss article would have already led to my unblocking when it was pointed out to you, and I'm disappointed that that has not occurred.
My seventh, after which I gave up:
I wanted to elaborate on something I mentioned on my talk page:
Mantanmoreland's behavior was characterized by abuse of multiple accounts. I've never been accused of that. You may want to take a look at a recent dispute I was involved in that was so heated that I went to ANI over it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#Escalating_harassment_by_User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind
There was first a heated AfD over a restaurant article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/L%27Auberge_%28restaurant%29
Then there was a heated discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28organizations_and_companies%29#Issue_with_this_statement followed by an even nastier discussion in a RfC I commenced at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28organizations_and_companies%29#Should_Michelin_Guide_restaurant_listings_be_presumed_as_notable.3F
I received very little help in any of these discussions, so obviously I didn't bring in a sock to help me out, as Mantanmoreland would have done. This dispute over these Michelin restaurants was so upsetting to me that I seriously considered leaving the project over it, and mentioned that to another editor in an email at the time.
I think that was my last email to Arbcom. I received no substantive replies, no questions. There was no challenging of anything I said, no attempt at dialogue. I was not even told that arbcom as a whole was considering my "appeal." I read about that on an arb's talk page. I think that if you read these emails, Tony, you can understand why I'm not happy with how this was handled and why I would be an utter fool to spend another minute of my time improving articles and fighting vandals. Thanks again for your kindness. ScottyBerg ( talk) 20:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, Tony, to make things even more grotesque, a member of Arbcom is now at the RfC, selectively releasing Arbcom's reasoning, saying that the checkuser just put me in the same vicinity as the banned sock,that it was mainly "editing patterns," and mentioning supposed similarities that were never mentioned to me for response. And, of course, totally disregarding the overwhelming non-similarities or the fact that I stumbled onto the offending article by Huggle. So the whole "technical evidence" thing is meaningless. I received less due process than the most malicious, disruptive socks would get in an SPI. If you were subjected to this kind of infuriating treatment, how would you feel about Wikipedia? I understand now why so many banned editors gather offsite, though I think their time would be better served doing other things. ScottyBerg ( talk) 23:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
ScottyBerg and talk page watchers might be interested in this post of mine and the comments from Risker to which I refer. The "standard" practice it describes for handling alleged socks such as those of former-ArbCom member Rlevse might not sound entirely the same as those apparently adopted in ScottyBerg's case. EdChem ( talk) 04:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
We need to estimate probabilities here. There is a set of "problem editors" who have been banned and there are a large number of productive editors. The probability of interest is the probability that one or more editors from the latter group will match with one of the former group according to the criteria used here. If this probability is not small, one cannot rule out that someone in the latter group matches a problem editor. A tip from WR by someone with an axe to grind is then all that is needed to ban that editor. Count Iblis ( talk) 00:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Scotty, for all your hardwork and tireless contributions, you've earned this barnstar. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 15:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC) |
I've requested your unban on WP:AN. Cheers. -- 23.20.151.72 ( talk) 18:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. You've been selected at random from WP:FRS, where you are listed as an editor willing to help with RfCs related to biographical articles. If you have time, could you provide your input to an RfC here involving issues of libel and defmation in relation to author Jared Diamond. Cheers. -- Noleander ( talk) 03:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Club | Season | League | Cup [1] | Continental [2] | Total | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Division | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | ||
JCT Mills | 2005–06 | National Football League | 17 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 2 |
2006–07 | National Football League | 15 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 11 | |
2007–08 | I-League | 16 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 7 | |
Total | 48 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 48 | 20 | ||
East Bengal | 2008-09 | I-League | 14 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 11 |
Total | 14 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 11 | ||
Dempo | 2009-10 | I-League | 13 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 8 |
Total | 13 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 8 | ||
Kansas City Wizards | 2010 | MLS | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Total | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
Chirag United | 2011 | I-League | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
Total | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 | ||
Mohun Bagan | 2011-12 | I-League | 14 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 9 |
Total | 14 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 9 | ||
Sporting CP B | 2012-13 | Liga de Honra | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
Total | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | ||
Churchill Brothers (loan) | 2012-13 | I-League | 8 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 13 | 6 |
Total | 8 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 13 | 6 | ||
Bengaluru FC | 2013-14 | I-League | 11 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 4 |
Total | 11 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 4 | ||
Career total | 118 | 60 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 129 | 65 |
Note: Some of cup stats are missing,it will updated once it is known.
i want to know that if we can show this table with that 'Note' with it.Here every data is correct except JCT Mills one where we dont have cup data so.my ques. is could we still show this table? Preetam040 ( talk) 13:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
|
New messages appear at the bottom of this page. |
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For participation in this discussion. Thanks for your input. Acps110 ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 09:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 10:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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 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)
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)
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 Wikipedia, 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)
(sock removed)
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)
(sock removed)
Is arbcom working off User:Vee8Njinn/SB...someone please track the IP that created that username...I haven't looked but is this a mirror of something posted at Wikipedia Review?-- MONGO 00:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Nevermind... Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vee8Njinn/Archive...by why does the page still exist?-- MONGO 00:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Arbcom...have you looked at User:Cookiehead?-- MONGO 03:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Quest, thanks but I think it's best to follow Fetchcomm's advice for the time being. ScottyBerg ( talk) 03:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Just thought I would put in my two cents. One point of comparison between Scotty and Gary Weiss/Mantan can be seen with this blog post from Weiss. Scotty has made a lot of edits to articles on Harlem. Specifically, the account has made nearly all of the contributions to the Italian Harlem article since 2010, a subject specifically mentioned in the blog post. Another point of interest is that Mantan created the List of Fordham University people and one of the alum listed there is Adam Clayton Powell IV, a politician from Harlem, whose article has numerous contributions from Scotty as well. On an odd side note, there is a Gary Weiss at Fordham University, but apparently not the same as the journalist (maybe he Googled himself?). On top of the edits to the Gary Weiss article and the two week gap between the Scotty account being registered and a group of Mantan socks being blocked, it seems reasonable to conclude that Scotty is Weiss/Mantan.
However, I also think this matter with Cookiehead needs to be looked at. From looking at Wikipedia Review it seems the initial, rather comical edit, was fully intended as a trap with the editor going to WR to boast of his success. That raises the question of whether the editor was just obscenely lucky, or whether Cookie knew the Scotty account was online somehow. Maybe there was some unseen off-wiki coordination on this little trap that was sprung on Scotty. Shenanigans like that are not much help to Wikipedia either and should be looked at.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 07:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Cookiehead is a WR meatpuppet...at the least. I'm not surprised that the same people who supported Wordbomb and banned editors like Rootology being able to return are involved in this. Frankly, even if Scotty is a reincarnation of Mantanmoreland, I'm not seeing any editing by Scotty that appears to be problematic in terms of the rationale behind the ban of Mantanmoreland. MONGO 18:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Scotty, I was going to reply to Purgedclub before you deleted his post but I think the comment is worthwhile for anyone with similar doubts. As the "email this user" form warns; "The form below will send a single e-mail message to this user. Your e-mail address (as entered in your user preferences) will appear in the From header of the message so that the recipient will be able to reply directly to you." Although your own account has email notification disabled it is clear from your talkpage that you have emailed a number of users who now have your address without you having to publicly offer it. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 19:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I am stunned that ScottyBerg's offer to stay away from Mantanmoreland articles while this is being sorted out was not immediately seen as reasonable. I say this, even with the possiblity that the evidence comes in against Scotty. Unless it is 100% certain, in which case, one week is not needed, what possible harm can come from letting ScottyBerg edit in the meantime?
I'm fully aware that I'm not privy to all relevant information. While I come down, in general, on the side of transparency, I've seen enough situations where in camera was warranted that I', not going to rail about the secrecy aspect. Nor am I going to complain about the possible one week to resolve. These are volunteers, this is potentially tricky, and I want it done right.
However, given that there is no evidence of an immediate threat, I don't understand the position.
I distinguish this from other cases where an editor is creating problems, and there is a block, and some question about whether the block should be lifted or not. I can understand, in those circumstances, why the default is to leave the block in place until the matter is settled. This case is different, and I have seen nothing from the Committee even hinting why the block should remain in place pending resolution.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I am largely unfamiliar with the background here, both of ScottyBerg and the Mantanmoreland case, but I think I get the gist of it. What I do not understand is why this particular block is any different than any other checkuser block. Checkuser evidence is generally not shared with the person being blocked and is definitely not shared in any detail. In that sense, all checkuser blocks are made using secret evidence. I do not see what makes ScottyBerg a special case. Nor do I understand why anyone would ask that Scotty Berg be allowed to continue editing while their block is reviewed by ArbCom. Yes, ScottyBerg has a large number of edits and some history here, but blocked users generally do not get "out" on "bail" pending appeal. Other blocked users make an unblock request or file an appeal to ArbCom and wait for the results. If it turns out that ScottyBerg has been incorrectly blocked, that is an unhappy situation, but it will be resolved and a few days without the ability to edit Wikipedia should not harm anyone. I should know better than to express my opinion in such a charged situation, but I do not see that ScottyBerg deserves any more or any less consideration than any other blocked user. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 19:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It didn't take long for the discussion to devolve into a recitation of why ScottyBerg is not a sockpuppet of Mantanmoreland, which is really immaterial to my original question. I'll be going now. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 20:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Is the response from Arbcom, which is to take about a week, counting from the time of the initial block, which would then be the 18th, or when it was stated it would be about a week, which would be about the 19th-20th? Silver seren C 02:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The good thing is that, if you are vindicated in the end (which I really, really hope happens), then we can start a community-wide discussion about reforming the atrocious oblique actions of Arbcom, which leads to division among members of the community and their lack of transparency causes conflict on all sides. At this point, i'm surprised anyone in the community trusts Arbcom to do anything right, as they clearly don't. Silver seren C 15:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmmmm, wasn't the Mantanmoreland case about COI editing and use of sockpuppets in some articles about financial markets? Surely Scotty hasn't done anything disruptive on Wikipedia in this area? Perhaps we need to think about building in a degree of amnesia in Wikipedia, so that people 150 years from now won't be blocked by mistake for being sockpuppets of Scibaby, Mantanmoreland or some other editor from ancient history.
Count Iblis (
talk) 00:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
It's been three days since AGK's comment above saying that it would take 2-3 days, so where's this full explanation for this? Like I said before, i'm not going to just allow this to fade into the background. If you're going to block someone for being a sock, then do it properly, not secretly. I'll wait 24 hours for an Arbcom reply to this. If one is not forthcoming, then I will take this matter to other, more public, boards. Silver seren C 20:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Scotty, I think we've made a decision, but we're waiting on some arbitrators to vote on the public statement for the appeal. I can only reiterate that clichéd, perpetual apology that, as a bureaucratic body, we are slow to make decisions. AGK [•] 22:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
On 11 January 2012, User:Alison blocked User:ScottyBerg as a sockpuppet of banned User:Mantanmoreland. The block was based on checkuser and behavioral evidence consistent with past accounts of Mantanmoreland, and an appeal was filed by ScottyBerg with the Arbitration Committee because the block involved checkuser evidence.
The Committee has undertaken an extensive review of the technical and behavioral evidence for this block, and notes that the appellant has maintained throughout the appeal that he is not Mantamoreland. Based on our review, the Arbitration Committee declines the appeal.
For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK
[•] 22:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Hum...feel like we just went back to 2007...aside from some possibly "promotional" edits to a certain bio, I still can't see any reason to support banning ScottyBerg! Whatever problematic editing that Mantanmoreland was "guilty" of, ScottyBerg has not been involved in those areas. I proved in the arbcom case Seven of Diamonds that one doesn't need checkuser evidence to demonstrate a sock...all one needs is behavioral stuff....nevertheless, Seven of Diamonds was even more problematic than his previous incarnation under NuclearUmph...in this situation, that is simply not the case....I really don't think anything was necessary here than for ScottyBerg to proclaim that he intended to stay away from the supposedly problem areas Mantanmoreland frequented. MONGO 16:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I empathise with much of what has been said above. However, it is difficult to provide the sort of information that people would like as it encroaches on two areas: 1) Our Privacy policy and 2) Our ability to conduct investigations into abuse of accounts.
There is an elephant in the room, but we cannot point to the elephant as our rules forbid it. We cannot explain how we discovered it was the elephant as that would assist this and other elephants to evade future detection.
Eleven Committee members and two check users were involved in the review. Two of the Committee members provided background information but did not comment on the evidence. Nine Committee members and two check users looked at the evidence and independently felt that it was compelling enough to make a link between ScottyBerg and Mantanmoreland. Nobody needed to be talked into accepting the evidence - it was difficult not to make the conclusion that the accounts were run by the same person. Is it possible we made a mistake? Yes. Is it probable? No.
There are aspects of this case that personally sadden me. I would prefer that accounts on Wikipedia were all registered, so that we could avoid this sort of situation. However, Wikipedia was founded and is run on the principle that people can edit privately and anonymously, and I will support that principle as it has wide consensus. There are many legitimate reasons why people may wish to edit anonymously. Avoiding a ban is not one of them. When people abuse the privilege of anonymous editing, it makes running Wikipedia harder for everyone. It creates a hostile and suspicious atmosphere. When people are not honest, it makes running Wikipedia harder. It creates a hostile and suspicious atmosphere. The little drama that is unfolding on this page is the result of the elephant in the room abusing the privilege of anonymous editing and in not being honest in their dealings with all of us. There is a route open to ScottyBerg/Mantanmoreland, and that is to refrain from creating any more accounts that abuse the privilege of anonymous editing; wait six months, and then appeal to the Committee in a frank and honest manner.
Like others on this page I feel that the ScottyBerg account has made some positive contributions, and it is clear that the person behind the account enjoys editing on Wikipedia. I warm to that person. We have something important in common. I also enjoy editing on Wikipedia. I regret that it has come to this. The solution, however, may not be difficult: it may simply be waiting six months. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Mongo's post pointed out something that I find deeply troubling, if indeed it is the case:
I am not sure if that had the impact on anyone else that it did on me, but I found it a rather shocking admission. Am I to understand that some of the data compiled in this matter was contrary to Mikimedia Foundation regulations? Did Wikipedia engage in 'extralegal' methods to compile this data, which - as it has been pointed out out repeatedly without redress - remains secret?
If so, we have a major problem brewing. We all have to follow the rules, or we are no better than those we contend we are protecting the project from. I think this has moved beyond a (apparently) simple blocking of a long-term sock to a critical problem of how arbiters conduct their business. They are normal users, after all, prone to mistakes and errors in judgment. We must have a method to address perceived malformed procedures and techniques. THAT is what prevents Wikipedia from being compromised, not some sub rosa meeting held in secret. The argument that it was held thusly to protect someone's privacy is only viable is Scotty Berg is not Mantanmoreland. The secrecy cannot be used to shield anyone who gathered data through illegal (and I believe we follow Florida law to determine such, as WMF is located there) methods. -
Jack Sebastian (
talk) 15:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
If the concern is that ScottyBerg was not allowed to review that evidence in order to rebut it, then what is the alternative? Is it the general sentiment here that users blocked for sockpuppetry have the right to review the evidence that led to their block? If so, what are the implications for other, perhaps less likeable sockmasters such as Scibaby or WordBomb? And what are the implications for the privacy policy if the accused does turn out to be a different individual? How are they to unlearn the data they have been given about the user account they were accused of being? It seems to me that the appropriate balancing check on the ability of a checkuser to examine evidence of sockpuppetry and block someone is the review of the evidence by an independent community-elected panel. Is that not what happened here? If the data can neither be made public nor released to the accused, then is there a system of independent review more likely to protect the accused innocent than what we have already seen here? alanyst 17:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how helpful it is to continue commenting here, as I feel it may simply be prolonging this discussion to no good purpose, and - limited as I am by what I can say - it seems that whatever I say is taken badly. However, I will make one more attempt to clarify the situation, and then remove this page from my watchlist. If anyone after this would like my individual perspective on matters, they can contact me directly.
The basic situation is that an account was identified as being that of a banned user and blocked. An appeal was made to ArbCom by the blocked user. An investigation confirmed that the blocked account was run by the banned user and so the appeal was denied.
The main concerns arising from the case are:
I hope these views are helpful. I understand some of the feelings being expressed on this page, and share some of the frustrations. However, as I said above, I will now take this page off my watch list, and am unlikely to respond here again, though I am prepared to deal with direct questions unless that also appears to no longer be productive. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a big question that needs to be dealt with. After the revelation from the Arbcom email leaks that showed that administrators were keeping CU data on their hard drives (something that could be technically illegal and is very against policy anyways), this case seems to be insinuating that this administrator practice is still being done.
When a CU was requested against Scotty back in September, it was stated that Mantanmoreland and his socks were stale (considering the last sock of his was a long, long time ago). So, if there are only stale accounts to deal with, what exactly are you comparing with the CU? There's no data available to compare Scotty with, so where did this Checkuser info come from?
This is a significant issue that, if it doesn't receive a proper response, would require full community intervention to deal with. Silver seren C 19:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
What do you think would be the best board to do so? ANI is way too much chaos to get anything useful out of it. Maybe Village Pump/Policy? What do you think, Jack, Acps, Edinburgh, Ken, MONGO, Cla, everyone else that i've missed? Village Pump/Policy? Silver seren C 22:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I think its important to offer some viable solutions to the problem. Arbs (and admins in general) hate the idea of change, and especially change which affects the abilities of the arb (and admin), so any proposal that changes the status quo is going to be an uphill fight.
Myself, I think that one solution is for special situations such as this (secret information and the like) are contrary in principle to what Wikipedia is supposed to mean (in much the way that special rendition is anathema to an open and lawful society) can be the use of a Sanity Factor. This would mean that two neutral, experienced users (and it cannot be stressed enough here, not administrators) be included in the closed door discussions, so as to keep things perceptibly honest. The problem here is that ARBCOM completely misjudged how their actions were going to be perceived here, and made several missteps. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 14:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
IP's need not be exact matches...they need only be similar...this combined with behavioral data such as found in edit summaries, grammatical similarities and a host of other clues, make sock confirmation not in itself that difficult. The IP's used by Mantanmoreland may be stale, but no doubt Wordbomb or some other Wikipedia Review denizen could recite them even if they are no longer stored on wiki. I was still wondering if arbcom had been iformed privately if ScottyBerg offered to do all he could to avoid Mantanmoreland edited articles...I suppose I'll not get an answer to that. MONGO 17:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Wanted to add that I should have used the word "compromising" rather than "compromise"...I wasn't trying to start some conspiracy theory or anything, just alluding to the reasons why arbcom and checkusers don't always provide all the answers we may wish since to do so might make it easier for ban evaders to create a new account. I want to empahsize that I still think this was a witch hunt since even if ScottyBerg is a previously banned editor, his current editing shows less than .01 percent of anything that is any way problematic. MONGO 18:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
An RfC regarding ScottyBerg's block has been created at at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 19:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
@Scotty, it is a shame that you are leaving, but under the circumstances I can understand why you would want to do so. In the past I have also felt like leaving. I don't know about the allegations against you, I just know that the only person that I can judge is Scottyberg and his contributions to the project and I know that no other editor has done more for the New York related articles and subjects then you. You have a lot of friends who believe in Scotty and his work. One of those people whom I would like to have in my corner if I got into a fight is User:A Quest For Knowledge. If your decision is final then I bid you farewell and the best of luck. Tony the Marine ( talk) 18:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
My first was sent to a specific arbitrator and then forwarded to the committee:
Being aware of the history of this, I don't see how you could possibly let Alison impose a block on me. I am not Manhtanmoreland. The only reason for suspicion is my editing of Gary Weiss, and as I just pointed out on my talk page, I only knew that article existed because of Huggle editing that commenced well in advance of a vandal arriving at that article.
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?
My second:
I don't see how you can rule on my appeal if I haven't made one. As I explained on my user page, the sole basis of this block is apparently the Gary Weiss edits that were the basis of the previous SPI, which was ruled out as a bad faith report. Nothing has changed since then except my recent edits, which resulted in a hue and cry on Wikipedia Review that I swiftly reverted edits there.
Do you or members of the committee disagree that adding a section on Gary Weiss' weight loss violates WP:UNDUE?
As I explained on my talk page, I originally became involved in that article via Huggle in May 2011, and was engaged in automated edits well in advance of a vandal arriving at Gary Weiss. Previous to that, which was 18 months after commencing my edits at Wikipedia, I had no involvement in that article. I'd guess it was approximately my 11,000th edit to several thousand Wikipedia articles.
If there are any other aspects of my contribution history that bother you, why not ask me about it? Or at least let me know what they are?
As for checkuser, how can that be used against me if my contributions don't indicate that I am Mantanmoreland?
I'm an established user with no history of disruption and no involvement in the articles involved in the Mantanmoreland case EXCEPT for that one article. It's outrageous that I was blocked on such flimsy, secret evidence, without even a hearing. I respectfully request that this block be reversed.
My third:
I cannot find the Wikistalk took, only Soxred's "top edited pages" tool. Here are the results for Mantanmoreland:
* 114 - Naked short selling
* 85 - Martin Luther
* 73 - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
* 44 - On the Jews and their Lies
* 39 - John M. Oesterreicher
* 37 - Louis Farrakhan
* 28 - World Trade Center (film)
* 27 - Patrick M. Byrne
* 26 - Gary Weiss
* 23 - On the Waterfront
* 23 - Paul Burke (actor)
* 23 - Henry Ford
* 22 - National Crime Syndicate
* 20 - Dave Karnes
* 19 - John M. Corridan
* 17 - Jews for Jesus
* 17 - Fordham University
* 17 - Cornelius Willemse
* 16 - John McLoughlin (9/11 survivor)
* 15 - Ernest Borgnine
* 14 - Shepherd Mead
* 14 - Will Jimeno
* 13 - Malcolm Johnson (journalist)
* 13 - Pump and dump
* 12 - Ethan Bronner
* 12 - Thom Calandra
* 11 - Joe Queenan
* 10 - Eddie Egan
* 10 - Burton Turkus
* 10 - On the Jews and Their Lies
* 10 - Microcap stock fraud
* 10 - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel
* 10 - Richard Price (writer)
* 9 - Big Love
* 9 - New antisemitism
* 9 - Short and distort
* 9 - 2004 Madrid train bombings
* 9 - Arthur Waskow
* 8 - The Quiet Man
* 8 - The Friends of Eddie Coyle (novel)
* 8 - List of Fordham University people
* 8 - Jordan Belfort
* 7 - Detour (novel)
* 7 - Herb Greenberg
* 7 - Church of St. Joseph in Greenwich Village
* 7 - Jack Garfein
* 7 - CounterPunch
* 7 - Mark Cuban
* 6 - Grand Concourse (Bronx)
* 6 - Charles Lane (actor)
* 6 - Dutch Schultz
* 6 - Rose Thering
* 6 - Carroll Baker
* 6 - Louis Buchalter
* 6 - Michael V. Gazzo
* 6 - Love with the Proper Stranger
* 6 - Jason Thomas
* 6 - Kossar's Bialys
* 6 - James Cagney
* 5 - The Wanderers (1979 film)
* 5 - David Strathairn
* 5 - Hedge fund
* 5 - Antonio Demo
* 5 - James Dale Davidson
* 5 - Yonah Shimmel's Knish Bakery
* 5 - The Nation
* 5 - Overstock.com
* 5 - Pat Reid
* 5 - Avery Corman
* 5 - Lee Harvey Oswald
* 5 - Murder, Inc.
* 4 - Harry Connick, Sr.
* 4 - Spencer Tracy
* 4 - Russ Tamblyn
* 4 - Market Wizards
* 4 - Meyer Lansky
* 4 - Ryan's Daughter
* 4 - Barry Foster (actor)
* 4 - The Sleeping City
* 4 - Roger Lowenstein
* 4 - Arthur Levitt
* 4 - Boys Town (organization)
* 4 - Chop stock
* 3 - The Seventh Cross
* 3 - Stratton Oakmont
* 3 - Joseph A. O'Hare
* 3 - Cong, County Mayo
* 3 - The River (1951 film)
* 3 - Havana Conference
* 3 - Mickey Spillane (mobster)
* 3 - Donald Henry Gaskins
* 3 - Alex Nicol
* 3 - Augustin Cardinal Bea
* 3 - Richard Conte
* 3 - Mission San Xavier del Bac
* 3 - The Lost Weekend (novel)
* 3 - Jack Ruby
* 3 - Fordham, Bronx
* 3 - Woody Strode
* 3 - Katrina vanden Heuvel
Here are the results for me:
* 89 - Nelson Antonio Denis
* 87 - Doyers Street (Manhattan)
* 85 - Steve Brodie (bridge jumper)
* 76 - Juano Hernández
* 74 - East Harlem
* 71 - Raymond Márquez
* 70 - Zahi Hawass
* 68 - IRT Third Avenue Line
* 60 - Chasing Mummies
* 57 - Bowery
* 53 - Sixth Avenue (Manhattan)
* 48 - South Bronx
* 46 - Seventh Avenue (Manhattan)
* 45 - World Wide Tours bus crash * 43 - Chinatown, Manhattan * 38 - Allen Street (Manhattan) * 36 - Time travel urban legends * 34 - Tenth Avenue (Manhattan) * 32 - TriBeCa * 32 - Occupy Wall Street * 30 - Harlem * 27 - Chinatown bus lines * 25 - New York City Subway * 25 - Spread tow fabric * 24 - Singer Building * 23 - Italian Harlem * 23 - R32 (New York City Subway car) * 22 - ServiceMagic * 22 - Edgar Allan Poe Cottage * 22 - Commissioners' Plan of 1811 * 21 - Herberts Cukurs * 20 - Gary Weiss * 20 - IRT Sixth Avenue Line * 19 - Chuck Yeager * 19 - 2011 Egyptian revolution * 19 - Koreatown, Manhattan * 19 - Bowery (disambiguation) * 19 - Climatic Research Unit email controversy * 18 - List of Puerto Ricans of African descent * 17 - List of Puerto Ricans * 16 - C (New York City Subway service) * 15 - Closings and cancellations following the September... * 15 - Manhattan * 15 - IRT Ninth Avenue Line * 14 - IRT Second Avenue Line * 14 - The Bronx * 13 - Houston Street (Manhattan) * 12 - Harlem Riot of 1964 * 12 - South Street (Manhattan) * 12 - The Circus (film) * 11 - Adam Clayton Powell IV (politician) * 11 - Donald A Wilson Secondary School * 11 - Richard “Skip” Bronson * 11 - Longwood, Bronx * 10 - New York City * 10 - Shakaiba Sanga Amaj * 10 - Angie's List * 10 - Brownsville, Brooklyn * 10 - Stacy Horn * 9 - Steve Brodie (actor) * 9 - Josh Franceschi * 9 - Stonewall riots * 9 - Arthur Avenue * 9 - Rick Sanchez * 9 - Siege of Richmond * 9 - Pleasant Avenue * 9 - La Marqueta (East Harlem) * 8 - Hashomer Hatzair * 8 - Ferdinand Waldo Demara * 8 - Jerome Tiger * 8 - Alvin C. York * 8 - Division Street, Manhattan * 8 - Eddie Chapman * 7 - RMS Titanic Lifeboat No. 6 * 7 - Grand Concourse (Bronx) * 7 - Robert Moses Playground * 7 - Berenice Abbott * 7 - Association of Naval Service Officers * 7 - Radio Row * 7 - St Andrew's College, Cleethorpes * 7 - List of Clark University people * 6 - Orwell High School * 6 - Mottephobia * 6 - List of Puerto Rican boxing world champions * 6 - Irwin Corey * 6 - Longwood Historic District (Bronx) * 6 - 18th Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line) * 6 - Stormfront (website) * 6 - David M. Gonzales * 6 - Young Man with a Horn (film) * 6 - Vesey Street (Manhattan) * 6 - Gotobus * 5 - David Guetta discography * 5 - You Me at Six * 5 - Space Cats * 5 - Michael Sorrentino * 5 - Malbone Street Wreck * 5 - Zuccotti Park * 5 - Battery Place (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) * 5 - Nolita
I'm not seeing any intersections except for Gary Weiss, which I have already discussed. I have shown no interest in any of the major subject areas of that editor, finance and theology.
An arb wrote back with a link to the wikistalk tool, which I then used and wrote back:
Except for Gary Weiss, which as I explained I was brought to by an automated program, there are five articles that I have edited in a very insubstantial way which Mantanmoreland also edited, also trivially, and one (Harry Maione) was a single automated Huggle edit. Considering that I've edited over 4000 articles and Mantanmoreland was also active, I'm surprised there isn't more.
What I didn't do was edit in a single one of the problematic articles mentioned in the Mantanmoreland arbitration, all related to finance.
In addition to the other points I've raised, I've noted that the Mantanmoreland's socks mentioned in the September SPI were socks who edited in league with each other. I haven't seen anyone suggesting that I'm tag-teaming and socking in tandem with another editor, not here or on Wikipedia Review, which is where this originated.
I think this was the fifth. First I asked for a provisional unblock then I said:
To repeat what I said in my response to AGK on my talk page, I do not know what to send you beyond what I already have. How can I appeal this block if I don't understand why I was blocked beyond "behaviorial evidence" and secret CU evidence? What behavior? Do you want me to respond to the issues the sock raised in his SPI in September 2011? That was so insubstantial that at the time it didn't even warrant a reply. Other things? Will someone please respond to this?
I don't understand why it will take a week to deal with this. I've already pointed out to you that I don't use multiple accounts, and that I have no interest in the subjects edited by Mantanmoreland, as clearly indicated in my contributions and that account's. My initial involvement in the Weiss article, the only article in the Mantan arbitration I've ever edited, was through vandal-fighting in May 2011, fifteen months after I began editing.
You are aware, I hope, that I encountered the Weiss article while using an automated tool, and that my use of the tool preceded the first contribution from the vandal at the Weiss article by about twenty minutes. It's not as if I was watching the Weiss article and then fired up Huggle when I saw vandalism there, and then hope it would get caught in the Huggle filter. I then watchlisted it and pursued the vandal who had attacked it, as I have done for numerous other articles I have encountered through Huggle and Twinkle.
If there are any other concerns about my editing, please let me know, as I am not a mind reader. I've responded to questions raised on my talk page, and I encourage the committee to read my talk page if you haven't already, such as my response to Cla68 at 23:40, 12 January 2012 and my post at 04:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC). Both involve my contribs to the Weiss article subsequent to its attack by the Cookiehead account. Beyond that I am not sure what to address. Since you haven't communicated with me, I don't even know whether this email should go to the entire committee or to any specific arbs.
Despite my making that last observation, not a single arb had the decency to to write back and say that the entire committee was considering my so-called "appeal."
Sixth:
Further on my msg. below, a Google search indicates that the alleged RL operator of the defunct Mantanmoreland account is a featured columnist for Salon and TheStreet.com, producing columns that appear at least twice weekly. See http://politics.php5.salon.com/writer/gary_weiss/ http://www.thestreet.com/author/1174453/GaryWeiss/all.html
Assuming the relationship between that person and Mantanmoreland is verified, I think that a review of those columns would totally exclude the possibility of me as a possible sock of Mantanmoreland. I just don't get involved in articles on these kinds of subjects. I did edit in the area of Occupy Wall Street article a bit at the beginning, mainly to deal with a BLP issue on the police captain and the pepper spraying incident, in a successful effort to delete that article. That is the closest I've come.
I've never edited any articles about Ron Paul or the Federal Reserve, or anything having to do with banks, Timothy Geithner, the mafia takeover of brokerage firms, the financial crisis or Bernard Madoff (see Weiss biography, TheStreet.com).
I'm really stunned that the total absence of connection between me and this subject matter hasn't already lead to the end of this completely unjustified block on that basis alone. I would have thought that the circumstances of my coming to the Weiss article would have already led to my unblocking when it was pointed out to you, and I'm disappointed that that has not occurred.
My seventh, after which I gave up:
I wanted to elaborate on something I mentioned on my talk page:
Mantanmoreland's behavior was characterized by abuse of multiple accounts. I've never been accused of that. You may want to take a look at a recent dispute I was involved in that was so heated that I went to ANI over it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#Escalating_harassment_by_User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind
There was first a heated AfD over a restaurant article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/L%27Auberge_%28restaurant%29
Then there was a heated discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28organizations_and_companies%29#Issue_with_this_statement followed by an even nastier discussion in a RfC I commenced at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28organizations_and_companies%29#Should_Michelin_Guide_restaurant_listings_be_presumed_as_notable.3F
I received very little help in any of these discussions, so obviously I didn't bring in a sock to help me out, as Mantanmoreland would have done. This dispute over these Michelin restaurants was so upsetting to me that I seriously considered leaving the project over it, and mentioned that to another editor in an email at the time.
I think that was my last email to Arbcom. I received no substantive replies, no questions. There was no challenging of anything I said, no attempt at dialogue. I was not even told that arbcom as a whole was considering my "appeal." I read about that on an arb's talk page. I think that if you read these emails, Tony, you can understand why I'm not happy with how this was handled and why I would be an utter fool to spend another minute of my time improving articles and fighting vandals. Thanks again for your kindness. ScottyBerg ( talk) 20:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, Tony, to make things even more grotesque, a member of Arbcom is now at the RfC, selectively releasing Arbcom's reasoning, saying that the checkuser just put me in the same vicinity as the banned sock,that it was mainly "editing patterns," and mentioning supposed similarities that were never mentioned to me for response. And, of course, totally disregarding the overwhelming non-similarities or the fact that I stumbled onto the offending article by Huggle. So the whole "technical evidence" thing is meaningless. I received less due process than the most malicious, disruptive socks would get in an SPI. If you were subjected to this kind of infuriating treatment, how would you feel about Wikipedia? I understand now why so many banned editors gather offsite, though I think their time would be better served doing other things. ScottyBerg ( talk) 23:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
ScottyBerg and talk page watchers might be interested in this post of mine and the comments from Risker to which I refer. The "standard" practice it describes for handling alleged socks such as those of former-ArbCom member Rlevse might not sound entirely the same as those apparently adopted in ScottyBerg's case. EdChem ( talk) 04:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
We need to estimate probabilities here. There is a set of "problem editors" who have been banned and there are a large number of productive editors. The probability of interest is the probability that one or more editors from the latter group will match with one of the former group according to the criteria used here. If this probability is not small, one cannot rule out that someone in the latter group matches a problem editor. A tip from WR by someone with an axe to grind is then all that is needed to ban that editor. Count Iblis ( talk) 00:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Scotty, for all your hardwork and tireless contributions, you've earned this barnstar. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 15:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC) |
I've requested your unban on WP:AN. Cheers. -- 23.20.151.72 ( talk) 18:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. You've been selected at random from WP:FRS, where you are listed as an editor willing to help with RfCs related to biographical articles. If you have time, could you provide your input to an RfC here involving issues of libel and defmation in relation to author Jared Diamond. Cheers. -- Noleander ( talk) 03:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Club | Season | League | Cup [1] | Continental [2] | Total | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Division | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | ||
JCT Mills | 2005–06 | National Football League | 17 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 2 |
2006–07 | National Football League | 15 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 11 | |
2007–08 | I-League | 16 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 7 | |
Total | 48 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 48 | 20 | ||
East Bengal | 2008-09 | I-League | 14 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 11 |
Total | 14 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 11 | ||
Dempo | 2009-10 | I-League | 13 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 8 |
Total | 13 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 8 | ||
Kansas City Wizards | 2010 | MLS | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Total | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
Chirag United | 2011 | I-League | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
Total | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 | ||
Mohun Bagan | 2011-12 | I-League | 14 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 9 |
Total | 14 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 9 | ||
Sporting CP B | 2012-13 | Liga de Honra | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
Total | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | ||
Churchill Brothers (loan) | 2012-13 | I-League | 8 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 13 | 6 |
Total | 8 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 13 | 6 | ||
Bengaluru FC | 2013-14 | I-League | 11 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 4 |
Total | 11 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 4 | ||
Career total | 118 | 60 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 129 | 65 |
Note: Some of cup stats are missing,it will updated once it is known.
i want to know that if we can show this table with that 'Note' with it.Here every data is correct except JCT Mills one where we dont have cup data so.my ques. is could we still show this table? Preetam040 ( talk) 13:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)