Case Opened on 22:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Case Closed on 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 21:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided at arbitration request and serve as opening statements. As such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

• SirFozzie ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Mantanmoreland ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Samiharris ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Durova ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cool Hand Luke ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Samiharris notified
Mantanmoreland notified
Durova notified
Cool Hand Luke notified

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_more_admin_eyes_on_an_issue_.28RE:RfCU_result.29
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Jimbo_says_Mantanmoreland_is_in_fact_Gary_Weiss.
(these are now consolidated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mantanmoreland‎
(now renamed as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland/RfC)

Statement by SirFozzie (initiating party)

Recently, there was a checkuser done on the accounts User:Mantanmoreland and User:Samiharris. This test came back inconclusive because one of the accounts (Known now to be Samiharris) only used open proxies. The case moved to WP:AN, per the suggestions of the CheckUser who did the initial check.

That discussion led to coincidental links between the two accounts, but further investigation was needed to determine if the two accounts were linked or not.

During the course of the investigation, it became known that User:Mantanmoreland had used at least two alternate accounts in ways that contravene wikipedia policies.. User:Lastexit and User:Tomstoner. In this investigation, a large amount of information became known that links the accounts of Mantanmoreland and Samiharris together. Common interests, targets, phraseology, and edit times were all found.

What was not found was anytime where the accounts of Mantanmoreland and Samiharris were editing simultaneously. The two accounts edits dovetailed together, that the two never were editing at the same time. This is over the year that the Samiharris account has been active on Wikipedia.

With the evidence from My initial investigation, and The additional, deeper information provided by many users who dug into this case, a Request for Comment was opened. This RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mantanmoreland‎, has an overwhelming consensus that yes, the two accounts are indeed linked together. This is a problem primarily because the two accounts have double-!voted in Request for Administrator Access case, as well as Article For Deletion debates, and have been used to establish consensus in merging several financial term articles into an article they had "collaboratively" wrote.

However, any move to enforce sanctions would be widely controversial. This is due to Real Life concerns (The person "supposedly" behind these probable sockpuppet accounts has been in a long-standing "Real world" feud with banned user User:WordBomb, and the fact that the two accounts have edited the article on this Real-Life identity.

There had been a request to the Foundation for guidance on this, Jimbo Wales commented on this investigation, giving it his blessing, but there was little guidance about this issue regarding real life identity. There is also a political side to this, but as much as I try to avoid Wiki-Politics, that is not my bailwick.

ArbCom's guidance is needed to determine the following:

A) To endorse the finding that Samiharris and Mantanmoreland could be considered sock puppets of each other.
B) Whether a Block/Ban is warranted of a person who has disrupted Wikipedia for over a year and has been caught using sockpuppets multiple times in ways that contravene Wikipedia policy.
C) If POSSIBLE, to determine if the two accounts can be considered linked to that real-life identity.

My thoughts are that there is a link between the two accounts, and considering the amount of disruption, as well as the fact that this is the second time the account Mantanmoreland has been linked to sockpuppetry, a long term ban is required.

(Additional Thought)

I can understand why folks have voiced their concerns and request that Morven recuse himself from this case. Even considering recent events,if Morven says that he can decide things independently and fairly, from the evidence, we have no reason not to take him at this word at this time. SirFozzie ( talk) 17:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Statement by Durova

Please accept this case. It deserves a full and fair evaluation, both for the sake of the named parties and in the interests of reconciling a divided community. Durova ^Charge! 20:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Adding myself to the list of named parties. In case there is a procedural doubt as to whether a dispute exists, the dispute is this: I want to know whether I stuck my neck out for someone who wasn't honest with me. On 20 October 2007 I performed a userblock related to an article where Mantanmoreland and Sami Harris frequently edited. It was my belief at the time that I was acting in the interests of the biographies of living persons policy, and I was acting upon the good faith assumption that Sami Harris and Mantanmoreland were separate people who had no conflict of interest there. Now I see reason to be concerned about whether those assumptions were correct. Durova ^Charge! 22:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Statement by Cool Hand Luke

Please accept, in light of the evidence summarized at the RfC here. I suggest that you reserve remedies for the community, however. It's not clear to me that banning a sometimes-productive and NPOV editor like Mantanmoreland is a good thing. This issue has community-wide implications. Cool Hand Luke 20:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Added myself to named parties. Mantanmoreland's RfC reply makes clear he perceives a dispute with me. Cool Hand Luke 22:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Two side issues are addressed in the statements below. Here are my opinions on both:

• No, don't unblock WordBomb. Contra the idle claims of GWH, this is not his dispute; this is an issue raised in good faith by the community, and I fail to see how unblocking an unrepentant sockpuppeteer would aid in a sock puppet inquire. WordBomb is free to make suggestions to editors, but we are the ones with a grievance.
• Moven should recuse for two reasons: 1. It appears that much of the case will involve the mailing list, and the actions of those on it. 2. Morven has already expressed an extreme opinion on the case as demonstrated by wishing to close the RfC on a technicality, and Morven has repeatedly stated he sees no connection between the accounts. If it was better for Mantanmoreland to cease editing Overstock articles to avoid the perception of bias (as Slim Virgin explained), certainly it would be better for Morven avoid the appearance of COI in this case. Cool Hand Luke 04:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Clerk notes

Recused. Thatcher 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/0/1/0)

• Accept and address in an expedited manner. I have the firm expectation that all participants will maintain civility and decorum throughout the arbitration process and elsewhere. Reasonable efforts should be made to maintain transparency through appropriate discussion on-wiki, but as in any case, sensitive evidence involving matters such as the real-life identities of editors or allegations of off-site harassment may be addressed via e-mail to the Arbitration Committee. "Drama" for its own sake is to be rigorously avoided. I would ordinarily withhold my vote until the responding party presented his statement, but in this instance I believe that his statement on the RfC amply sets forth his position. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Accept per Newyorkbrad's comment. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
  • The case was framed and accepted by Newyorkbrad and myself to look at the status of two accounts. I see no reason that I can not do that impartially. I have no special relationship with either Bagley or Weiss, and decisions to ban one or both are based on our policies. Aspects of the Bagley-Weiss dispute has been discussed internally by the Committee for over a year. Fresh eyes of the new Committee members are welcome but I do not think that after they familiarize themselves with the situation, that the past Committee's actions will be challenged or changed. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Accept, likewise. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Note: I expressed my opinion on the RFC (on largely procedural grounds), but will evaluate this case on the merits without prejudice. Arbitrators are allowed to have opinions on cases before them, and this has not historically been reason to recuse. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Accept; there is really no alternative. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Accept. Wikipedia exists in the real world, and in the real world, one has to acknowledge some situations are more charged than others. The community has (it seems) done a fair job of handling this case well on this occasion by collating and carefully discussing evidence, then deciding what to do with it, and seeking help rather than open dispute. Ordinarily I'd agree with user:GRBerry 100%, but in this case the community has taken it to evidence, gained strong consensus -- and having done so, turned to arbcom saying that they feel they may have trouble if any admin tried to enforce a decision, due to past problems and "history". That's a fair call. Not ideal, but it happens, and I'm prepared to accept the communal view is this is the rare case where it may be so. Kudos to all, on each side, for that responsible decision, and gladly accepted to help resolve this. Undecided at present whether to accept only for purposes of sanity checking the conclusion, or also to decide remedies, or to look at other issues, or other scope. Note also, like Morven and others, I have looked into this case in the last 24 hours - see disclosure. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 23:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Recuse. Kirill 00:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• Accept, though given the complexity of the evidence, and the significance of the evidentiary issues at play here, an expedited approach may not be feasible. -- bainer ( talk) 02:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision Information

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia, in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Conduct that conflicts with this goal—such as importing off-wiki disputes into Wikipedia, creating or escalating unnecessary controversy unrelated to improving the site, harassing other editors either onsite or offsite, or encouraging others to do any of these things—is disruptive and unwelcome.

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Integrity of content

2) The project has always aspired to the highest standards of reliability and integrity. The ongoing growth and prominence of the English Wikipedia, which is now one of the top ten websites in the world and often the first search engine hit when research is done on a topic, makes these goals even more important. This is especially essential where article content relates to living persons or to ongoing off-wiki controversies.

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

3) The policy on multiple accounts addresses situations in which the same individual edits Wikipedia from more than one user account. The use of multiple accounts, while discouraged, is generally permitted. However, abusive sockpuppetry—such as the use of multiple accounts to vote or comment more than once in the same discussion, or to seek to create an illusion of more support for a position than actually exists—is forbidden.

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Evaluating sockpuppetry

4) In determining whether two accounts are sockpuppets of the same individual, administrators, the community, and the Arbitration Committee may consider all relevant evidence, including CheckUser findings, contribution histories and patterns, similarities or differences in online mannerisms, explanations provided by the users in question, and any other legitimate and reliable information available. In accordance with the principle of assuming good faith, allegations of sockpuppetry are not to be made lightly, but only based upon reasonable cause. In investigating and resolving such allegations, abusive sockpuppetry by established contributors will not be presumed, but is to be inferred based only upon a substantial weight of credible evidence.

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki disputes

5) Wikipedia's role with respect to serious off-wiki or "real world" controversies and disputes is to provide encyclopedic coverage of such matters from a neutral point of view where they are notable and sufficiently documented in reliable sources. Neither Wikipedia's mainspace article content, nor its administrative and dispute-resolution procedures culminating in Arbitration, are intended or may be used as a vehicle for off-wiki disputes such as those involving the financial markets or legal or regulatory issues.

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Conduct on Arbitration pages

6) The pages associated with Arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of Arbitration

7) The purpose of Arbitration is to provide a fair, equitable, well-informed, expeditious, and final resolution of disputes on Wikipedia that have not been resolved through other forms of dispute resolution, in the best interests of the encyclopedia and all of its contributors. To serve this purpose, the Arbitration Committee may after due deliberation elect to address a dispute primarily by issuing remedies designed to safeguard the best interests of the encyclopedia going forward, rather than by adopting findings addressing sharply contested historical facts.

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Limitations of Arbitration

8) Despite certain formal aspects of the proceedings and legalistic terminology that is sometimes used, Wikipedia Arbitration is not and does not purport to be a legal system comparable to courts or regulatory agencies. The Arbitration Committee strives for fairness in every case. However, the evidence is generally limited to what can be located and presented online, safeguards such as mandatory disclosure of information and cross-examination of witnesses are not available, and only issues directly affecting Wikipedia are considered and resolved. Arbitration decisions should be read with these limitations in mind and should not be used, or misused, by any side in connection with any off-wiki controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding.

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Locus of dispute

1) The dispute includes a user conduct issue involving editing of a range of articles including naked short selling, overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, the (now-redirected article) Judd Bagley, and Gary Weiss, which are the subject of a bitter and protracted off-wiki controversy, as well as a large number of other article and non-article pages ( afd 1 afd 2 rfa 1 et al.). It has been alleged that editing of these articles may have been affected by abusive sock- or meat-puppetry, and/or conflicts of interest.

Passed 12 to 0 at 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Allegations

2.1) Allegations have been made that established contributors Mantanmoreland ( talk · contribs) and Samiharris ( talk · contribs) are alternate or related accounts. Both editors, who have or had clean block logs, have strongly denied the allegations and asserted that they are the victims of harassment. A request for CheckUser was inconclusive because Mantanmoreland edits from an ordinary ISP while Samiharris edited through proxies. The Arbitration Committee has carefully reviewed all of the extremely detailed evidence of various kinds as presented in a request for comment and in this case. A majority of the Committee concludes that the weight of the credible evidence taken as a whole is suggestive of or consistent with a relationship between the two accounts, but various factors prevent a definitive conclusion from being reached.

Note: the key statement is emphasised by italics. This finding of fact should not be mis-cited or used (deliberately or otherwise) by any user to signify other than is clearly stated.

Passed 10 to 0 at 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Impact of dispute

3) A series of controversies concerning the articles in question and user conduct relating to them has embroiled or threatened to embroil Wikipedia in bitter and protracted off-wiki disputes, has led to expressions of concern about the reliability of these articles and the fairness of our processes, and has repeatedly disrupted the harmony of the Wikipedia community and the well-being of contributors in a variety of serious ways both on and off the site.

Passed 9 to 1 at 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Editors instructed

1) Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to naked short selling, Overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, Gary Weiss, or closely related pages or discussions on any page is directed:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account;

(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration;

(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and

(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.

A note concerning these restrictions shall be placed on the talkpage of each of the affected articles. In case of any doubt concerning application or interpretation of these restrictions, the Arbitration Committee may be consulted for guidance.

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Article probation

2) Any uninvolved administrator may impose a reasonable restriction (e.g., a revert or civility limitation) or page-ban against any editor who, after receiving a warning containing a link to this decision, edits naked short selling, Overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, Gary Weiss, or any related page or discussion in a disruptive or uncivil fashion, who edits them in contravention of site policies and guidelines, or who attempts to reintroduce subtle or overt partisan advocacy regarding any external dispute concerning these subjects into Wikipedia.

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Rescinded by motion at 21:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Review of articles

3) The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing naked short selling, Overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, and Gary Weiss should carefully review these and related articles for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case.

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland topic ban

4) Mantanmoreland, under any current or future account, is banned from editing articles related to Gary Weiss, Patrick Byrne, Overstock.com, Naked Short Selling, and other mainspace articles in the area of dispute, broadly construed. He may make suggestions on talk pages, subject to the requirements of remedy 1.

Passed 9 to 0 at 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland instructed

5) Mantanmoreland is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account and to advise the Arbitration Committee of any change of username, and to edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration.

Passed 9 to 1 at 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Enforcement

1) Any user who violates any restriction imposed by this decision, or imposed by an administrator acting on the authority of this decision, may be blocked for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator. A warning should generally be given before a block is imposed, except for severe violations. All blocks, bans, or restrictions imposed under this decision shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation

2) The remedies contained in this decision should be construed and, if necessary, enforced so as to ensure that the highest standards of reliability and user conduct are maintained on the articles in question, to avoid further disruption arising from disputes and recriminations surrounding these articles, and to prevent Wikipedia from suffering from any further unnecessary involvement with the external dispute.

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Serious violations and circumstances

3) Any serious violation of the remedies in this decision or any related circumstance affecting the well-being of the project and its contributors should be reported to the Arbitration Committee immediately.

Passed 9 to 1 (with 1 abstention) at 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Unused Sanctions (November 2015)

Passed 8 to 2 with 2 abstentions by motion at 21:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

• Blocked Mantanmoreland for 2 weeks with final warning on some matters, and Bassettcat indefinite - breach of WP:SOCK and the above case remedies. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive426#Mantanmoreland_and_Bassettcat. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 21:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Per overwhelming community consensus at the above AN/I discussion, Mantanmoreland community banned; blocked indefinitely to enforce this. krimpet ✽ 19:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply