Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mantanmoreland (talk | contribs) at 23:15, 8 February 2008 (→Evidence/Discussion, Section 4 Writing Style). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

At request of several folks, I've set up this page as a good place to discuss my investigation, to add evidence either way. Just some ground rules, please.

Disclaimer:The goal of this undertaking is to be totally neutral and clear the air. We just want to look at the public edit histories and see where the evidence really leads, being open to both sides. Anyone is welcome to submit diffs and analysis. Please put draft material here, or if your editing privileges have been suspended, please contact User:SirFozzie or User:Durova via email. The goal is to keep this orderly and rational with the focus on the facts. When/if you open a suggestion of discussion, please put your name in the section, and if we're runnning out of pre-made sections, create more for others. Please do not edit other people's sections without their ok.

Signing onto the disclaimer. Durova 19:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Me as well. SirFozzie (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, PLEASE try to comply with WP:BLP? thank you. (Fozzie the eternally bemused)

Evidence/Discussion, Section 1

The median edit time per Ioeth's analysis is flawed - the median of 11:59pm and 12:01am is 12:00am - the model used shows it as 12:00pm. Flawed tools yield flawed results. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Ronnotel; this whole thing looks out of order to me. If somebody has credible evidence the somebody else did something wrong, they should gather it up and submit it to the proper forum. The ad hoc forum on AN and this even more ad hoc forum is starting to look like a kangaroo court or a witch hunt. I say call it off until you have enough credible evidence to properly "prosecute." Otherwise it looks more like a persecution. If you can't come up with convincing evidence, are you going to apologize and humbly ask Samiharris to come back? (I'd guess you won't) Smallbones (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There are precedents for writing up the more complex sock reports in user space. SSP really isn't good at handling cases that cover several thousand edits. Both sides are welcome to present diffs and analysis, and some of that is in preparation from the other side soon. Durova 22:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence/Discussion, Section 2 by SirFozzie

Appropos of the previous editors (except one theory that I don't think we're going to hear about again, (or at least I hope not...).. This is not a persecution. Or what have you. Many editors, both administrators and otherwise have concerns about the links shown in the evidence provided. I created this page to keep things from overwhelming AN, but if folks don't want to use it, they certainly don't have to... and I invite you to post exculpatory evidence if you have it, like PouponOnToast did. (BTW, I have to thank Durova for the word exculpatory.. learn something new every day! SirFozzie (talk)

Sorry, should have read WP:BLP before advancing that theory, wholeheartedly apologize. I was actually being serious though, I was just worried that we might be hassling two different people using the same computer; and that was one of the first reasons I thought of to explain why two men would be agreeing with each other so much. --BETA 22:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence/Discussion, Section 3: Tomstoner (presented by G-Dett)

I posted something regarding Tomstoner over at ANI, and Durova suggested I bring it here. I had asked Mantan about his strange rewrite of a Tomstoner talk-page post way back in May. Mantan deleted my first two questions to him, but here is how our exchange stood when he archived it. Note the diffs showing Mantan and Tomstoner edit-warring together.

I don't think there can be any conceivable doubt that Tomstoner was operated by Mantan, notwithstanding Mantan's categorical denial at the end of our exchange. That Mantan extensively revised Tomstoner's post is damning, of course, but what makes the evidence absolutely conclusive in my view is the paragraph Mantan writes from scratch and adds to Tomstoner's post:

Your depiction of the one edit that you reverted is wildly exaggerated. On the edit summary, you neglect to mention that I repeatedly acknowledged that the editing summary was incorrect. Furthermore, you not dispute the actual substance of my edit itself on the Naked Short Selling page, but instead attack me personally and claim that I am not worthy of saying that it was "otherwise correct." Lastly, I would note that your initial comments on my talk page were unecessary, because they duplicated comments previously made by User ESkog. Your clear intent was to pick a fight for Lord knows what reason, and you succeeded.

Mantan is addressing User:Antaeus Feldspar here. Antaeus never left any message on Mantan's talk page. But Antaeus did leave a series of messages on Tomstoner's talk page, the first of which indeed "duplicated comments previously made by User ESkog." (See Antaeus and Tomstoner's exchange here). In fact, none of the self-references in Mantan's paragraph ("I repeatedly acknowledged," "the actual substance of my edit," "attack me personally and claim that I am not worthy," "your initial comments on my talk page," etc.) are supported by anything in Mantan's own history, while all of them are supported by Tomstoner's history.

In short, Mantan was caught in flagrante delicto with an abusive sockpuppet, and when questioned about it, (a) lied; and (b) claimed that even raising the subject constituted "trolling" and personal harassment. All of which sounds, well, familiar.--G-Dett (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a positive confirmation that the other account was his sock? Durova 22:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Fred did not disclose the accounts that were being used, but this edit, where Mantanmoreland edits a TomStoner statement with an edit summary of "revising previous report" is pretty much a gotcha moment. There's more off hand, but that might mean going off-WP for evidence. SirFozzie (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My point was that Mantan not only edited a Tomstoner statement, but typed up an entirely new paragraph, full of references in the first person to Tomstoner's history. That to me is the most solid confirmation conceivable, solider than even a positive CU, let alone the DUCK test. Not so much a smoking gun as a photograph of the bullet coming out the barrel.--G-Dett (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I must have confused my even numbers. 02:31, 23 July 2006 is Tomstoner's last edit. Can we find something from the last year and a half? PouponOnToast (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think SirFozzie is putting together the evidence of current abuse.--G-Dett (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

We're establishing that he's used sockpuppets abusively in the past, PoT. SirFozzie (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And lied about it in the face of conclusive evidence, while presenting himself as a victim of harassment.--G-Dett (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence/Discussion, Section 4 Writing Style

Samiharris and I write in totally different writing styles.

Here is one example from March 2007, ong before there were any accusations by WordBomb of sockpuppetry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Naked_short_selling#Nice_job.21

I think Piperdown did a really nice job of summarizing the article last night and I think he deserves a round of applause for that. Good job! I still have a problem with the addition to the October 2006 Q&A at the SEC. Though now summarized, which is good, I still question its significance. Was there some kind of change in policy in October 2006 regarding Reg. SHO? I searched the SEC website and could find none. I then looked for articles mentioning this and could find none. So I would suggest to please provide some article sourcing meeting Misplaced Pages criteria. As written currently, it falls squarely under the category of "original research" which is verboten under Wiki rules. Thanks for understanding and for your good work.--Samiharris 14:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Piperdown's response was to accuse him of being "patronizing."

The discussion then moved to Piperdown's talk page, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Piperdown#Your_comments_in_.22Talk:naked_short_selling.22

Samiharris wrote:

Concerning your comments in naked short-selling: I was trying to be courteous and polite, and offered praise sincerely for what I considered to be an editing job well done. There was no intent to be "patronizing" and I must ask you to tone down the heat level and avoid making comments attacking other editors. Please keep in mind the requirements of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thank you.--Samiharris 21:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

and:

You have not fairly stated the statements that I made in the talk page. Let's go back and review.

It is not true that my "Reason was for no long quotes. So instead of editing the section, you removed it." and that my next reason was simply "original research." You have entirely omitted my central reason for disagreeing with your edits.

My explanation for my first edit was as follows: "I also removed the lengthy quotation from Regulation SHO, which was unnecessary in my opinion and much too technical and jargon-y." That was and is true. The fact that it was "sourced" is beside the point.

After you insisted upon retaining the material, I said, "I strongly disagree with your adding that lengthy excerpt from Regulation SHO. It clogs up an article that is already top heavy with jargon, and it is unnecessary detail." That was and is correct.

You then summarized the same material, and I said that "Though now summarized, which is good, I still question its significance. Was there some kind of change in policy in October 2006 regarding Reg. SHO? I searched the SEC website and could find none. I then looked for articles mentioning this and could find none. So I would suggest to please provide some article sourcing meeting Misplaced Pages criteria. As written currently, it falls squarely under the category of "original research" which is verboten under Wiki rules."

Whether this is "original research" or not is a side issue. You have yet to address my central point, which is that this repetitious and unnecessary detail that gives the mistaken impression that something happened in October 2006. Nothing happened in October 2006, yet you add it under "recent developments."

Even if you put it somewhere else, the issue remains as I stated it. That is my opinion, and of course I could be wrong, but it is important to have a good-faith dialogue and correctly state what other people I object to your oversimplifying and distorting my position, as well as to your constant stream of insults and personal atttacking terms.--Samiharris 22:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My responses:

Piperdown, your comments are not only wildly off-base, but they are off-base in the wrong place. The place to be off-base about naked short selling is in the talk page of naked short selling. If you're going to have a nervous breakdown concerning one paragraph of that article, please do it there so that other editors can read your comments.--Mantanmoreland 03:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

and

No problem. Your user ID evolved into a full-scale edit warrior after three days on Misplaced Pages, so it's pretty obvious this was anything but your first nervous breakdown.--Mantanmoreland 04:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

and

Correction, your edit warring began one week after you began editing, when you began your blatant POV pushing in naked short selling and when you responded to a compliment from another editor with a personal attack. I appreciate your frankness in acknowledging that you are edit warring, and that you view yourself as being on some kind of personal crusade. --Mantanmoreland 04:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am much less polite than Samiharris:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Hedge_fund&diff=prev&oldid=104860500

It needs to be noted that some funds are regulated by the CFTC if they trade futures in volume.--Samiharris 16:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't use expressions like "It needs to be noted"

Similarly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:George_Soros&diff=prev&oldid=105091445 I have not looked at the original, but I believe there are references to it the episode in the authorized biography by Michael Kauffman. Certainly a tasteful and nonjudgmental reference to that sad episode belongs in this article.--Samiharris

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:George_Soros&diff=prev&oldid=105092546

I went to the Kaufmann biography and there is a fair telling of the story, which caused a sensation a few years ago, including a 60 minutes episode, and probably should be included. I think a fair discussion of Mr. Soros' wartime experiences should be included, as it is important. --Samiharris

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Naked_short_selling&diff=prev&oldid=105572625

No offense taken, though I do not agree with removal. I see that there was an addition to the article, with the Overstock suit. I agree with Christofurio that lawsuits against brokerages are not per se notable, so will remove. Do you have an opinion on the Reg. SHO article?--Samiharris 14:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:George_Soros&diff=prev&oldid=105578831

I appreciate that. It is unfair to besmirch Mr. Soros for actions taken as a child, no matter what they were and certainly the greatest care needs to be taken.

On the issue of the "internal memorandum" regarding his vowing to fight insider trading charges in France, can't a source be cited on that? He has certainly generally denied culpability but I cannot recall any specific source or citation.--Samiharris 15:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Commodity_pool&diff=prev&oldid=105580374 Managed Futures

Commodity pools are part of the broader universe of managed futures, many of which are not pools per se. Should there not be an article on this separate and distinct investment vehicle?--Samiharris 15:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Responding in the naked short selling article: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Naked_short_selling&diff=prev&oldid=105809198

The edit that you made incorrectly implies there there have just been two recent lawsuits on this issue. There have been at least nine naked shorting suits against the Depository Trust and Clearing Corp. that were withdrawn or were unsuccessful, in addition to the recent suits. Not one has succeeded. I have added this information to the encyclopedia. Please do not remove.--Samiharris 15:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Naked_short_selling&diff=prev&oldid=105687988

Sorry for the error on Novastar. I will check out the Friedman settlement you mention. The sentence references the private lawsuits not being successful and therefore the sentence is correct as it now stands.--Samiharris 00:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"The sentence references"? I don't write like that.

Here is another diff from more recently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Patrick_M._Byrne&diff=prev&oldid=186760821

Look, you asked me if it should be in the article and I answered. We disagree on that, and in keeping with BLP practices I'm not going to put it back in. But I still think it is not a good thing to leave it out. More generally, I think the article would benefit from more on Byrne's political contributions, which appear to be significant.--Samiharris (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have fought the issue beyond this, and used far less mild language.

Here is another from two weeks ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=186759498

His edits on Misplaced Pages Review confirm that. I'm not suggesting they be used to justify the continued ban, as I don't think it is necessary. But it is worth observing that Piperdown is one of the most off the wall, paranoid contributors to Wiki Review, and it's always "Weiss this" and "Weiss that," and how "Weiss" is the source of all that ails Misplaced Pages. If there was any doubt that he was a WordBomb meatpuppet he allayed those doubts after he left here.--Samiharris (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"It is worth observing." "He allayed those doubts." Mantan does not use that kind of wording. Note his style is consistent with seven months earlier.

Also recent: (outdent) Luke, with all due respect I don't think it is your role to shield Byrne from what he says because you think it makes him look bad or "crazy." That is your OR analysis of what he says from a p.r. standpoint. That is not our role here. You're imposing, I think, an unreasonable standard here by saying that in order for his words to be quoted if they are "crazy" in your opinion, there must be an orgy of publicity as follows around Ann Coulter. Coulter is an entertainer while Byrne is a CEO and major political contributor. I'm still trying to figure out how what Byrne says can possibly raise BLP flags if accurately quoted, and I'd appreciate your addressing that. I don't see anything in BLP that relates to accurately quoting what the subject of an article says. I also don't see how you "attack" the subject of an article by quoting him.--Samiharris (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC) that one is http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Patrick_M._Byrne&diff=prev&oldid=186758485

Here is me from more recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Fordham_University&diff=prev&oldid=189665476

The problem is not lack of citations. It is that text is copied verbatim from the Fordham website. It needs to be rewritten and then it can be placed back in the article. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously the writing style of two different people because it is written by two different people.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence/Discussion, Section 5