From thatcher131 at gmail.com Wed May 14 16:27:47 2008
From: thatcher131 at gmail.com (Thatcher131 Wikipedia)
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 12:27:47 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Mantanmoreland? oh bugger (enwiki)
Message-ID: <14749c270805140927n726bd0cka5bcb305aa065fd8@mail.gmail.com>

I know several CUs have checked User:Bassettcat as a suspected
sockpuppet. I ran a new check today and I think he might have made a
significant slip. Or maybe I am just sleep-deprived.

Mantanmoreland:
*Edits exclusively from Verizon, apparently in New York City. The
majority of his IPs have server names of the format
"pool-xxxx-ny325.east.verizon.net". I don't think this is mobile
because a traceroute shows the immediate upstream servers have names
like "p3-0-0.dsl-rtr23.ny325.verizon-gni.net".
*Uses a common generic user agent indicating and up-to-date copy of
Firefox on Windows XP.

Bassettcat:
*Edits exclusively from Level 3 Communications in Chicago.
*Probably dial-up as the servers all have names like
"dialup-4.159.233.134.dial1.chicago1.level3.net".
*Generic user agent indicating MSIE 7 on Windows XP, with no toolbars
or enhancements.

!Except that Bassettcat made one edit yesterday from 151.202.75.88,
which is part of the same NYC Verzion pool that Mantanmoreland uses
(pool-151-202-75-88.ny325.east.verizon.net).

The timing is especially striking because he edits from the Chicago
dialup just minutes on either side of the Verizon edit.

* (diff) (hist) . . Insider trading . . 00:21 . . Bassettcat (Talk |
contribs | block) (CrimLaw)
IP: 4.159.235.108 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows
NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)
* (diff) (hist) . . Securities fraud . . 00:18 . . Bassettcat (Talk |
contribs | block) (More apt)
IP: 151.202.75.88 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows
NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)
* (diff) (hist) . . Securities fraud . . 00:15 . . Bassettcat (Talk |
contribs | block) (Law display)
IP: 4.159.235.50 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows
NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)
* (diff) (hist) . . Naked short selling . . 00:12 . . Bassettcat (Talk
| contribs | block) (Finance box)
IP: 4.159.235.50 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows
NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)

If we can confirm somehow that these verizon IPs are dsl landlines and
not some form of wireless connection, then we will have a user in New
York who is going to the lengths of dialing long distance to a Chicago
dialup for the purposes of concealment, which has got to be a bad
thing even if it is not Mantanmoreland. But numerous people have
raised the suspicion based on his edits, and combined with such
concealment...?

Thatcher
--------
From dmcdevit at cox.net Mon May 19 10:33:36 2008
From: dmcdevit at cox.net (Dmcdevit)
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 03:33:36 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Current issues 5/19/2008
In-Reply-To: <4830292C.8070500@cox.net>
References: <4830292C.8070500@cox.net>
Message-ID: <48315780.7070403@cox.net>

I took a look at the emails to this list just in the last month. You
have, according to my count, *20* ban appeals with no replies to their
senders, plus 4 other issues that were urgent oversight, outing, or
threats-related requests at the time that received no response, as well
as 4 other miscellaneous issues, but ones that need responses (Carnildo,
NonvocalScream, Mantanmoreland sock, and Lar's oversight request). By
this measure, this mailing list receives an issue needing a decision and
response by ArbCom at a *net* rate of about one a day (since this
doesn't count the threads that were resolved in the last month, just the
~28 that are still outstanding after that time).

ArbCom simply has no approach at all for the problem. I know I am not an
arbitrator, but to offer some perspective, I would say that the
proliferation of these extra-arbitration duties is the single biggest
change between now and 2006 when I served, but I also observe that there
has been no discernible change in the way that ArbCom deals with those
duties at all, since I served long ago. I would think, at a minimum, the
AC should keep track of the requests it get and make sure they actually
get responses when necessary. (I have a list of all the outstanding
issues I listed above, at least.)

This is one reason I didn't just stick a list of all 30 open issues, but
tried to make an agenda based on priority, which seems to me to be a
methodology, at least. That way, if you do one ArbCom-related thing
today, you can make sure it's something else that another arbitrator
will do with their one arbitration-related task of the day, too, and
perhaps it'll get resolved. One thing I noticed in looking at all the
incoming mail in the last month is the wasted discussion from a
haphazard approach: most of these threads are appeals followed by one or
two responses ("This sounds like a good idea," "Does this guy have any
recent sockpuppets?") which then become a waste of ArbCom time when the
thread just dies and the person gets no response anyway. I'm not
suggesting that you need to follow my scheme or want my nagging (or want
me to be a "Secretary," as James hideously called me), but the system
needs to be reworked, and it's not the casework part, but the approach
to non-casework duties that needs work.

Dominic
----------
From paulaugust.wp at gmail.com Mon May 19 17:00:42 2008
From: paulaugust.wp at gmail.com (Paul August)
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 13:00:42 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Current issues 5/19/2008
In-Reply-To: <48315780.7070403@cox.net>
References: <4830292C.8070500@cox.net> <48315780.7070403@cox.net>
Message-ID: <7D9E2AEA-66B1-41B4-B4CF-64628B271395@gmail.com>


On May 19, 2008, at 6:33 AM, Dmcdevit wrote:

> I took a look at the emails to this list just in the last month. You
> have, according to my count, *20* ban appeals with no replies to their
> senders, plus 4 other issues that were urgent oversight, outing, or
> threats-related requests at the time that received no response, as
> well
> as 4 other miscellaneous issues, but ones that need responses
> (Carnildo,
> NonvocalScream, Mantanmoreland sock, and Lar's oversight request). By
> this measure, this mailing list receives an issue needing a
> decision and
> response by ArbCom at a *net* rate of about one a day (since this
> doesn't count the threads that were resolved in the last month,
> just the
> ~28 that are still outstanding after that time).
>
> ArbCom simply has no approach at all for the problem. I know I am
> not an
> arbitrator, but to offer some perspective, I would say that the
> proliferation of these extra-arbitration duties is the single biggest
> change between now and 2006 when I served, but I also observe that
> there
> has been no discernible change in the way that ArbCom deals with those
> duties at all, since I served long ago. I would think, at a
> minimum, the
> AC should keep track of the requests it get and make sure they
> actually
> get responses when necessary. (I have a list of all the outstanding
> issues I listed above, at least.)
>
> This is one reason I didn't just stick a list of all 30 open
> issues, but
> tried to make an agenda based on priority, which seems to me to be a
> methodology, at least. That way, if you do one ArbCom-related thing
> today, you can make sure it's something else that another arbitrator
> will do with their one arbitration-related task of the day, too, and
> perhaps it'll get resolved. One thing I noticed in looking at all the
> incoming mail in the last month is the wasted discussion from a
> haphazard approach: most of these threads are appeals followed by
> one or
> two responses ("This sounds like a good idea," "Does this guy have any
> recent sockpuppets?") which then become a waste of ArbCom time when
> the
> thread just dies and the person gets no response anyway. I'm not
> suggesting that you need to follow my scheme or want my nagging (or
> want
> me to be a "Secretary," as James hideously called me), but the system
> needs to be reworked, and it's not the casework part, but the approach
> to non-casework duties that needs work.
>
> Dominic

I agree with all of the above. I've felt for some time that the
biggest improvement we could make would be to have a "Secretary" to
handle our email. The responsibilities would be to track and
acknowledge all the emails to the list, and provide additional
responses as appropriate. Even responses of the sort "The Committee
is not interested in considering an appeal at this time ..." I think
it needs to be an "official" position(s), appointed by the Committee
and announced to the community.

Paul August
----------
From steve-dunlop at nerstrand.net Mon May 19 18:03:53 2008
From: steve-dunlop at nerstrand.net (Steve Dunlop)
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 11:03:53 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Current issues 5/19/2008 - OTRS
Message-ID: <20080519110353.d34e889e074bc96cc6dfd25a6a4f8894.f05045650a.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

The choice that we face is either:
a) To install a ticketing system like OTRS so that such requests can be
managed to closure in an organized fashion
b) To do something to reduce the volume of incoming requests

Were it not for the Adam Cuerden case, I would have said that it would
be an entirely reasonable position for us to take to refuse to hear
emailed ban appeals, since 99% are wholly without merit. The remaining
1% are important however.

I suggest we get an OTRS of our own (where we can handle the
adminsitration ourselves, so not that WMF one) installed and running.
----------
From thatcher131 at gmail.com Wed May 28 17:58:07 2008
From: thatcher131 at gmail.com (Thatcher131 Wikipedia)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 13:58:07 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Mantanmoreland? oh bugger (enwiki)
In-Reply-To: <14749c270805140927n726bd0cka5bcb305aa065fd8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <14749c270805140927n726bd0cka5bcb305aa065fd8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <14749c270805281058j754a1b1bvf976e5e7d73bae20@mail.gmail.com>

Any thoughts on this?

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Thatcher131 Wikipedia
<thatcher131 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I know several CUs have checked User:Bassettcat as a suspected
> sockpuppet. I ran a new check today and I think he might have made a
> significant slip. Or maybe I am just sleep-deprived.
>
> Mantanmoreland:
> *Edits exclusively from Verizon, apparently in New York City. The
> majority of his IPs have server names of the format
> "pool-xxxx-ny325.east.verizon.net". I don't think this is mobile
> because a traceroute shows the immediate upstream servers have names
> like "p3-0-0.dsl-rtr23.ny325.verizon-gni.net".
> *Uses a common generic user agent indicating and up-to-date copy of
> Firefox on Windows XP.
>
> Bassettcat:
> *Edits exclusively from Level 3 Communications in Chicago.
> *Probably dial-up as the servers all have names like
> "dialup-4.159.233.134.dial1.chicago1.level3.net".
> *Generic user agent indicating MSIE 7 on Windows XP, with no toolbars
> or enhancements.
>
> !Except that Bassettcat made one edit yesterday from 151.202.75.88,
> which is part of the same NYC Verzion pool that Mantanmoreland uses
> (pool-151-202-75-88.ny325.east.verizon.net).
>
> The timing is especially striking because he edits from the Chicago
> dialup just minutes on either side of the Verizon edit.
>
> * (diff) (hist) . . Insider trading . . 00:21 . . Bassettcat (Talk |
> contribs | block) (CrimLaw)
> IP: 4.159.235.108 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows
> NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)
> * (diff) (hist) . . Securities fraud . . 00:18 . . Bassettcat (Talk |
> contribs | block) (More apt)
> IP: 151.202.75.88 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows
> NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)
> * (diff) (hist) . . Securities fraud . . 00:15 . . Bassettcat (Talk |
> contribs | block) (Law display)
> IP: 4.159.235.50 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows
> NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)
> * (diff) (hist) . . Naked short selling . . 00:12 . . Bassettcat (Talk
> | contribs | block) (Finance box)
> IP: 4.159.235.50 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows
> NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)
>
> If we can confirm somehow that these verizon IPs are dsl landlines and
> not some form of wireless connection, then we will have a user in New
> York who is going to the lengths of dialing long distance to a Chicago
> dialup for the purposes of concealment, which has got to be a bad
> thing even if it is not Mantanmoreland. But numerous people have
> raised the suspicion based on his edits, and combined with such
> concealment...?
>
> Thatcher
>
----------
From jayjg99 at gmail.com Wed May 28 18:39:12 2008
From: jayjg99 at gmail.com (jayjg)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 14:39:12 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Mantanmoreland? oh bugger (enwiki)
In-Reply-To: <14749c270805281058j754a1b1bvf976e5e7d73bae20@mail.gmail.com>
References: <14749c270805140927n726bd0cka5bcb305aa065fd8@mail.gmail.com>
<14749c270805281058j754a1b1bvf976e5e7d73bae20@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6a8d9d700805281139w60a250b7te72944a536473f23@mail.gmail.com>

CU 151.202.75.0/24

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Thatcher131 Wikipedia
<thatcher131 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Thatcher131 Wikipedia
> <thatcher131 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I know several CUs have checked User:Bassettcat as a suspected
-----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Wed May 28 18:47:13 2008
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 19:47:13 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Mantanmoreland? oh bugger (enwiki)
In-Reply-To: <14749c270805281058j754a1b1bvf976e5e7d73bae20@mail.gmail.com>
References: <14749c270805140927n726bd0cka5bcb305aa065fd8@mail.gmail.com>
<14749c270805281058j754a1b1bvf976e5e7d73bae20@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <483da85c.2233440a.7518.ffffab2c@mx.google.com>

Will have results on this in about 4 hours when I get home.

FT2


-----Original Message-----
From: arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thatcher131
Wikipedia
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 6:58 PM
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list
Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] Mantanmoreland? oh bugger (enwiki)

Any thoughts on this?
-----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Wed May 28 18:59:06 2008
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 19:59:06 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Mantanmoreland? oh bugger (enwiki)
In-Reply-To: <14749c270805281058j754a1b1bvf976e5e7d73bae20@mail.gmail.com>
References: <14749c270805140927n726bd0cka5bcb305aa065fd8@mail.gmail.com>
<14749c270805281058j754a1b1bvf976e5e7d73bae20@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <483dab27.1636440a.6a75.ffffb6a2@mx.google.com>

I've checked all IP ranges associated with Bassetcat. He edits exclusively
from Chicago Level3.

Except as Thatcher notes, on one occasion:


4.159.235.108 --> dialup-4.159.235.108.Dial1.Chicago1.Level3.net
14/05/2008 00:21 --> Bassettcat --> Insider trading
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...id=15368&diff=2
12240964&oldid=211897668

151.202.75.88 --> pool-151-202-75-88.ny325.east.verizon.net
14/05/2008 00:18 --> Bassettcat --> Securities fraud
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...rid=2902209&dif
f=212240407&oldid=212239892

4.159.235.50 --> dialup-4.159.235.50.Dial1.Chicago1.Level3.net
14/05/2008 00:15 --> Bassettcat --> Securities fraud
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...rid=2902209&dif
f=212239892&oldid=211897649

4.159.235.50 --> dialup-4.159.235.50.Dial1.Chicago1.Level3.net
14/05/2008 00:12 --> Bassettcat --> Naked short selling
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&curid=3898531&
diff=212239430&oldid=211290725


Crossref:

151.202.75.19 --> pool-151-202-75-19.ny325.east.verizon.net
17/03/2008 13:45 --> Mantanmoreland --> User talk:Mantanmoreland
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...eland&curid=698
8028&diff=198853016&oldid=198809421



Quack. Any chance of a frame-up as was previously suggested at RFAR? Or do
we go with the obvious interpretation, given just how closely the IPs match?


FT2
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Wed May 28 19:24:27 2008
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 20:24:27 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Mantanmoreland? oh bugger (enwiki)
Message-ID: <483db111.09a1660a.30e7.7aa1@mx.google.com>

Forwarded to arb-l, and, unless anyone objects we treat this as confirmed?

FT2



-----Original Message-----
From: Thatcher131 Wikipedia [mailto:thatcher131 at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 8:14 PM
To: FT2.wiki at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] Mantanmoreland? oh bugger (enwiki)

>
> Quack. Any chance of a frame-up as was previously suggested at RFAR? Or do
> we go with the obvious interpretation, given just how closely the IPs
match?
>
> FT2

Note that Bassett's slip-up on May 14 came *after I had answered the
RFCU against him as "unrelated" on May 5, so in order to be a
frame-up, the framer would have had to be clairvoyant to know that I
would recheck privately on my own initiative, or would have to have
made the Verizon edit, then emailed me to request a recheck, which did
not happen.

Thatcher
----------
From dmcdevit at cox.net Thu May 29 00:15:05 2008
From: dmcdevit at cox.net (Dmcdevit)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 17:15:05 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Mantanmoreland? oh bugger (enwiki)
In-Reply-To: <483db111.09a1660a.30e7.7aa1@mx.google.com>
References: <483db111.09a1660a.30e7.7aa1@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <483DF589.7000500@cox.net>

Certainly not confirmed, at least in the way we use "confirmed" at RFCU
(meaning the IP evidence actually ties them conclusively). It is
definitely suggestive though, and looking at the behavior (which I
haven't done) may seal the deal. Keep in mind that Verizon in NYC is a
big pool of IPs. I would check the single NYC IP used by Bassett in case
it's a proxy of some type that Bassett used, and only happened to be in
Mantanmoreland's range. We might also have to consider the possibility
that it's more than one person. Has anyone asked Bassett if he can
explain why his IP changed to a NYC one in too short a time frame to
have actually traveled?

Dominic

FT2 wrote:
> Forwarded to arb-l, and, unless anyone objects we treat this as confirmed?
>
> FT2
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Thu May 29 03:20:36 2008
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 03:20:36 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Possible additional socks related to Mantanmoreland case
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0805282020x490da25n441fdc729e3e5b92@mail.gmail.com>

I note the following obviously alternative accounts who have been editing in
relation to the Mantanmoreland case. I don't presume to know the identities
of those behind the accounts and will leave that for arbitrators/checkusers
to determine, as they see fit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pwntjuice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ions/Comployeah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Snowies (claimed as
primary account by Comployeah)


(You may already be well aware of these; I just want to make sure these
accounts don't slip through the cracks when other issues are being dealt
with.)

Best,
Risker
----------
From dmcdevit at cox.net Thu May 29 12:58:33 2008
From: dmcdevit at cox.net (Dmcdevit)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 05:58:33 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Possible additional socks related to Mantanmoreland
case
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0805282020x490da25n441fdc729e3e5b92@mail.gmail.com>
References: <eb45e7c0805282020x490da25n441fdc729e3e5b92@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <483EA879.70008@cox.net>

Risker wrote:
> I note the following obviously alternative accounts who have been
> editing in relation to the Mantanmoreland case. I don't presume to
> know the identities of those behind the accounts and will leave that
> for arbitrators/checkusers to determine, as they see fit.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pwntjuice
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ions/Comployeah
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Snowies (claimed as
> primary account by Comployeah)
>
>
> (You may already be well aware of these; I just want to make sure
> these accounts don't slip through the cracks when other issues are
> being dealt with.)
>
> Best,
> Risker
>
>

Both are clear matches with CheckUser. The latter two are Dereks1x, and
the first one is WordBomb, along with the edits made by
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.192.164.228>.

Dominic