Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo/Archive

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Talk

Comment

The evidence presented by Sciurinæ is not complete. Today, I sent the full evidence to Jayvdb, an ArbCom member and a trusted member of our community, and he forwarded it to the Arbitration Committee. AdjustShift (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'll be closing this case on 24 May 2009. I'm analyzing this case very carefully. I've analyzed Molobo's edits carefully. I've also analyzed past disputes such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes. The evidence provided by Sciurinæ is strong, and I would like to thank him for his work. Other editors can give their input below. AdjustShift (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can the above pieces of evidence be numbered so that it is easier to refer to them in the comments?

collapsed content that is not appropriate for an SPI case

Overall though most of these criticism describe what A LOT of Polish editors do (sometimes rightly sometimes wrongly). I myself have 1) removed (or flipped) German names when they were in violation of the Gdansk/Danzig vote, 2) questioned the number of expellees as claimed by Erika S., 3) restored text which was removed w/o explanation from strategic bombing/Wielun articles, 4) added Polish name to articles on historical personages of "ambiguous" ethnicity which some have tried to forcibly Germanize, 5) edited articles on "century old" German crimes in ways that some German editors objected to (I can't remember if I ever did anything with Glogow, but certainly some others), and probably cited Marel ... ooops, that "l" key is awfully close to the "k" key ... Edelman as "last living survivor of Warsaw Ghetto Uprising" (that phrasing is quite common in both Polish and English media).

In fact, if someone claimed that I was a sock puppet of Molobo I think similar evidence could be gathered and interpreted in support of that contention. Now, I'm pretty sure I'm not a sock puppet of Molobo - baring mind control or something - and you can run whatever check users or whatever you want on that. So the "strength" of the above evidence is pretty superficial. Basically the evidence presented above proves that ... both Molobo and Gwinndeith are Polish!

The only "stronger" piece is on Stauffenberg basically because that's a bit more obscure (I think?). But even there the evidence is far from conclusive and the reason both editors are inserting similarly worded text is simply because they are both inserting a QUOTE. Actually the fact that they insert two different versions of the same quote seems be evidence contra the sock puppet accusation.radek (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't expect to be able to convince those users with similar connections to Piotrus like Molobo,[1] I'm not going to waste time and words trying to, especially not after a ridiculous comment like that (your "Marel" statement topped it in my opinion). However, what I can do is to number the points and that is the only helpful part from your statement anyway. Sciurinæ (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sciurinae, the fact that you don't like me - I'm gonna be generous here and assume that this is because of my "connections" to Piotrus and not something else, since we've hardly ever interacted - is no secret. But what's wrong with my "Marel" statement? The "k" and the "l" key are right next to each other on a standard Qwerty keyboard so it's very possible that two different persons make the same typo. In a similar manner, double posting occurs when one's computer is slow and you hit the "Save page" button twice - I'm sure everyone that's commented on this page has done this at some point. This is just more really weak charges dressed up to look more important than they really are.radek (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling mistake occurs on the same unrelated article, with the same idea to mention that person and his criticism, same grammar mistake, and even the exact same statistically absurd misspelling of his name. I cannot believe you're actually calling this an expectable coincidence. Sciurinæ (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mistake would be statistically unlikely (I don't know what "statistically absurd" means) if the k and the l keys were just two random keys. But they happen to be right next each other so that a simple slip of a finger can cause one to substitute for the other. This isn't hard to understand. As for the rest, it just means that ME was a likely source here. Again, you're dressing up something into what it's not.radek (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While there is a very tiny chance of a misspelling him like that, this spelling mistake also occurred on the same unrelated article, with the same idea to mention that person and his criticism, and with the same grammar mistake. It's simply completely unlikely. Sciurinæ (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, of course there isn't google hits for it - webpages aren't wiki edits that are sometimes made without clicking the show preview button. That proves absolutely nothing - mights as well type in random misspellings of Barrack Onama's name into google to prove that these chances are "tiny". You seem to be saying that neither Molobo nor Gwinndeith are aware of how to spell Marek Edelman's name properly and hence the mistake. But that's ridiculous - every Polish adult knows how to spell "Marek", though I can see how this might not be obvious to an admin not familiar with Eastern Europe. The obvious explanation is that it simply a typo due to the fact that the lk keys are right next to each other and anyone could've made that mistake.radek (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@radek: "The obvious explanation is that it simply a typo due to the fact that the lk keys are right next to each other and anyone could've made that mistake". Fair enough. But can you say circumstantial evidence? The question is, how many people have actually made it? No matter how close K and L are, as of today, Google reports exactly one other specimen of this typo [2] outside Wikipedia. How likely is it, that out of three people, two unrelated ones, with habits otherwise similar enough to be suspected as socks, make the same mistake? To be sure, there may be a totally innocent explanation for each and every individual diff provided by Scirunae. But even if you provide one for every single one, you still haven't disproved anything: This case rests on the strange concurrence of many different observations, none of which needs to mean much on its own, but that add up to a fairly consistent pattern. --Thorsten1 (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I`m not an expert in this but I thought that the strong evidence would be a little stronger than that....this looks more like speculation...just my 3 cents.--Jacurek (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacurek: I understand that the bulk of the evidence was submitted confidentially and will be interpreted and decided upon by an impartial admin. This is not a vote or even a discussion. --Thorsten1 (talk) 09:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC

Yes but that is the problem - the secrecy involved. If the evidence that is shown is superficial and trumped up why should anyone be confident that the 'secret evidence' is not? Maybe I wasn't clear enough above. I can see how a ... uninvolved ... admin (i.e. unfamiliar editor) would construe the above correlation between Molobo's and Gwinndeith's edits as evidence for sock puppetry. But as the kids says these days "correlation is not causation", particularly when there is a compelling other reason which explains it - the common nationality of both users. How do we know that the wrong conclusion, based on superficial correlation isn't being made based on the secret evidence? (Note that this not questioning anyone's good faith)

As to whether this is a discussion, it does say "Other editors can give their input below".radek (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious if the other evidence are similar to the above speculations and if they will really make admin. job easier. I think that the above evidence/speculations are open for interpretation too much and may be explained in many different ways such as that both editors are Polish for example. Is there any other way? Check the geographical location of the both IP's, log in times or something like that? This would be the real evidence. I just don't want to see both users (if they are two different people of course) and especially Molobo who is so knowledgeable about WW2/Polish-German relations and who was so helpful to me in the past, to be unjustly banned. That is all.--Jacurek (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Radeksz: "that is the problem - the secrecy involved" - it's standard practice in all sorts of investigations to hold back part of the evidence in order not to compromise the investigation. There's nothing wrong with this. "How do we know that the wrong conclusion, [...] isn't being made based on the secret evidence?" Of course, if the admin dealing with this case decides to sanction anyone, the evidence has to be made public afterwards, so that complaints can be made; if not, there's no need to make it public as nobody will have any reason to complain. As for "correlation is not causation" - of course not, but alas, we can't establish causation except by observing correlation. It's for the admin to decide if the correlation justifies the assumption of causation or not, and I'm sure he or she will grant Molobo the due benefit of doubt, so you really needn't worry.

Finally, a word about the argument "It's just because he's Polish" that's coming up in both Radeksz's and Jacurek's comments: I'd warn against ascribing Molobo's kind of POV-pushing to the Polish people as a whole, or even just the Polish community on Wikipedia (which, granted, tends to be more "patriotic" than the average Pole). That's bordering on spreading anti-Polish prejudice (even if the opposite is intended). If Molobo was really just presenting common Polish POVs (and found himself discriminated against because of it, as is implied), you'd have a hard time explaining why they blocked him many times on .pl, too (for reasons like "aggressive and provocative edit summaries", "trolling, edit war, vandalism", "edit wars, repeat offender" [3]). Also, for those who happen to understand Polish, a look at Molobo's user talk on .pl might help put in perspective the notion that he is only representing common and legitimate Polish views. --Thorsten1 (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thorsten, well, if the evidence is made public after a decision is made and can be examined and challenged then that'd be good - though really it should be made public somewhere between the execution of the investigation and the rendering of the decision so that the challenges and input can have impact upon it (it's harder to win an appeal once somebody made up their mind). In all of this I am really concerned that these kinds of secret evidence based investigations and non transparent decision making set a really bad precedent (in addition to widening the gulf between admins and regular users).

As to Molobo's POV, from your examples it doesn't seem like the content of his edits is a problem - most Polish editors would agree with them to a large extent - it's how he makes them. And even that needs to be qualified due to the fact that he edits controversial pages which often lead to edit wars even among editors with the best of intentions.radek (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radek: To clarify, I think the material should be made public only if Molobo ends up being sanctioned because of it. Even if the admin decides its not sufficient to base sanctions on, this does not constitute acquittal. Therefore, the evidence should not be made public in order not to prevent its use in any future procedure. Does it set a bad precedent? I'm tempted to agree. However, the question is, what is doing more harm to Wikipedia as a whole - this, or giving users like Molobo carte blanche? I guess we disagree as to which is the lesser of the two evils. "it doesn't seem like the content of his edits is a problem - [...] it's how he makes them." I would say it's exactly the other way round. "most Polish editors would agree with them to a large extent -". If this is so, it doesn't speak well for most Polish editors. --Thorsten1 (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<--This isn't really a place to discuss the content of Molobo's edits (rather than style), but I was just basing that opinion on the nature of his block log and the discussion on his pl talk page.radek (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But all this proves is that it's easier to get yourself blocked because of the form than because of contents of your edits. It doesn't prove there's nothing wrong with the contents, as you imply. --Thorsten1 (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the point is that it doesn't prove there is anything wrong with the contents. That's sort of the running problem here - there seems to be a pervasive presumption of guilt on more than one account; no evidence of innocence in edit content so the edits must be bad; no public evidence of sock puppetry so the secret evidence must be damning. That's inadvertently setting two bad precedents not just one. I understand full well that Wiki isn't a courtroom, but the reason that presumption of innocence and the right to address evidence presented against oneself are part and parcel of every decent legal system in the world is precisely because they make good procedural sense.radek (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radek: The present procedure is strictly concerned with the formal issue of whether Gwinndeith is Molobo's sockpuppet or not. You're right that whoever gets to make the decision should start from the assumption of innocence and sanction only if there's reasonable evidence against this assumption. But since we are talking about contents - yes, I think there is everything wrong with the contents of Molobo's edits. On the project page, you conceded "I really don't know who this user is and only seen her/him in a few places (I haven't had that much interaction with Molobo either". In you favor, I assume that this is why you seem to be unaware of the problem. --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thorsten, I think on the procedural issue we agree, more or less - if sanctions are made, then at the very least the evidence should be made public (though I think even that is short of ideal, per my comment above how appeals usually don't favor the appealing party above). As to Molobo's contents; I can't see how you can say that there is "everything" wrong with his edits. A lot of them are really just getting rid of ultra nationalistic Germanization stuff from some articles and a strong objection to Nazi era sources. I hope you don't take this against me but as I've stated before - I could've made the very same edits. Hell, I DO make those same edits. Granted, a lot of that is just reverting anon ip's but not all. And I also realize that a lot of this bad blood started WAY back when, before I actually showed up here at Wiki, hence there is personal grudges involved and editors who overstepped normal lines of decency and there's blood feuds that I am still trying to figure out. But since I've gotten involved in all of this mess as of late, I really do feel like any of that shouldn't be my problem. I'm here now and I like being part of writing an encyclopedia (which I myself use extensively) and I want it to be good and for it to be good it needs good rules and procedures and all this secret stuff isn't one of them. So far you haven't really given any evidence that Molobo's edits (or Gwinnedith's for that matter) are "a problem", just asserted it.radek (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A lot of them are really just getting rid of ultra nationalistic Germanization stuff from some articles and a strong objection to Nazi era sources" Molobo's edits are, by and large, not just "anti-Nazi", but anti-German, anti-liberal, anti-Russian, anti-whatever. Of course, there is some "collateral benefit" every now and then. But on the whole, anything useful Molobo may have done is more than outweighed by his destructive edits to articles and the negative vibe he creates on talk pages. Wikipedia doesn't depend on Molobo to remove "ultra nationalistic Germanization stuff" and "Nazi era sources". Especially not when he replaces it with another "ultra nationalistic" endecja POV. "So far you haven't really given any evidence that Molobo's edits (or Gwinnedith's for that matter) are "a problem", just asserted it." Quite apart from the fact that I don't have the time to state the obvious (obvious to most people who haven't gotten "involved in all of this mess as of late"), as you said yourself, we're discussing style, not contents here. No one regrets this more than I do; IMO Molobo should have been blocked a long time ago for his POV-pushing as such, not just his technical methods. As soon as there is the opportunity/necessity to take Molobo to "court" for his POV, I'll be glad to provide evidence galore. --Thorsten1 (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to present diffs of Molobo's alleged disruptive edits? I don't recall him adding endecja propaganda to the site, but I do recall him removing Nazi propaganda, and I do recall him suffering for it when it is reframed as "anti-German edits".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually have a hard time finding diffs that are not disruptive. But, as I said earlier today, this just isn't the venue for it, as its strictly about his use of socks. I repeat: As soon as there is the opportunity/necessity to take Molobo to "court" for his POV, I'll be glad to provide evidence galore. --Thorsten1 (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC is that'a way, what's so hard about starting it? I find it curious that Molobo has never been a target of a normal dispute procedure, but instead, he has been badmouthed for years on avenues such as this one. Sure, everyone knows he is a bad guy, so we don't need to prove it, yes? PS. Back on topic and for the record, I don't find Molobo article's edits disruptive, and I find his 1RR restriction unfair, but if he is indeed using a sock to avoid it, I will agree he needs to be punished for evading the restriction, no matter how unfair it was in the first place. Socking is not the right way to deal with this.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not completely mistaken, Molobo has often been the subject of content-based disputes. However, he can rely on any number of Polish Wikipedians with a "my country right or wrong" attitude to bail him out of anything. Most editors simply don't have the time and Don-Quijote-like resources to struggle with this phenomenon. "I find his 1RR restriction unfair, but if he is indeed using a sock to avoid it, I will agree he needs to be punished for evading the restriction, no matter how unfair it was in the first place." I'm glad that we agree as far as the purpose of this discussion is concerned. --Thorsten1 (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, there are no active editors who edit "for Poland - and references be damned"; Molobo usually provides good citations for his edits. However I know quite a few editors who dedicate their time to whitewashing Nazi crimes and such. Guess which country most of them come from - then guess how much they like Molobo - and then guess how many editors most critical of Molobo belong to both of those groups...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrusiu, you know as well as I do that it's not all about "references". Even assuming that Molobo always correctly references his edits, the problem is how he selects the references and/or how he interprets them. Apart from that, I refuse to join this silly "Polish vs. German" game. The trouble with Molobo isn't that he is Polish; it's that he interprets everything in nationalist terms. The fact that he isn't the only nationalist is no excuse, and shouldn't be a justification for any of his compatriots to support him. Not least because this is damaging both Poland's and Wikipedia's image. --Thorsten1 (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thorstenku, I certainly will admit that Molobo has his biases. But having a POV is perfectly fine per NPOV. The question is, is he disrupting Wikipedia? Please explain to me how he is doing this. Or better - start an ArbCom and do it there. I am really tired of hearing "Molobo is bad and is ruining Polish reputation and etc." without any specifics. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piotruśku, when you say that "Molobo has his biases", which is "perfectly fine per NPOV", you're implying that his biases aren't worse than anybody else's. You know perfectly well that Molobo has been involved in countless POV disputes for years, stubbornly resisted compromises, has been the subject of RfC, has a block log as long as your arm. "I am really tired of hearing "Molobo is bad and is ruining Polish reputation and etc." And what I am really tired of hearing is "Molobo is OK and isn't doing any harm", "he's just anti-Nazi", "his opponents are all anti-Polish", etc. "start an ArbCom and do it there" I'd love to do that, but like most people, I simply don't have the time for endless arguments with his valiant wikilawyers who he can always count on to stick it out for him no matter what. Besides, as Mayalld says below, contents disputes just don't belong on this page - so that's the last you'll here from me about them --Thorsten1 (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The circumstantial evidence provided so far is pointing to far more than just a Polish nationality: it points to a distinct kind of personality not to be found in most Polish editors active here. I agree with Thorsten1 on that. Yet, though it is pretty obvious by the editing pattern of the Gwinndeith account that it is most certainly a sockpuppet, it is likely, but not 100% sure that the puppeteer is the same person operating the Molobo account. From the evidence forwarded by me alone, this conclusion would be too hasty. That's why I put it here for investigation, and the input of additional evidence certainly increased the level of likelihood. I agree with Radek and Jacurek that all the public evidence here is an indication, but not a proof. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confidential evidence

As I understood Sciurinae, the evidence is not made public because it would certainly be abused as a "Manual for the most vicious puppeteer - How to get away with socking". If this is true, the evidence should be kept private, and we should rely on the impartial judgement of the investigating admins. If the evidence does not reveal more than an average potential sockpuppeteer knows anyway, than it should be made public. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is true; that's why Sciurinae hasn't published them. Sciurinae worries that if he publishes the confidential evidences, he may not be able figure out future sockpuppets of Molobo. I've analyzed the confidential evidences, and they are pretty convincing. AdjustShift (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Convincing how? Convincing in the same way that supposedly the evidence presented above is convincing or (hopefully) convincing in a better way? Is there any guideline/precedent/rule/suggestion that addresses this kind of secret examination of evidence without the ability of the accused or other editors to be able to see and/or comment on it? I understand Sciurinae's concerns but I don't quite understand why it is automatically presupposed that these concerns are to outweight basic issues of procedural fairness.radek (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The unposted evidence is of a kind that, were it published online, or otherwise made known to Molobo or an ally, would allow Molobo to evade detection in future. It is not in wikipedia's interest to publish it. It is sufficient that AdjustShift or Sciurinae makes the evidence available to any CU or Arb that requests it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning the delicate nature of the evidence here, per AGF, since I haven't seen it, so you don't have to explain/repeat to me the same thing all over again. I get it - if Sciurinae reveals how he (thinks he) caught the culprit, then the culprit will know to come up with a new trick in the future. What I am questioning here is the blanket assumption that the revelation of this evidence - that most of us have not seen, hence have no way of knowing that it is in fact a "ticking bomb" - is more damaging to the wiki project than the fact that these decisions can be made in secret.

Look Deacon, I'm sure there's some editors out there that don't like you, for whatever reason. I base that solely on the fact that you've been around for awhile since "time=enemies". At some point one of them mind find it useful for some nefarious purposes of their own to blame you for something or other of which you are innocent. If at that point they try to get you blocked, banned, or have your good name smeared based on some "secret evidence" that can't be released for "security reasons" I will be the first one to stand up and say "I've had my disagreements with that guy, he may be guilty, but this is not right people!". Same thing here.

To get a bit technical here, this is a question of which kind of error is more costly [4]. To find Molobo guilty if he is innocent or to find him innocent if he is guilty. And editors are lining up in predictable ways on this - if you think his edits are not worth much to begin with then you think there's no harm in convicting the innocent - but that's a very strong POV and many of us disagree strongly. But either way, guilty or innocent, at the very least a discussion about which one of these two types of errors is worse for the project, and its potential ramifications for how future decisions are made needs to be carried out. Before this kind of procedure starts setting some dangerous precedents.radek (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What harm exactly do you expect in case the confidential part of the evidence is not being made public? Skäpperöd (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the first harm is to the accused, as they are not able to confront the evidence presented against them. It increases the chances of a false finding. But there's also a second broader harm to the Wiki project as a whole because it sets a dangerous precedent. Maybe this time the "secret evidence" is convincing, I don't know. But next time it might not be. And admins (God bless them) are human too and can also make mistakes - and without feedback and comments from broader community (which is not possible if evidence is kept secret) these mistakes cannot be corrected. Finding somebody guilty of sock puppetry is serious business. It should be conducted seriously. And this means not basing the decision on "secret evidence".radek (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to object to this evidence. First, secret evidence does not allow one to defend against it, it smacks of totalitarian trials. Second, the reasoning behind this is contrary to our basic principles of open content and bazaar model of knowledge creation. We don't grow strong on secrets, we grow strong on sharing information. If there are tricks to being a successful sock, they should be exposed and widely discussed, so the community can design countermeasures and that more editors know what to look for in the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure everyone that I'll not take actions without publishing the secret evidences. I strongly believe that transparency is important. AdjustShift (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's promising, but shouldn't Molobo and Gwinn be informed of it so they have a chance to reply to it before the verdict is passed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 10:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If AdjustShift is going to publish this secret evidence before taking action anyway, why not publish it now, what difference will it really make, apart from putting Molobo at a disadvantage of not being be able to defend himself? For all we know this secret evidence could be a forgery. --Martintg (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Molobo often takes week-or-longer wikiholidays due to being busy in RL. Publishing the results shortly before a final decision may be putting him at quite a disadvantage. Whenever this "secret evidence" is published, we should wait to hear his (and Gwinn's!) response to it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but if AdjustShift were to come to a decision based upon this evidence before allowing Molobo and Gwinn adequate time to view and respond to this evidence, and it later proved that this evidence was flawed, it could be rather embarrassing to say the least. I just don't get the need for secrecy, if Molobo and Gwinn are innocent, this evidence is irrelevant (and the assertion that the evidence should remain secret in case Molobo attempts sock puppetry in the future is a massive assumption of bad faith in this event), if they are guilty this evidence will be released anyway. Shrug. Why delay releasing it? --Martintg (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The off-wiki evidences will be published few days before the final verdict is passed. WP editors will be given a chance to look at the evidences and respond to it. AdjustShift (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But why not release it NOW? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have some patience. AdjustShift (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but please answer my question. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I've analyzed your psychology and I can say that you don't suffer from anxiety disorder. You are a calm individual. I've already answered your question. Have some patience. I'm not going to take any actions against Molobo without giving sufficient time for you guys to respond. Chill out. AdjustShift (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AdjustShift, the sooner the better, otherwise it would be very unfair..., kind of a secret trial. Thanks again.--Jacurek (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm against secret trials or totalitarian trials, so don't worry. AdjustShift (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your professional medical opinion :) But I think you are missing my point. I am not demanding that the evidence be presented right now IF there are reasons to delay such presentation, I am assuming good faith that there are such reasons but I am also asking what those reasons are. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I think this has been discussed enough: The evidence is being withheld for the time being in order not to compromise it. As pointed out before, this is common practice in investigations. There may be a good case for disclosing the relevant evidence, but there is certainly no reason for disclosing it immediately just because the Molobo Appreciation Society demands it, so it can start wikilawyering. BTW, I have to back down from my earlier statement regarding the publication of evidence if and after any actions have been taken against Molobo: I didn't think about the fact that even if Molobo gets blocked permanently, he may go on creating sockpuppets whose identification will be made more difficult, as he'll be careful not to repeat any mistakes that have identified him. So yes, there is a case for publishing the evidence, but there is an even better case for not publishing it - you just have to pick the lesser of two evils. Just like CheckUser evidence is not published for an overwhelming reason (privacy), this evidence, too, may not be published for an overwhelming reason (Wikipedia's interest to crack down on sockpuppetry). True, this is not (yet) established practice, but we all know that on Wikipedia, we often need to make the rules as we go along. --Thorsten1 (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I see your point. So just to be clear: you will understand that if I receive some evidence against you that I find convincing I will permban you and keep the evidence secret to prevent you from learning from it, right? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you receive evidence that I'm habitually using sockpuppets to evade bans, so there is a compelling reason not to release the evidence, I guess will understand it. By the way, I'm pretty sure you understand it as well, but are trying to wikilawyer Molobo out of it regardless. --Thorsten1 (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Woogie10w [5]: No, but it does need to have procedures to protect itself against disruptive editing and the evasion of sanctions. Of course, not surprisingly people getting stopped from such activities and their friends will tend to try and discredit such procedures. --Thorsten1 (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Woogie10w [6]: "you cannot ban those you disagree with you". No, but admins can ban those who disagree with the rules, such as NPOV or 3RR. And a good thing, too. "My advice for the Poles and Germans on Wikipedia is to stop the bickering and cooperate together to improve the content of articles." I couldn't agree more. The question is, what to do about those who consistently refuse to listen to such advice? --Thorsten1 (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought you, Piotrus, were the greatest supporter of secret communication. You've had Molobo in your Gadu-Gadu instant messenger list since at least 2006 ([7], confirmed in a limited hangout last year [8]). If it is legitimate Wiki business, feel free to publish the logs. If it is (also) personal, why don't you ever make anyone aware of your friendship with the one you so vigorously defend? You've even canvassed ([9]) and played judge for him ([10]). You also contacted Moreschi off-wiki because Molobo got blocked.[11]

This year there will apparently not be any other policy for his Molobo.[12] [13] [14] Over a similarly secret way Radeksz was convinced to use Wikimail for off-wiki contact with you.[15] As the latest example shows, you two also do that in a twosome with Molobo ([16] [17] [18] [19] [20]).

When you got blocked for 3RR, Piotrus, you did not protest on-wiki, either, but unblock-shopped via IRC with false claims.[21] This would not be the last time to use IRC like this.[22] Or when AGK invited "editors with any evidence of interest to email" him against Matthead (a user disliked by you, Piotrus),[23] no one protested, although both you and Martintg had been part of the case, who now protest. Almost needless to say, AGK received an email from you.[24]

There's actually a good reason for off-wiki evidence, because the release of that evidence would be detrimental to being able to combat further sockpuppets of Molobo and I'm not going to release it openly. This additional evidence can be seen as an added bonus to what I've already posted above, on whose ground a block can be taken itself. The off-wiki part can be reviewed by the ArbCom or the functionaries and certain interested uninvolved administrators and help with a correct conclusion.

"By tradition, Arbcom (and a few other specialist groups) has the authority to take actions based on evidence that, for various reasons, cannot be revealed to the community as a whole. [...] Judging by the above, Arbcom doesn't intend this ruling to relate to every last thing not on the public record that backs up an admin or user decision. In particular, it is not intended to make Arbcom into "sockpuppet clearing house central". Administrators dealing with sockpuppets whose "give away" signs can't be made public can for example explain some points, such as the banned user's name, or seek review by other sysops, or the like. Common sense applies."[25]

Sciurinæ (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sciurinæ, you should just make a template {{Piotrus-Bad}} for the above accusations because you drag them out everytime something like this comes up, despite the fact that most of them are false, mischaracterized or pulled out of thin air. It'd save you some time. In fact your frequent misrepresentation of past incidences is one very good reason for why one should be very wary of any kind validity of 'secret evidence' you have submitted. And again, please tone down the incivil tone here.radek (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided enough diffs to allow people to verify everything for themselves. Apparently you seem to prefer making baseless accusations. Sciurinæ (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. This is not a place to discussing about the Eartern European disputes. Please discuss about this case. AdjustShift (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skäpperöd's response to Molobo

collapsed content that is not appropriate for an SPI case

Is this SPI case the result of a conspiracy ?

Molobo says: "Please note that both Scinurea and Skapperod are in personal contact and Skapperod did inform Scinurea to inform admin about "secret evidence". What is interesting is that it happened just after Skapperod traveled back from a short trip from somewhere."

On 5 May 9:28: When I opened this case I left identical messages at the talk pages of everyone I mentioned in my opening statement to make sure everyone is aware.
On 5 May 9:29 Sciurinae got his message.
On 5 May 13:30 Sciurinae posted here that he had convincing evidence that he wants to e-mail to me and a neutral admin.
On 5 May 15:55 I replied that I could not make use of the evidence, and that I hope he finds someone who can.
On 13 May 6:55 AdjustShift said he will analyze the case.
On 13 May 9:13 I informed Sciurinae about that and that he should forward his evidence to him.
On 16 May. Since Sciurinae did not respond, I asked him if he had done so yet

Skäpperöd (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gwinndeith was attacked right away

Molobo says: "Gwinndeith was just a curious user who edited like most of Poles a couple of articles and was attacked right away by Skapperod" My interaction with the Gwinndeith account started when this account added stuff like "a daughter born to Nazi Germany" to a German MP in the lead of an article I had just developed, breaching at the very least WP:BLP and WP:NPOV with this line alone. In fact, The behaviour of the Gwinndeith account in the following led me assume that this account is not operated by someone new to wikipedia, eventually leading to this case. For all other allegations concerning my behaviour, I think it is best not to respond here as they are unrelated to the SPI case. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural questions by Skäpperöd

I understand from the recent moves and discussion that the admins/clerks here are divided on how to structure this case, particularily on how to divide evidence from comments and case-related comments from general comments. I feel this uncertainty contributes to the growing amount of general comments on both the talk and the project page, as it encourages editors to present their views on who are the good/bad guys in the EE area.

(1) May I ask if the clerks/admins handling this case have yet agreed on a procedure?
(2) I understand the evidence must be on the project page for technical reasons (later archiving). Is this also true for all comments now on the project page (or which of them), i.e. sections "Comments by accused parties", "Comments by other users", "Comment", and "Principled objection by Digwuren"? If not, can these sections be moved to the talk page, if yes what kind of comments are legitimate on the project page, and what kind of comments should be made at talk?
(3) What comments should not be made at all? Is it legitimate to discuss alleged motives, alleged nationalities, alleged underlying disputes and the like? I am asking because all these allegations have been made directed against me and others, and I am not sure if/how to respond. I can't really imagine that these more general discussions are legitimate here, since this case would then become a mixture of multiple user-RfCs and a revival of the Piotrus2-Arbcom, which certainly was not my intend when starting this case. My intend was that someone familiar with sockpuppeteers investigate the editing pattern of the Gwinndeith account and maybe find its master. Since AdjustShift in the "Archive" section above said that this case is somehow special and that some spill-over from EE disputes is expected here, I'd like to have a guideline on what is legitimate and what not on these pages, and what should be discussed on the project page, and what should be discussed on the talk page. Eg all the responses made by me in the section above are responses to alleged motives of mine, which prove to be false. Am I to ignore comments made on my motives (like that I am part of a conspiracy and sitting in the bushes ready to attack new users), or should I comment? I am sure this case can only benefit from a clear announcement and its enforcement.
(4) Double and deleted posts: Woogie10w withdrew some of his earlier comments by deleting them from the threaded discussion. Is this legitimate, or should he be advised to restore them and strike them out? Also, Molobo's latest reply is still in here twice.

Thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I won't be archiving this page again, per AdjustShift's wishes, although I'm not sure this is the best approach.

(2) Yes, evidence needs to be on the case page. Counter-evidence or responses to evidence should also be on the case page, and it will all be archived together. Discussion on the talkpage won't be moved off the page - when the case is closed, I will collapse the discussion here and note the case date.

(3) The only discussion here should be (a) relevant to this SPI and (b) focused on supporting or refuting the allegation of sockpuppetry. Anything else (motives, conspiracy theories, history of disputes, etc.) belongs somewhere else.

(4) General talkpage etiquette is that comments which others have responded to should be struck out and not deleted, so as not to render the comments of others nonsensical.

Nathan^T 13:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we include all counter-evidence or responses in the case page, the case page will be very long. It will be easier for me to analyze the case, if some discussions are on this page. I don't want any editor to start any Eastern European fight here. Please use this page to discuss about this SP case. AdjustShift (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note:

I restored the evidence to the case page, and am going to insist that it stays there, as there it belongs! SPI cases are complex enough without dreaming up a whole new way of dealing with a (not particularly remarkable) case.

If there is anything else on the talk page that ought to be on the case page, I will move that there.

Also, as time permits, I intend to remove any content on either the case or talk page that isn't relevant to the case, leaving pretty much just the procedural stuff here on the talk page.

Basically, this case has turned into an almighty trainwreck, and will doubtless be cited for years to come as an example of how a case can go off the rails when we move away from presenting evidence to lengthy discussions. Mayalld (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the things that you archived as "not appropriate for an SPI case" contains counter-evidence. Some of them are appropriate for this SPI case. AdjustShift (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very probably! If there are comments that contain evidence that I've collapsed, they should be moved to the case page. Please feel free. Mayalld (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to filter them. Both needless comments and useful comments are mixed together in that archive. AdjustShift (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no comments have actually been removed. I appreciate its somewhat inconvenient for when you are reviewing the evidence, but it is ultimately an improvement for keeping the case on track to close as soon as possible. Nathan^T 15:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments, as far as I can tell, were permanently removed, even through I don't see what was offensive or problematic about them: [26] :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret evidence

Enough editors have criticized the idea of secret evidence, and enough time has passed without those concerned being addressed, that I've decided to take it to a wider forum. I find this case to be severly mishandled, starting with the very idea of "secret evidence", making it available only to selected editors without any official criteria, and ending at the serious delays to the case (it was supposed to be closed a week ago, and we still are not told what is the reason for the delays). I'd like to suggest that to alleviate the bad atmosphere at this particular SPI, the evidence should be made immediately available either to everyone (my preferred choice), or at least, to all admins that request it. We have waited long enough for it as it is. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piotruś, the stated purpose of not making the evidence public at this point was not to reveal to Molobo how he betrayed himself. Even if he'll be let off the hook for "lack of evidence " this time, he could use the "secret evidence" to avoid getting himself identified when using socks in the future. (Always assuming he is using socks, of course; and to be sure, "lack of evidence" does not mean he's not using them.) So, would you be prepared to guarantee that you won't forward the material to Molobo? After all, you have been known to be on friendly terms with him and bailed him out of many unpleasant situations that he got himself into... Anyway, as no sanction has yet been issued against Molobo based on the "secret evidence", I think it's a bit too early to demand its disclosure. --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a question for you: several editors promised that this evidence will be made public anyway. So why not make it public now? Sure, I can promise not to reveal it to Molobo, but why does it matters if its going to be made public anyway? And why has it not been made public yet, if it is, presumably, not changing? As I see it, this secret evidence is nothing but some kind of psychological pressure on Molobo, perhaps designed to make him give up on Wikipedia and leave this project, rather than to face continued harassment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never used a sockuppet and never will Thorsten. Your baseless and offensive claims, no matter how many times repeated will not change the reality. Furthermore we all are waiting for answer why a user with problematic history of relationship to Polish users received the whatever Scinurae created while others are denied this--Molobo (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I never used a sockuppet and never will Thorsten. Your baseless and offensive claims,..." I beg your pardon, but I gave the due caveat above: "Always assuming he is using socks, of course". Of course, I can't know for sure if you are (even though I think it's pretty likely based on the on-wiki evidence). "we all are waiting for answer why a user with problematic history of relationship to Polish users received the whatever Scinurae created while others are denied this". The rationale for not posting part of the evidence publicly was to make sure it doesn't end up in your inbox, for obvious reasons. I don't know if "a user with problematic history of relationship to Polish users" was shown the evidence, but if he did, then probably because he's unlikely to leak it to you. "received ~~the~~ whatever Scinurae created" - I'm sure that Sciurinae didn't "create" anything, he just collected diffs, a part of which was posted publicly and another part was not. The diffs are subject to interpretation, of course, and people may disagree as to their interpretation. However, diffs can not be "created" or "manufactured" [27]. --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for not posting part of the evidence publicly was to make sure it doesn't end up in your inbox, for obvious reasons

Yes, how convient that I should be judged by something I can't defend myself against. And I find it very interesting that A:Scinurae and couple of others on German noticeboard comment on how to "stop me" B: Scinurae already knows for some strange reason IP check won't show anything. C. Gwinndeith account was discovered to be operating from mobile web provider indicating no permanent residence in Poland D. Scinurae needs to send "secret evidence"(that only selected people are allowed to see) to convice others, that I need to be banned because I "use" a "sockpuppet".

--Molobo (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we will ever know the truth... isn't this exciting? Secret trials are so much "fun" - at least for the prosecutors... That sad, Molobo, please assume good faith. Your last para is hardly appropriate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Molobo: "how convient that I should be judged by something I can't defend myself against" - why don't you wait until you actually have been judged? So far, nothing has been decided. (And personally, I'm quite pessimistic that anything will be decided due to the whole "secret evidence" problem.) But if you are so sure that nothing can be proved, there's no reason to be so terribly nervous, is there? --Thorsten1 (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody likes to be subject of a secret trial Thorsten1, especially with the amount of incivility and biased opinions expressed by some against others. Anyway...look, I was planning to actually use today to write something about Nazi occupation of Poland and regional differences, source numbers about theft of works of art, and instead I am being dragged constantly into this. I just wish for it to end so I can get back to my work on articles in peace.--Molobo (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relax. First off, it's not a secret trial. True, a part of the exhibits are being kept secret at the moment, which is an unfortunate situation to be sure, but there is a rationale for it, after all. Also, as I said above, if you are so sure you're innocent, why worry? In the unlikely event that you'll be found guilty in error, you can always demand that everything be put on the table. I can well understand that you don't like to be the subject of this whole procedure, but let's not fool ourselves: With your track record of confrontational behaviour you had it coming. "Gwinndeith account was discovered to be operating from mobile web provider indicating no permanent residence in Poland" - I just had a look at the front page. Avi said the following: "although they [use] different IP pools, they geolocate to the same region in the country and one provider seems to be exclusively a mobile provider and the other seems to be a regular provider [...], which may be exploited by the same person." He just said that one provider "seems to be exclusively a mobile provider". He didn't say anything at all about the mobile provider "indicating no permanent residence in Poland". So either you have received more CheckUser information than is publicly available behind the scenes, or you know for some other reason whether or not the mobile provider indicates a "permanent residence in Poland". Could it be that you've just given yourself away? ;) --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it's not a secret trial'

It is a secret trial.

but there is a rationale for it, after all.

There is no rationale behind it but attempt to harass me and leave me without ability to defend myself.

Also, as I said above, if you are so sure you're innocent, why worry?

Because this is a secret trial, based on 'evidence' produced by somebody determined to stop me and who in the past has obsessively posted fake information on my person.

As to the rest. I have a growing conviction that is one of Scinurae "friends" or people from who I have seen on various boards threatening my name who tried to put me into bad light or stop me. There are multiple cases of such people posting such things against me on the net, after I worked on Nazi Germany articles(including death threat). If anything perhaps Scinurae revealed himself showing that he already knew my IP will be different then the one used by the other account ? --Molobo (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed it somehow: the rationale for witholding parts of the evidence was not to let you know how you betrayed yourself (if you did). As for the rest of your confused statement, rest assured that whoever made any "death threat" against you is unlikely to get involved in this kind of tedious procedure. If you want to defend yourself, instead of portraying yourself as the victim of anonymous bullies, why don't you provide a plausible explanation for the inside-knowledge about Gwinndeth's mobile provider you gave away above? --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was posted on evidence page Thorsten1...--Molobo (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Where exactly? --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<- As someone who has seen the "secret evidence" but doesn't have an ok to publish it, I'll say that it is merely a collection of observations (backed by diffs) about writing style similarities between the two users. Before anyone asks - I haven't closed this case myself because it hinges largely on a vast amount of behavioral evidence; which I, as one of the rookie checkusers, am not comfortable about making a call on. --Versa geek 20:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A helpful reply - what a nice surprise! Thank you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is a welcomed relief. Who gives ok to release of this information ?--Molobo (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why this should be a relief to you? (see below). "Who gives ok to release of this information." If I understand this correctly, Sciurinae has forwarded the evidence to competent users on the condition that they don't publish it without his consent. So it would have to be released by Sciurinae himself. On the other hand, what do you want to see it for when it's not being used against you at all? --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What else than "observations (backed by diffs) about writing style similarities" did you expect, Piotruś, when this comes as a "nice surprise"? After all, we only have two sorts of evidence: CheckUser - 100% reliable, but then I think nobody expected Molobo to be stupid enough and use the same internet connection for both accounts, not after years of playing cat and mouse with the wiki police, and writing style - always open to debate, and not 100% reliable even if scrutinized by professionals. So nothing new here, really. --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another baseles accusation and personal attack Thorsten1 ? Could you stop being rude to me ?--Molobo (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I commit "any accusation and personal attack"? Where was I "being rude"? I'm at a loss here. --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thorsten1, what you wrote was very rude....please keep in mind that Molobos case is still being investigated, so he is innocent unless proven otherwise. Please let admin. people do their job. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did admit there's a chance he's innocent. Even if I hadn't, I'm not part of this "court", but merely commenting on it, so I don't see how I'm bound by any presumption of innocence. I'm not preventing any admin people from doing their job (in fact, I can't wait for them to finish it). As for my alleged rudeness, please be more specific so I can mend my ways. Or is the evidence secret? ;)--Thorsten1 (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if you are so sure that nothing can be proved, there's no reason to be so terribly nervous, is there? What kind of silly comment was that Thorsten1? Obviously a person gets nervous if he's accused of something he hasn't done. All the more if he's denied the possibility to defend himself because he has to wait for weeks and doesn't even know how long more does he have to wait. At the same time it is repeated that the evidence has to be kept secret giving the impression that Molobo is some kind of dangerous bandit, a threat for the very existence of Wikipedia without even telling us under which Wikipedia rule was the decision made. I'm sorry but just saying something on the lines that it has to be done that way isn't good enough, nobody has the right to make these sort of calls without a 'legal' basis. Just imagine for a second that molobo is innocent (as we all should!), i can't even think what a terrible psychological torture the last few weeks must have been for him. What a joke and what a disgraceful way of handling the case. Loosmark (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Obviously a person gets nervous if he's accused of something he hasn't done." Yes, of course. But a person gets even more nervous if he's accused of something he has done. That was my point. "he's denied the possibility to defend himself" - he's not really denied anything. For one thing, as much as I regret it, I expect this will all come down to nothing. For another, if I'm wrong on this, I'm sure he'll be given the chance to defend himself after the evidence has been analyzed. If I drive past a speed camera, they're not letting me know what speed I was driving unless it actually was to fast. Only then can I file an appeal. Get my drift? "it is repeated that the evidence has to be kept secret giving the impression that Molobo is some kind of dangerous bandit, a threat for the very existence of Wikipedia" First off, I really think that Molobo's activities are a danger to Wikipedia, at least to the NPOV of the articles he's editing. But that's not the point. The point was that Molobo musn't know how he can be identified in order to prevent sock puppets in the future. If he's innocent and Gwinndeith is not a sockpuppet of his after all, he needn't know anyway. "terrible psychological torture". Come on, this is ridiculous. This is a guy who's been in countless conflicts, blocked plenty of times, even for a whole year. Even if he may be innocent in this particular case, he is a notorious troublemaker. --Thorsten1 (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And another personal attack. As much as I have endured it is still depressing to be constantly insulted, accused and attacked.However I compensate this by writing articles. I would really like to see Thorsten1 what "danger to Wikipedia" I made-is Kidnapping of Polish Children by Nazi Germany -an article I made about this infamous operation such danger ? Or perhaps Operation 1005-another article I started with information how Nazis concealed Holocaust before war ended ? Or Irena Bobowska article that I wrote-about a Polish poet murdered by Nazis ? I have enough of such attacks. Do tell what 'danger' my articles represent and to who, or rather to what POV that sees articles on Nazi Germany's atrocities as danger.--Molobo (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broken promise

It was promised that the "secret evidence" will be made pubic before the case is closed, so that the defender would get a chance to comment on it. This has not happened. :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AdjustShift specifically promised this to me, too. I relied on the promise and delayed raising detailed objections until the evidence would be posted. Unfortunately, this never happened. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last version they came up with is that the secret evidences "were not used to a great extent in this decision". What the hell does that mean i don't know. Loosmark (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the change of outcome from "unlikely" to "possible" by Avraham -- semantically equivalent, but one hints against, the other towards foul play --, I have a nagging suspicion that he was significantly influenced by seeing the secret evidence. No offence to his person, but human judgment is pretty funky, especially in absence of clarity. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Basicaly the only excuse for not publishing the secret evidence would have been that the secret evidence was ruled as useless for the case and dismissed. That was not the case and, to whatever degree, the secret evidence did affect the final decision therefore it needs to be published as it was promised. Loosmark (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avraham made the decision based on the information posted on the SPI page, and his CU result. Please read his explanations here, here, and here. Please read Avraham's response to Radeksz below:

Radek, I was the CU who upgraded the finding to possible, and that was before I looked at the editing history, as I was asked to come on board later. If you would like to say you don't trust me; fine. However, what I said still holds. I was asked to look at the evidence; I did so and reported on the technical findings. Afterwards, I was asked to look at the behavioral evidence as well, specifically the fact that the editing patterns did not make sense in light of the checkuser evidence if these were actually two people, but if they were the same person, then it did make a whole lot of sense. While I forwarded AS's evidence to the functionaries list, it was not a factor in my decision. The evidence presented by Sciurinæ and nixeagle was sufficient, in my opinion. ~Avraham[28]

The secret evidences were not a factor in Avraham's decision; the evidence presented by Sciurinæ and nixeagle was sufficient. I didn't close the case; Avraham did. If you guys have any questions, please ask Avraham. Sciurinæ collected those evidences. I promised Sciurinæ that I will not publish his evidences on-wiki without his permission. If you guys want to see the secret evidences, please contact Sciurinæ. I can't post Sciurinæ's evidences without his permission. AdjustShift (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)A few comments:

The stylistic evidence provided by AdjustShift was sufficient, but not necessary to reach the conclusion I did.
My switching to possible occurred before I considered AS's evidence (I do not recall if I actually had possession of it at the time; I can check timestamps on the edits and my e-mails if you are truly interested) and for the reasons I listes (the differences in type between the IPs used). Checkuser is not magic pixie dust, as we all know, and it takes a certain amount of interpretation.
I will never claim infallibility, and will always admit I can be wrong. I'm also human (at least last I checked). I did not hide how I made the decision, and while AS's evidence would be enough in and of itself, I came to the decision primarily based on the chronological editing pattern, checkuser evidence, and Scurinae's evidence, which is what I said.

If you believe an error was made, by all means, bring it up to ArbCom and have them check my work; I'm pretty confident thatmy analysis is sound, but am more than happy to be corrected if wrong. -- Avi (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avraham did his best for the case. This was my first major SP case. I've dealt with simpler SP cases before. Avraham is a trusted member of our community, and he did his job well. AdjustShift (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have 3 questions: 1) Why did Sciurinæ pass the evidence to AdjustShift of all people? I read on his page that AdjustShift joined wikipedia on August 2008 and he was elected admin in mid April 2009. So basicaly we have a total rookie admin handling evidence for a case that according to Avraham's words is "very complicated". 2) AdjustShift are you from Germany? 3) Why does Sciurinæ get the right to decide which evidence should be published and which shouldn't? Loosmark (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me answer them. 1) Sciurinæ said that he would pass the evidence to a neutral admin. I was looking at WP:SPI; I had no idea about Molobo before this case, so I asked Sciurinæ to pass the evidence to me. The final verdict was passed by Avraham, an experience admin. I believe I handled the case appropriately. 2) I've said this several times: I don't judge people on the basis of where they come from; I judge people on the basis of individual merit and behavior. In this particular case, a Polish editor used a sockpuppet inappropriately. If a German were to use sockpuppets inappropriately, I'll block him. We have certain social rules; nobody can break them. It is not relevant whether I’m from Germany, France, Togo, Japan, China, or whatever. 3) Sciurinæ collected the evidences; he has a right to decide which evidence should be published and which shouldn't. AdjustShift (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok AdjustShift, thanks for answering me politely. I do not agree with you on 2) given the somewhat problematic history that Molobo and some German editors had I believe that it would be, how shall we put it, lets say unlucky that a German admin would be involved in this case (same as for example if Brasil and Italy would play the final of the football world cup the referee wouldn't be from either of those countries), but that's only my personal opinion. I also do not agree with 3) once the evidence was used in the case it should be made public regardless of what Sciurinæ thinks. Loosmark (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Loosmark 1) "Why did Sciurinæ pass the evidence to AdjustShift of all people?" I have no idea, but why shouldn't he? "AdjustShift joined wikipedia on August 2008 and he was elected admin in mid April 2009." An admin is an admin. There is no unwritten (let alone written) rule that you need to be an admin for so and so long a time to handle things. 2) "AdjustShift are you from Germany?" Why do you think he is? Because he hasn't taken Molobo's side? One might as well ask you if you are from Poland because you are taking his side. Regardless, the case wasn't even closed by AdjustShift, but by Avi, so it's of no relevance one way or the other. "Why does Sciurinæ get the right to decide which evidence should be published and which shouldn't?" Just like everyone else, Sciurinæ has the right to send things to anyone asking them not to publish it without his consent. Apart from that, as Avi has pointed out, the block wasn't based on the secret evidence, but on the circumstancial evidence resulting from, #1 similarities of style (public), #2 the chronological editing patterns posted publicly (public), #3 CheckUser results (public). Together, these elements result in a clear enough picture. As I understand this, the only reason why a small part of edit-based evidence is not made public is to facilitate the identification of future socks. This is a legitimate concern. There's no point in blocking anyone for sockpuppetry and at the same time handing them detailed instructions on how to avoid getting caught again, is there? --Thorsten1 (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Thorsten1 One might as well ask you if you are from Poland because you are. The difference is that I wasn't involved in any way on the case. Apart from that, as Avi has pointed out, the block wasn't based on the secret evidence... here's no point in blocking anyone for sockpuppetry and at the same time handing them detailed instructions on how to avoid getting caught again, is there? Interesting logic we have there: "the secret evidence wasn't used to for the block but we can't publish it because then the next we won't be able to block him." Excuse the stupid question but if the secret evidence wasn't relevant this time, why would it be the next time? Loosmark (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The difference is that I wasn't involved in any way on the case." But you are now. Also, Wikipedia is neither a courtroom nor a soccer match, as you imply above. And AdjustShift didn't make any decision anyway. So it's all irrelevant. "Excuse the stupid question" Of course, I do, no problem. "but if the secret evidence wasn't relevant this time, why would it be the next time?" Quite simply, it's not being considered relevant this time so that it may be considered relevant should there be a next time. What's so difficult about that? Quite apart from that, before you demand the publication of additional evidence, you would have to explain why the public evidence is not sufficient. --Thorsten1 (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, it's not being considered relevant this time so that it may be considered relevant should there be a next time. What's so difficult about that? Only that nobody said it clearly that the evidence wasn't used this time. In fact the opposite appears to be true. Quite apart from that, before you demand the publication of additional evidence, you would have to explain why the public evidence is not sufficient. I'm not demanding the publication of additional evidence but rather of evidence which was already used and it was promised to us it will be published before the end of the case. What's so difficult about that? Loosmark (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Only that nobody said it clearly that the evidence wasn't used this time. [...] I'm not demanding the publication of additional evidence but rather of evidence which was already used". What are you actually talking about? Which of Avi's following statements do you not understand?

"The information posted on the SPI page in and of itself and an analysis of Molobo and Gwinndeith's editing patterns combined with the checkuser information that they were in the same time zone, and much closer than that, was sufficient to make it clear that there was extremely sound evidence of sockpuppetry." [29]
"While I forwarded AS's evidence to the functionaries list, it was not a factor in my decision. The evidence presented by Sciurinæ and nixeagle was sufficient" [30]
"my decision was based on the public information of Sciurinæ and the pretty d@mning editing patterns in light of the checkuser evidence." [31]

In the face of this, what is your justification for saying that "In fact the opposite appears to be true"? Clearly, Molobo was identified on the basis of public evidence. If you can plausibly demonstrate that this evidence was insufficient, you can do so any time (although this is not the right place for it), but there's no point complaining about anyone breaking any "promises". --Thorsten1 (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, Molobo was identified on the basis of public evidence. If you can plausibly demonstrate that this evidence was insufficient, you can do so any time (although this is not the right place for it), but there's no point complaining about anyone breaking any "promises". Obviously the point is that the secret evidence could have negatively effected the judging process. Which part of that you don't understand? there's no point complaining about anyone breaking any "promises". So basicaly anybody can just promise something during a process not to raise too many objections and then simply not keep his promise? I find that unpleasant to say the least. Loosmark (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the secret evidence could have negatively effected the judging process. Which part of that you don't understand?" I understand it alright, I just don't see any factual basis for your suspicion. Also from a strictly logical point of view, it just doesn't make sense: If the non-public evidence is weak, it can hardly have had any negative effect on the interpretation of the public evidence. On the other hand, if it is strong, it wouldn't help Molobo get unlocked anyway (although it might help him create new socks). "So basicaly anybody can just promise something during a process not to raise too many objections and then simply not keep his promise?" Again, there's no use lamenting about "broken promises" (see Nixeagle's comment below) when it doesn't make a difference for the outcome of the procedure. --Thorsten1 (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it alright, I just don't see any factual basis for your suspicion. Also from a strictly logical point of view, it just doesn't make sense: If the non-public evidence is weak, it can hardly have had any negative effect on the interpretation of the public evidence. The point is not that what you think or feel but rather to make the whole decide decision making process as fair and as transparent as possible. Again, there's no use lamenting about "broken promises" (see Nixeagle's comment below) when it doesn't make a difference for the outcome of the procedure. And again what a crazy logic, even asuming that it indeed doesn't make a difference in this case it might very do so in the next one. Wikipedia should be a community were the building of mutual trust should always be encouraged, and a word given should count for something. Because things run better that way and simply because it's right. Loosmark (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The point is not that what you think or feel" Absolutely, this is not about "feeling" but logical deduction. I have told you why your objections are logically invalid. You, on the other hand, base your objection on the mere "feeling" that "that the secret evidence could have negatively effected the judging process", without providing any basis for this feeling. "to make the whole [...] decision making process as fair" - it was absolutely fair, as no non-public evidence has been used to justify the block - "and as transparent as possible". Sure. As transparent as possible and as effective as necessary. It was transparent and fair because all evidence that was used to justify the block was there for everyone to scrutinize and discuss. There's no reason to publish any material that wasn't used in the process, but could very well render the whole purpose of the procedure - stopping sockpuppetry - ineffective. "even asuming that it indeed doesn't make a difference in this case it might very do so in the next one." Then how about we discuss this in the next case, when the situation may or may not be different? I don't mind if you dismiss my points as "crazy logic". I hope you won't mind it either when I dismiss the last two sentences of your post as sententious drivel. --Thorsten1 (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, this is not about "feeling" but logical deduction. I have told you why your objections are logically invalid. ok let me rephrase it: not only i don't care about what do you feel or think about this case but also i don't care for your "logical deductions" about it, oki? Then how about we discuss this in the next case, when the situation may or may not be different? The rules should be universal for each and every case not that we invent them every time. I thought that's something that goes without saying but apparently not. Loosmark (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"i don't care for your "logical deductions" about it, oki?" Point taken. You seem not to care about anyone's logic, though, strictly your personal feelings. Which are of no importance if you can't back them up by sound reasoning. "The rules should be universal for each and every case not that we invent them every time". First, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy where each and every aspect is governed by universal rules. Second, you haven't yet shown why and how Molobo would have received a fairer treatment if no evidence had been witheld. The public evidence was deemed sufficient for a ban. If you want to have this decision overruled, you must show why it was wrong based on the public evidence - period. --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loosmark, please see Thatcher's comment here. He has access to the functionaries list, and his opinion confirms my statement that there is nothing "special" about the e-mail information other than a more detailed stylistic analysis, which, in my opinion, if made public would solely serve to allow Molobo et al to better evade future sockpuppetry checks. -- Avi (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loosmark, please see Thatcher's comment here. He has access to the functionaries list, and his opinion confirms my statement that there is nothing "special" about the e-mail information other than a more detailed stylistic analysis, which, in my opinion, if made public would solely serve to allow Molobo et al to better evade future sockpuppetry checks. Avi I understand what are you saying but then next question would be a very logical one: why did you publish any evidence at all? Going by your logic then the behavioral evidence which was published will help Molobo to become smarter and harder to catch. I'm against anybody having the power to decide which evidence should be published and which "kept for next time". Loosmark (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent point. If this is such a huge concern/problem, why is any evidence made available to the accused? Why not just hold the whole thing behind closed doors? And just to make sure they can't switch up their devious behavior at the last minute, why even make the charges public? Suspected sock puppeteers should just log in one morning, blissfully unaware, and find themselves banned for a year or two. And of course, no explanation of why would be necessary either as that might also help them in the future.radek (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with a little irony, Radek, but may I remind you of WP:POINT... But seriously, in the present case, Molobo's offenders have so far failed to produce any plausible arguments why the non-disclosure of a small part of the evidence should have put Molobo at a disadvantage. As it stands, he would have been blocked anyway. There's no comparing this situation with the kafkaesque situation where no evidence at all is available. With parts of the evidence under wraps, he might be less tempted to evade his ban using sockpuppets. This is a perfectly legitimate purpose. --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)(<-) I published nothing, Loosmark :-). SPI is not a formal court case, but a place where evidence can be submitted and reasoned judgment can be applied. What was there is sufficient in and of itself. While there may be more d@mning evidence, it is unnecessary and, in my opinion, would only help sockpuppeters further evade detection. Don't forget, Lossmark, that people are innocent until judged guilty (or suspicious) at SPI. The default assumption is innocent. It is the duty of the complainant to provide the evidence to the admins for SPI and CU's for checkusers. We allow detailed analyses and private information to be passed to func-l, composed of ARBCOM, Checkusers, and Oversighters when it is felt that public release of the information would detrimentally effect the complainant, the defendant, or the project. It is incumbent on the recipients, in this case, me, to make public as much information as possible. The community, in theory, would trust the decider that certain analyses (or in rare cases, information like e-mails) should be left private.

In this case the evidence presented and gathered by Nix (edit histories) was enough to convince me that innocence was improbable in the extreme and that sockpuppetry was evident, combined with the checkuser information and the already public analysis/evidence supplied by Scurinæ. The fact that there is *more* indications of sockpuppetry is somewhat irrelevant, in my opinion. Were I to have Molobo's real name and address, should I submit that because it is MORE proof? I do not think so. Here, while there is no privacy issue to worry about, there is a WP:BEANS-type issue in that the more cunning sockpuppeters may use AS's ANALYSIS, NOT evidence, to actively stealth their relationships, and, personally, as one of our overworked CU's, I'd rather make their job harder instead of mine. That's another important point that was not made clear. AS did not supply more evidence in as much as s/he took available evidence and supplied a detailed analysis similar to what we do in complicated cases.

If you feel that there is an issue with the allowance for trusting ArbCom, the Checkusers, and the Oversighters to do their best for the project, which may include not saying EVERYTHING all of the time, by all means, please bring it up to the community. If you feel that in this particular case there was an inherent issue that renders my decision flawed, please, bring it up to ArbCom and WP:AUSC. I have always claimed to be human which includes the inevitable mistakes we all make. I think I have approached this case impartially, and with the evidence listed on the page, the histories collected by Nix (which can me manually retrieved thrugh user contributions), and the checkuser evidence I am privy to, that I have rendered the proper decision. The extra stylistic analysis of AS, while compelling, is just that, extra, and in my opinion as a checkuser, would serve more harm than good being released. However, in that last point, I am speaking solely my own opinion, and if AS, or ArbCom, wants that information released, I am not the one who will prevent it. -- Avi (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closure vs. clerking

The promise to my understanding was made by User:AdjustShift. He did not close the case however. The case close was done by User:Avraham a checkuser. Now you guys are free to ask adjustshift about the promise, or ask avraham about the close. However I do not think avraham is bound by a promise made by adjustshift. The proper place for further discussion is, depending on the issue:

User talk:Avraham - Queries regarding the case close.
User talk:AdjustShift - Queries regarding his promise.

Thanks all. —— nix eagle^{email me} 16:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I actually thinkg that Avraham IS bound by a promise made by anyone else who was in charge of this case. This isn't two seperate cases, judged and decided by two seperate people. This is one whole case. And things which AdjustShift had said affected how people responded and hence how the case developed. We were told "to be patient" and that in due time "all would be revealed". So we quieted down and were patient, even though our comments were removed, and waited for all to be revealed. Well, here we are now and apparantly nothing will be revealed. The problem is not so much either with AdjustShift or Avraham individually - I think they did what they thought was best under the circumstances. The problem here was with the whole PROCESS, starting with even considering the "secret evidence" in the first place. But in any case, at the point where admins and clerks started edit warring with each other, the clase was cleary FUBARed and should've been dumped and restarted right then and there.radek (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radek, may I trouble you to see Thatcher's comment here? As Thatcher is also the lead non-Arb on the WP:AUSC, that should give you further confidence in the system, I would believe. -- Avi (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radek, you said that you "actually thinkg that Avraham IS bound by a promise made by anyone else who was in charge of this case". AdjustShift was, for all I can see, "ousted" from this case due to lack of experience. If he made any such promises as a result of this lack of expertise in handling sockpuppetmasters, I don't see how Avraham should have been bound by them. --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the case had been restarted and refiled then of course Avi would not have been bound by any promises made by AdjustShift. But the decision was made to continue with the case after it became a complete mess. And the things that had been already said had an effect on how it was conducted and influenced the final decision. As a result it's perfectly reasonable to hold the whole process accountable (which is what's important after all). And that includes Avi fulfilling promises made by Adjust shift.radek (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thorsten1, do you even know what you are talking about? I was never "ousted" from this case due to lack of experience. I said if the decision to block Molobo was based on the secret evidences, then the secret evidences will be published. But, Avi determined that the published evidences and CU result were enough to conclude that Gwinndeith is a sockpuppet of Molobo. Radeksz, this case is over. Please don't waste any time. AdjustShift (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a shame that we have some editors who are defending a sockpuppeteer. Shame on them! AdjustShift (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Radek, if I would have known the detailed mess that would have followed I gladly would have closed and reopened this mess. However, I was asked to come in and, for all intents and purposes, take over this case, which I did. Adjustshift was not "ousted" from the case, any more than Mayllad or Synergy were. Noone did anything wrong here; sometimes very complicated cases need to be escalated. I personally have asked for review of my findings prior to any decisions at times as well. However, as an experience checkuser, I was brought in, and I did assume control of the case. All checkusers are ipso facto clerks and are authorized to act on their findings as well.

I believe the misconception here is that SPI cases are formalized legal processes. That is not correct. They are requests for an admin, or a checkuser if necessary, to sift through the evidence and render an opinion. For better or for worse, I was thought of as someone who has the experience to handle this kind of complex case, so I was asked to look into it after it had stagnated. Would it have been better if I would explicitly placed the whole mess in a collapsable box? in hindsight, yes, only to emphasize the fact that I was approaching this anew, as I do all cases in which I am asked to come in midstream. However, as was pointed out, that does not make be beholden to anyone other than myself, the policies and guidelines I am tasked to uphold, and specific requests of ArbCom, whom my technical abilities and judgment support. I apologize for any appearance of confusion; that was definitely not my intent, but at this point, I am uncertain what further you would like from this case, instead of from a revamping of the process. -- Avi (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.