Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:46, 24 May 2009

Evidence presented by Sciurinæ

I have already asked via email to Jpgordon for CU in late March, who replied that CU data was "useless" and recommended a content-analysis although he said he had no time for that. I suggest not to forget that "CheckUser is not magic wiki pixie dust. Almost all queries about IPs will be because two editors were behaving the same way or an editor was behaving in a way that appears suggestive of possible disruption. An editing pattern match is the important thing; the IP match is really just extra evidence (or not)." That's also what the SPI template suggest. It took Molobo a brushed-away case of sockpuppetry () to figure out about IP matches anyway. But that chance was missed because it was too late. For more evidence, also of former sockpuppets, please contact me.

Article evidence

Here is the article-related evidence I can submit publicly (for the rest, please contact me):

• 1. Naming issues: Molobo liked to remove the German name for cities. So does Gwinndeith: There are, of course, several users with that trait.

• 2. Fewer real expellees: Molobo and Gwinndeith dislike the high number of German expellees and emphasise colonists in the number. With only one day difference they each start a thread on the same page giving an example of one unpopular person and asking how many people like that are in the number of expellees.

• 3. ZGV website: Long ago Molobo tried to find fault with a circa 20,000-word article of a web page and included his personal criticism into a Misplaced Pages article. He was simply unable to find a source criticizing the website. Now there's Gwinndeith attempting to put in almost the same criticism without a secondary source again.

• 4. Stauffenberg: Molobo claims that to Stauffenberg "the Poles feel at best under the whip". According to Gwinndeith, now, it needed to be stated that Stauffenberg said "The Poles are a people feeling at best under the whip". There is not even a single page turning up for the phrase "at best under the whip" except a wikimirror because of Molobo. Gwinndeith changes it again in the next edit. After that Molobo couldn't hold back his Stauffenberg-bashing and sums up this thought on Stauffenberg towards Poles that he "was quite in agreement that they are to be enslaved" even though the topic was unrelated.

• 5. "Strategic bombing during World War II": Molobo has his old edit () duplicated for the lead with the addition of an image () in 2008. A bot removed the image a month later. In April a large rewrite of the lead removed the duplicated sentence. A few weeks later Gwinndeith arrives at the article and restores it to the lead, featuring it even more prominently. He restores the image as well. Regardless of Molobo's 1R sanction, Gwinndeith keeps revert warring.0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

• 6. Nationality of a Silesian duchess: Molobo also insists that her name in Polish should be added. Gwinndeith removed "German" after it was added.

• 7. 12th-century grievances with the Germans: Molobo inserted the label "German" to century-old crimes. After that had been changed to "Imperial" in the same article, Gwinndeith came and changed it back.

• 8. Edelman's criticism: After Molobo included his personal criticism, he cited "Marel Edelman the last living leader of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising". He corrects the spelling mistake in the name (Marek instead of Marel). He cites "Marek Edelman the last living survivor of Warsaw Ghetto Uprising", similarly failing to use commas. He also misspelled the name as "Marel Edelman" in the first edit summary. This misspelling isn't common at all. /

• 9. Let's also use Thorsten1's observation that Gwinndeith used the word "irrelevent" (sic), just like Molobo. And ...

• 10. ... in the same diff Gwinndeith complains that the Centre should have information on the Germanization of the "conquered" territories, meaning "milions" (sic) of settled Germans. One day later: Molobo comes back from a five-day absence and expands on those "milions" (sic) German settlers in Misplaced Pages.

• 11. Every now and then Molobo can't help double posting. So did Gwinndeith eventually.

• 12. Both Molobo and Gwinndeith emphasised that their much detested Federation of Expellees is funded "by German state" (sic) . "funding by German state" (0 hits).

• 13. Molobo used a website of a town to support that a town was originally Polish, describing it as "Official page of the city". Gwinndeith used a website of another town to support that it was originally Polish, describing it as "Official Page of the city".

• 14. In the Stauffenberg edit Gwinndeith also used the rare phrasing "manifested in his own words" (6 hits). Molobo once used a similar wording "manifested in the words of" (61 hits) - just one day after Gwinndeith.

The Gwinndeith account evaded for editing and evading 1R sanction. A single POV-tag he reverted four times: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4. That's not just a minor transgression of the 1RR he's on. It was later followed by another 6 reverts on another page in a week, several on one day: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Gwinndeith should be blocked indefinitely and Molobo for at least for one month for this. Sciurinæ (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC) (updated Sciurinæ (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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

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)

Since I don't expect to be able to convince those users with similar connections to Piotrus like Molobo, 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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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 Misplaced Pages (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" ). 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

<--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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages's image. --Thorsten1 (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 . 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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 (Misplaced Pages's interest to crack down on sockpuppetry). True, this is not (yet) established practice, but we all know that on Misplaced Pages, we often need to make the rules as we go along. --Thorsten1 (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Misplaced Pages does not need to have a Stasi to monitor The Lives of Others. --Woogie10w (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Thorsten, Misplaced Pages is constantly changing, you cannot control its content. What you see on a page today will be different a year from now. Your edits to an article do not finalize it, others have the right to edit, you cannot ban those you disagree with you.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thorsten, I am 59 years old and have seen a lot. I remember traveling to the GDR and Poland in 1969 as an American. Poles and Germans did not talk to one another back then, today at least they are talking on Misplaced Pages. My advice for the Poles and Germans on Misplaced Pages is to stop the bickering and cooperate together to improve the content of articles. I am busy in the real world and have no time or patience for the arguments of the old country. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Woogie10w: "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 Misplaced Pages 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)

I have a an interest in this argument but I am neutral , my father’s family came to the US in 1886 speaking Polish & German, living like peas in a pod. I became dismayed last week when I saw an editor put a hammer and sickle over documented Nazi crimes in Poland and then saw her post a comment that she will not address the matter on the talk page. The Poles and Germans have a common language on Misplaced Pages, English. Use this forum to build bridges, not to open old wounds. Please call a truce and invite Molobo into a discussion of how to improve Polish- German pages using reliable sources in both languages.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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 (, confirmed in a limited hangout last year ). 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 () and played judge for him (). You also contacted Moreschi off-wiki because Molobo got blocked.

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

When you got blocked for 3RR, Piotrus, you did not protest on-wiki, either, but unblock-shopped via IRC with false claims. This would not be the last time to use IRC like this. Or when AGK invited "editors with any evidence of interest to email" him against Matthead (a user disliked by you, Piotrus), 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.

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."

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