Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:45, 1 June 2009

Archives

Archive 1 (September 2, 2008 – October 31, 2008) Archive 2 (November 1, 2008 – February 13, 2009) Archive 3 (February 18, 2009 – May 28, 2009)

Thekohser/MyWikiBiz

Please see my reply to your blocking Greg from his talkpage here . Ripberger (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied. AdjustShift (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Absent a clear and compelling reason to keep the ban in place, I plan to change this. See User_talk:Thekohser. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(Refactored from User_talk:Lar per my policy) I think Thekohser/MyWikiBiz should be allowed to edit one talkpage. AdjustShift (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to lift the block on the talk page of Thekohser. Can I? AdjustShift (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You're certainly technically capable of doing it. I believe it is within policy to do so as well... blocking user talk pages is an admin discretion thing. So I think you should go ahead and do so. Thanks for taking the decision to do it. ++Lar: t/c 15:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Lar. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You too, and thanks again! ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo

As an admin, I'd like to request a copy of this "secret evidence" :) Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll not be closing the SPI case. The case has been deferred to the CUs. AdjustShift (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has told you specifically not to close (at least I have not, heck my last message to you was a suggestion on how to close as it would have been your first close), you can close it if you wish. I believe that there is an email to functionaries-l, and this has also been forwarded to arbcom (because of the existing case). I don't think a close of this case would be a good idea though without arbcom's endorsement of the result as there is an active case going and molobo has been around for quite a while. —— nixeagle 03:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

So what does this have to do with my request? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. My question is simple, and so should be your answer: "Yes, here you go" or "No, I'll not give you the evidence (that other admins have seen) because...". Please chose one of those and give me proper reply :) Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes you can't answer questions in yes/no, my dear. You've to wait for sometime. When the right time comes, you will see the off-wiki evidences. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am disappointed in your cryptic responses. I asked you a very simple question, you are refusing to answer. Please see my comment here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The evidences are still being discussed on the functionaries list. There was no need to raise this at AN. I told you that when the right time comes, you will see the off-wiki evidences. AdjustShift (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus: I think AdjustShift gave you the best answer that can be given right now. I'm not directly involved in the investigation but from seeing discussion, I know it's not run of the mill, and these things sometimes take time to work through. Sorry if that's confusing, but please don't give Adj. a hard time about it, ok? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Piotruś, you know well that people are reluctant to let you, out of all people, see the secret evidence, because you have an age-old track record of protecting Molobo. I guess people feel that if they forward this stuff to you, they might just as well forward it straight to Molobo. Please don't pretend not to know or understand this. Had you been less protective of Molobo in the last years, you might not be out of the loop now. --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

All I see is bad faith :( And I will keep on standing up for the underdogs and against witch trials, no matter how unpopular that makes me. I am not on Misplaced Pages to win a popularity contest. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"All I see is bad faith". The fact is that you have a long history of defending and protecting Molobo, which does not justify assuming good faith in this case. Assuming good faith is a principle that fails in the face of evidence to the contrary, here no less than in real life. "I will keep on standing up for the underdogs". Within the Polish editors' community, Molobo is anything but an "underdog" - on the contrary, he can count on the community's support no matter what. If you ever defended German users, or users of any other nationality for that matter, with the same passion as you're defending Molobo, you might be able to gradually restore the good faith others place in your neutrality - but I'm pessimistic that this will happen. You and I have been in touch on Misplaced Pages for years. In the beginning, I think we were on reasonably good terms, even if we may have disagreed on certain issues. Since then, you have demonstrated time and again that your first allegiance is to (what you believe to be) the Polish interest on Misplaced Pages, using up all my - and apparently a lot of other people's - good faith as a result. No one regrets this more than I do, believe me. --Thorsten1 (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Claude H. Van Tyne

On May 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Claude H. Van Tyne, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BABEL

I gather that English is not your native language. Please consider BABEL templates to indicate this in your userboxes - they also help of one wants to send you sources or such in non-English language. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

English is not my native language, but I may speak American. :-) I can't use BABEL templates because of privacy concerns. On the English-language Misplaced Pages, I use sources in the English language only. AdjustShift (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

@Piotruś: An interesting request in the context of AdjustShift's handling of a Polish POV hothead... If AdjustShift put up a German, Russian, Hebrew or Yiddish Babel template, that would be great, wouldn't it? But come to think of it, anything else than pl-5 should be enough to base a conspiracy theory on... :-D Seriously, not everybody wears their ethnic identity like a badge. Outside Eastern Europe, this isn't such a hot topic any more. --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a horrible assumption of bad faith on your part Thorsten1.radek (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"That's a horrible assumption of bad faith". Of course it is - too bad that Piotruś has let it come to this (see my comment in the section above this one). But you're welcome to provide me a plausible, innocent explanation why Piotruś was asking this particular user this particular question at this particular time. Who knows, maybe he has come across an interesting source in, say, Tamil and is curious if AdjustShift, who he just happened to meet because he was the one handling Molobo's SPI case, understands Tamil and is interested? ;) --Thorsten1 (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thorsten1 basicaly what you are saying is that a German admin would be a good option to handle a case where a couple of German editors accuse a Polish editor, with whom they had arguments in the past, of socket puppery?. Just wondering. Loosmark (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"what you are saying is that a German admin would be a good option to handle a case where a couple of German editors accuse a Polish editor, " No, you're misunderstanding this. In fact, I'm saying the opposite: Molobo's defenders have from the beginning been trying to dismiss the whole case as a German vs. Polish thing, implying that all criticism of Molobo was due to his critics' supposed national bias, and that Molobo's edits don't need to be scrutinized because of that. That's why it's a good thing that this case was not handled by a German editor. All I said was that it strikes me as pretty strange that Piotruś should inquire about AdjustShift's native language, which hadn't been an issue before, just when there were indications that things might not be working out alright for the "Polish side" after all. For me, this is clearly an attempt at questioning AdjustShift's neutrality and damaging his standing as the person handling the procedure. (As I said above, if you can think of any more plausible explanation for Piotruś's floating this trial balloon, go ahead and I may change my mind.) Fortunately, in the end the decision wasn't made by AdjustShift, but by Avi, who is even less likely to be a closet German than AdjustShift. --Thorsten1 (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions

• 1-Is this your first SPI case ?
• 2-You commented that you are not neutral. Shouldn't the clerk remain neutral ?
• 3-Why did you congratulate Scinurae for "evidence" without waiting for my comments and defence ?
• 4-Why was "super sekret evidence" provided to a user with history of team taging with Scinurae against Polish users ?
• 5-As I understand you are not experienced with Misplaced Pages-as you are from August 2008, correct ?

--Molobo (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• 1) Yes, it is.
• 2) I'm neutral. We live in a beautiful planet called Earth, where 6,783,421,727 people live (as of May 31 2009). I'm one of them; you are one of them.
• 3) Scinurae's evidences are solid; that's why.
• 4) As far as I know Scinurae and Deacon of Pndapetzim are not against Polish users.
• 5) I joined since August 2008, but I'm experienced.

If you've any more questions, you can ask me. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I see, I would request then another person to handle this case, as you admit you are not neutral and take side of Scinurae. You are obviously also inexperienced in conflicts that went on the Misplaced Pages involving those two users and overall situation regarding disputes and manipulating evidence. I am also sorry to say that you have shown prejudice against Eastern European editors: Yes, editors fight. But, these Eastern European editors, they fight whenever they get a chance. I will trust a neutral, experienced clerk. Somebody who from the start congratulates one of the sides and states comments based on ethnic profiling is not somebody that I can trust to have just judgment. --Molobo (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Molobo, I don't discriminate against anyone. Eastern Europeans, Asians, Africans ... we are all humans. I'm talking about the attitude of certain Eastern European editors on en.wikipedia. Yes, some of them fight whenever they get a chance. AdjustShift (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I judge people on the basis of merit, not on the basis of where they come from. Some Americans are good, some Americans are bad; Some Germans are good, some Germans are bad; and so on. AdjustShift (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

AdjustShift: how can I believe if you are telling me you are neutral, but on the user page write with a smile that you are not.YO are also giving "secret evidence" manufactured by Scinurea to people who he edit warred against other Polish users with long history of disputes with Polish community(including Arbcom). I apologize AdjustShift-no matter your good intentions this does not build confidence. I realize how messed up Misplaced Pages is, and it is a devious place, you might be fooled even if you have good intentions and I am afraid you are too trusting and too prone to influence. For example-you do realise Scinurae has collagues in Poland who were attacking me from his account and what consequences that would have to see the "evidence" in proper light?--Molobo (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean by "For example-you do realise Scinurae has collagues in Poland who were attacking me from his account and what consequences that would have to see the "evidence" in proper light?" OMG. I don't have any contacts in Poland, nor does anyone else use my account. Stop making up such things. Sciurinæ (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Molobo, I was joking with Synergy. I'll not be fooled by anyone. Do you have anything more to say? AdjustShift (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You are joking in procedural discussion that could result in block of editor responsible for creation of such articles as Aktion 1005 and adding countless information about atrocities of Nazi Germany ? I really expect clerk to be more serious and responsible. I am sorry but my confidence in your judgment was further eroded.--Molobo (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I was joking with Synergy. When it comes to the case, I'm serious. AdjustShift (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologize for perhaps seeming a bit of rude. I have been here for years, and you wouldn't believe the things I have seen and endured. Sometimes I wonder why I stay after the continued insults, accusations, death threats and so on. It really isn't that easy to write on atrocities during WW2 without and I became a little bitter about. Once people start writing to you that you should wear a bulletproof vest after you edit articles about crimes of Nazi soldiers then you see Wiki in a bit different light. You really shouldn't take any side ever, no matter how rude of friendly another person seems.

--Molobo (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Explanation

I think you deserve an explanation on why I am reacting so strongly to this SPI. First of all, I am strongly opposed to concepts of presumption of guilt and secret trials, as they are likely to lead to abuses of power and miscarriage of justice. Second, I believe that any profit from keeping secret evidence from one sockpuppeteer is outweighed by the above, plus by the inability to use this evidence to teach other admins/editors how to spot socks. Third, I believe that there are editors out there who in the past have shown to be less than stellar with presenting evidence (see ArbCom EE case) and who "have it" for Molobo, who I believe deserves a fair trial (and secret trials are hardly that). Having said all that, if it is shown that Molobo has used a sock to evade his 1RR restriction, I would support further restrictions/bans on his account. My argument is not that Molobo is innocent or good or whatever "because we are both Poles" (no matter how some want to make it look that way, I try not to let my personal POV affect my admin judgment), but that he (and anybody else - Polish, German or Zulu) deserves a fair trial without any "secret evidence" hanging above one like a sword of Damocles for weeks. You've said this is your first SPI, I wish you good luck in the future ones, but I believe you made a grievous error in this one by allowing some evidence to be kept secret. I hope you'll realize this was a mistake and if you keep helping out at SPI, you'll never again accept "secret evidence". Take care, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There were no secret trials. The appropriate CUs and arbs got to see it. It wasn't made public because doing so would damage wikipedia, as you should understand. That's why we delegate certain duties on wikipedia. There was obviously no presumption of guilt either; the evidence was just very strong. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Piotrus, while AdjustShift's information was compelling, it was actually not used to a great extent in this decision. 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. The evidence on the SPI page is public, as is the editing patterns (just look at the historical contributions). The only thing that is private is the IP info, and suffice it to say that while it in and of itself was not a smoking gun, thus my initial finding of  Possible, when combined with the patterns of editing of the two, it served to further bolster the fact that these two accounts are one and the same person. This decision was made, for all intents and purposes, without reliance upon AS's information. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the initial finding from checkuser was "Unlikely", only later was it changed to "possible". There is also Mayalld commenting: based on the technical evidence from CU, and the behavioural evidence made public there is no case. That is a perfectly valid comment, and explicitly allows for the fact that the secret evidence may affect that view. And you have nixeagle agreeing with this assesment: based on what is here and the cu results, there is not much of a case here. So how do we get from "no case here" and "unlikely" to "public evidence is sufficient" - and that the decision was made without use of the "secret evidence"??? This sounds like an after the fact attempt to justify not publishing the "secret evidence" - which AdjustShift himself had stated would be made available AFTER the decision and particularly in case GUILT was found. To come back around now - after a two week delay (if the decision is based on publicly available evidence why wasn't it made two weeks ago? Why the need for all this time to review the "secret evidence") - and say "oh he's guilty, but we're not basing that on the "secret evidence", which we're not going to publish, even though we said we would, but only on the public evidence, which before we said was not sufficient" is completely insane. This whole thing should be scrapped and restarted, with everything public and the actual procedures followed closely and meticulously.radek (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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. -- Avi (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How could it be sufficient if you have nix eagle himself saying "there is no case here" (along with another involved admin and the person who filed the case). Also, to state the obvious, the reason both users were in the same time zone is simply because they are of the same nationality. This also explains why they edited similar articles and have similar interests. Correlation is not causation, particularly if a third common factor can explain the pattern (in this case, common nationality).

Because the decision based on the publicly available evidence appears to completely flip - from "no case here", to "guilty" - the only reasonable conclusion here is that the "secret evidence" played a substantial role. Ok. But then it needs to be published, as promised.radek (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And here is Skapperod - the person who filed the case - also stating that s/he doesn't think the publicly available evidence is enough: "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." .radek (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Simple, b/c that happened BEFORE the editing pattern analysis. Ask Nixeagle now if he thinks there is no evidence, especially as I enlisted his scripting help in getting the editing contributions from the toolserver instead of my copy-pasting them into excel . I understand your concern, Radek, but please realize that what is on the page is a set of snapshots of discussions that occurred, and the most important analysis was done by myself, with NixEagle's help, and with the input of one or two members of ArbCom AFTER the initial statements. When cases are difficult, they take extra time. As the deciding, closing, and blocking admin/checkuser, I am telling you flat-out that while I was in possession of AS's information, my decision was based on the public information of Sciurinæ and the pretty d@mning editing patterns in light of the checkuser evidence. There is not much more I can give you without exposing which small geographic location the two edited from. If you wish, you may file a case/complaint with ArbCom, or with the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee in particular, asking for a review, although that may not be that pertinent, as the editing behavior is more key here. However, do what you feel is necessary, I am pretty confident in my findings, although I am, of course, not infallible. I also suggest you do go and ask nixeagle what s/he thinks now, you may find it reassuring. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, you are still not getting it. I am also strongly opposed to concepts of presumption of guilt and secret trials, as they are likely to lead to abuses of power and miscarriage of justice. I agree with exactly what you have written regarding concepts of presumption of guilt and secret trials. I wrote several times that I will not take actions on the basis of secret evidences. Some evidences were posted on-wiki by Sciurinæ. I forwarded the other evidences given to me by Sciurinæ to Avraham, who forwarded it to the functionaries list. Sciurinæ asked me to not to post the evidences without his permission. Everything was not under my control. How could I have posted the evidences without Sciurinæ's permission? As an admin, I did what I could. AdjustShift (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Simply, you should've told Scirinae that he should either make the evidence public or discard it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Avraham stated that the secret evidences were not used to a great extent in this decision. He made the decision based on the information posted on the SPI page, and his CU result. Please read his explanation above. AdjustShift (talk) 07:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What exactly means that the secret evidence was not used "to a great extent"? It was either used or it was not and if it was, even in small part, then it has to be made public as we were repeatedly told and promised it would. I'm highly concerned by the lack of transparency in the way this case was handled. Loosmark (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read Avraham's explanation above. If you've any questions regarding his decision, you should ask him. AdjustShift (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about questioning

I am becoming increasingly concerned at the level of questioning, which looks like badgering to this outside observer, of AdjustShift here. A few things to keep in mind are

• that WP is not a legal system. All this rather legalistic rhetoric is unhelpful
• that CU investigations are, by their nature, not something where every detail is discussed
• that AdjustShift is a clerk, not the investigator
• that if you have a concern your best route is the Audit Committee.

I'd ask all of you to please dial down the (apparent) rhetoric and badgering. Thank you. ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism in Iyengar and Vadakalai articles

Dear Administrator,

I noticed Vandalism in Iyengar and Vadakalai articles on WP. One user has removed some of the contents without posting a reason. Please prevent these types of incidences from happening again. Awaiting your action.

Thanks for your help in this regard.

Svr014 (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.

Ok, I'll analyze this. AdjustShift (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)