Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo

Molobo

Molobo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo/Archive.

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

• Requests for checkuser/Case/Molobo

Report date May 5 2009, 09:28 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Gwinndeith (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Peterlewis (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by Skäpperöd (talk)

The account user:Gwinndeith was created on 6 Feb 2009. From the account, a few edits were made throughout February and early March devoted primarily to removing German names from Poland-related articles (e.g. [1], [2], [3]) before engaging in disruptive editing at Center Against Expulsions. The editing pattern in this "dispute", in which I was the "opposing" party indicated that the user is not as new to wiki as the account, see e.g. his/her wikilawyering. While the respective AN/I thread did not result in admin action, user:Sciurinae suggested the account being a sockpuppet of user:Molobo, an account dedicated to "the Polish cause" primarily in respect to Germany that a while ago was put under editing restriction to avoid a permaban.

After the disruption at Center Against Expulsions had come to an end, the account was quiet for about a month, with the exception of two edits. When massive editing from the account continued on 28 April, it focussed on prominently mentioning German air force atrocities in Poland in the lead of Strategic bombing during World War II [4] [5], showing some analogy to a dispute user:Molobo had with user:Dapi89 [6]. In the latter dispute, Molobo reported Dapi89 at the AE board; Gwinndeith joined reports of his foremost opponent in the "Strategic..." article, user:Npovshark, on the 3RR board [7]. In between these edits, Gwinndeith, joined an edit war at the Pszenno article, removing historical German names [8]. This edit war combined with some related disputes made it to the AE board [9], and although Gwinndeith has not (yet?) joined in, the account is already mentioned there by user:Radeksz, who after a Gwinndeith diff says "and honestly I have no idea who Gwinndeith is". Neither do I, that's why I post my concerns here for investigation:

• The editing pattern of Gwinndeith outlined above (controversial edits in a limited topic area along with making use of admin notice boards and wikilawyering) resembles that of a more experienced POV pusher and not that of a new user.
• This editing pattern (style, boards, topic area) resembles that of Molobo. Yet, Sciurinae suggested here that it would most probably not be possible to reveal this - hypothetical - connection via CU due to Molobo's experience.
• Gwinndeith's removal of historical German names from articles about places now in Poland resembles that of a variety of IPs and accounts, thus the Molobo connection is not the only possibility. It is also possible that Gwinndeith is a sock of some other account or a SPA that has been around as an IP or a reader for a while.

Skäpperöd (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have had similar problems with his dubious use of sources and unsourced edits. Please cheack the History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) page. I thought the user Peterlewis, who appeared not long afterwards, and put this unsourced information into the article might be the said user.

Also here, using the newspaper (a notorious one) known as the Daily Mail to support information added to the Wehrmacht article. In the next edit the user Peterlewis once again turns up. Although no reversal was made. The complaint made about me in relation to this was erroneous and was just revenge to get back at me for calling him on this.

By far the most interesting relationship between two editors is the one Molobo has with user:Piotrus who seems to jump to his defence, "come what may". Dapi89 (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted 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)."[10] That's also what the SPI template suggest. It took Molobo a brushed-away case of sockpuppetry ([11]) to figure out about IP matches anyway. But that chance was missed because it was too late.[12] For more evidence, also of former sockpuppets, please contact me.

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.[13] So does Gwinndeith: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] 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. [19] [20]

• 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 Wikipedia article.[21] 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.[22] [23]

• 4. Stauffenberg: Molobo claims that to Stauffenberg "the Poles feel at best under the whip".[24] According to Gwinndeith, now, it needed to be stated that Stauffenberg said "The Poles are a people feeling at best under the whip".[25] 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.[26] 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.[27]

• 5. "Strategic bombing during World War II": Molobo has his old edit ([28]) duplicated for the lead with the addition of an image ([29]) in 2008. A bot removed the image a month later.[30] In April a large rewrite of the lead removed the duplicated sentence.[31] A few weeks later Gwinndeith arrives at the article and restores it to the lead, featuring it even more prominently.[32] He restores the image as well.[33] 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.[34] Gwinndeith removed "German" after it was added.[35]

• 7. 12th-century grievances with the Germans: Molobo inserted the label "German" to century-old crimes.[36] After that had been changed to "Imperial" in the same article, Gwinndeith came and changed it back.[37]

• 8. Edelman's criticism: After Molobo included his personal criticism, he cited "Marel Edelman the last living leader of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising".[38] He corrects the spelling mistake in the name (Marek instead of Marel).[39] He cites "Marek Edelman the last living survivor of Warsaw Ghetto Uprising", similarly failing to use commas.[40] [41] [42] [43] He also misspelled the name as "Marel Edelman" in the first edit summary.[44] This misspelling isn't common at all. [45]/[46]

• 9. Let's also use Thorsten1's observation that Gwinndeith used the word "irrelevent" (sic), just like Molobo.[47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] 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 Wikipedia. [53] [54]

• 11. Every now and then Molobo can't help double posting.[55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] So did Gwinndeith eventually.[61]

• 12. Both Molobo and Gwinndeith emphasised that their much detested Federation of Expellees is funded "by German state" (sic) [62] [63]. "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".[64] Gwinndeith used a website of another town to support that it was originally Polish, describing it as "Official Page of the city".[65]

• 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))

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I am confident that the people involved will be able to clearly discern that I and Gwinndeith are two different users. For starters I am engaged in expanding articles using sourced and referenced material with new information[66]. I have yet see Gwinndeith doing the same. Using non-verifable "evidence" that can't be shown to the person accused is of course hardly acceptable. How am I to defend myself in such situtation ? Based on the fact that throghout the years I have been subject to various forms of stalking and abuse(including but not limited to death threat(I am no drama queen, and I am not making big deal about it-it happened thankfully only once) and attempts to gain personal information about my location) based on my dedication to write about Nazi and Soviet atrocities I would certainly oppose anything not based on Wikipedia(thus not verifiable) and anything that I can't defend myself with. SPI rules are clear that the accuser should show wiki diff link, and verifable information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance

1. Do not post private information, emails, logs, etc. on the wiki that are not already on the wiki (if this is a problem, ask before posting your case).
2. Remember to stick to verifiable evidence (usually diffs), and reasonable deductions and impressions drawn from evidence. Do not debate the issue, or respond to others' attempts to do so.

You do not have to defend yourself against other claims, however bad, or engage in discussion about them, other than to note the claim is not relevant to sock puppetry. Claims and issues that are not relevant to account and IP abuse will almost always be ignored by the clerks and checkusers, and will often be removed.

I would like also to point that I would prefer to avoid engaging in wastefull discussion as I prefer to engage in editing and expanding articles. User Scinurea has time and time attacked me with several conspiracy theories and personal attacks, which in my view are bordering on personal obsession about my person, and I do not wish to be engaged in that kind of debate. My only experience with Scinurea in articles was his attempts to delete sourced information about atrocities and repressive measures of German state throughout the history([67] after which he became increasingly agressive to my person. I would caution against his judgment about my person.

In conclusion:I remain confident that both analysis(if needed) of the other user edits and any check will show that we are not the same, and the accusations will be cleared. Thank you and kind regards. --Molobo (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

First I would like to point out that ALL evidence per rules of SPI has to be verifable and public-this is clearly stated in SPI Guidance rules.

The above emotional outbursts by Nightbeast/Scinurea should raise clear concern about neutrality of material produced by the user. He has a long history of conflict with Polish editors, which mainly focused on trying to remove information about genocide, war crimes, discrimination in German history(example:Removal of information and links to Herero Genocide made by German Empire in article calling it irrelevant to history[68]). As evidence here and if needed on other pages this is combined with emotional attitude. Is any "secret evidence" reliable if produced by such user ? The last time Scinurea/Nightbeast(his former nickname) presented "evidence" it consisted of conspiracy theory that I belong to transhumanist/far right/plot to smear Germans by writing alternate history[69] As you may guess it wasn't taken seriously. I certainly would be dissapointed if anybody from clerks would take Scinurea claims as 'evidence' if they will amount to the same conspiracy theories. Afterwards he claimed several times that I use sockpuppets and should be punished. At the same time he now claims "IP check won't show anything". Of course it won't since I don't use sockpuppets at all. However I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't a coordinated effort to block me by users who have for long time debated among themselfs how to "Stop" me. It isn't a big secret both Scinurea and Skapperod worked together and Skapperod has offline personal contact with Scinurea. Of course it doesn't mean they should be blamed for that -there were several cases where other German people had complained that my work should be stopped.

However note how quickly Scinurea came up with detailed analysis how I am suppposedly connected to Gwinndeit based on edits I made five years ago based on couple of edits-and I made thousands of such edits. Essentially you could find similiar edits with many more users.

This is what makes me hightly sceptical of his "secret" evidence. What guarentee we have it is not manufactered by him or some other person-who for long time have been thinking of "Stopping" me.

Here are some valid points I am worried about:

1. I do not believe Scinurea/Nightbeast can be considered a reliable source of information-his past accusations bordered on strange conspiracy charges and presenting any internet user labeled by him as having my views to be me, basing on non-verifable non-Wiki websites, combined with personal attacks and insults: Just a sample showing how emotional and personal Scinurae takes his attempts to block and insult me : After I reported Nazi propaganda book used as source for Polish history by Skapperod, Scinurea posted this long text on my page with such sentences such as "your..trying to stick a proverbial knife gently into another user's body is not new to me" "Simply dismissing a smear attack as a smear attack will not remove the stench" "only accusations of a tag team under Piotrus are frequent and substantial" "Critics of your conduct who represent a danger to your agenda are to be character-assassinated as anti-Polish" [70] Can "secret evidence" by fully trusthworthy in view of the personal and emotional attitude that in my view is agressive of the user pushing it's use ?

Please note that all edits of Scinurea contain claims of sockpuppets of mine, that he will later try to use against me. The standard procedure is that a account is created, makes a few edits. Scinurea comes in, claiming it is my sockpuppet and I should get finally blocked.

2. I do recall an eerie(to me) conversation of Scinurea with an anon that demanded on German related wikipage to stop me At that time Scinurea agreed in discussion that something needs to be done but there was not yet time.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:German-speaking_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_6#Can_some_experienced_persons_watch_this_guy.3F Following words were written by Scinurea in above thread "Dear 80.190, there has never been a lack of awareness of Molobo's campaign. It has simply been an all-pervasive and self-delusional feeling of not needing to do anything about it oneself. You should know well what I'm talking about because, after all, you're guilty of just that yourself, telling us to keep tabs on someone although you haven't lifted a finger yourself so far, have you? And don't pretend not to have enough experience of Wikipedia and awareness of Molobo"

3. My IP is not a very big secret, Scinurea knows it very well and reveals this in the long conspiracy thread posted here [71] As I am not a programmer-is there anything that can be done to a person once his IP is known that manipulate the checkuser or investigation ? I do know that basic ability is required to gain whereabouts of my location.

4. The level of stalking I get from German-users is very big-I have received death threats before due to my activity, and my name is posted as well as insulted on several forums by German users(if needed I can post this publicly-it was from a member of German minority in Poland) It could be that somebody's worked really hard to create 'secret evidence' that would help to "stop me".

5.Sciunrea already knows that the IP check won't show anything. Why is he certain the checkuser won't show my IP but somebody's else?

6. 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.

7. What is especially worrying is that Scinurea and Skapperod-both very POV editors in conflict with others can now ban anybody opposing their POV in articles-simply declare the other user is my sockpuppet. Checkuser doesn' show anything ? That won't be a problem. Scinurea can provide "secret evidence" in order to ban the user. Nobody needs to imagine how abusive such procedure would be. I could just as well claim several German editors are sockpuppets-since they too make similiar edits on Polish articles like Polish users make among themselves.

In conclusion-it could be that Gwinndeith was just a curious user who edited like most of Poles a couple of articles and was attacked right away by Skapperod-just like several other editors (Woogie, Xx). On the other hand there is something strange to me in which Scinurae right away comes from edits made several years ago, to claim that Gwinndeith is my sockpuppet with "secret evidence", claiming outright IP check won't show anything, in face of his debates on how to stop me on German noticeboard.

--Molobo (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users

I can only repeat myself: Gwinndeith is clearly yet another sockpuppet of User:Molobo, who always gets away with it. If you or a neutral admin wants convincing evidence, I can email it. Sciurinæ (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• As Skapperod mentions above, 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 - though some, I think). I actually though it was somebody from Wales until I actually got around to clicking on their username a few days ago. As a consequence I'm deferring any more specific comments until the accused parties and others have their say. However, Sciruinae's comment above makes me wonder - if there is convincing evidence that this user is Molobo, why can't this be presented in public? This sounds sketchy - at least like a sort of "evidence by insinuation".radek (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? What would be a better help for his sockpuppetry than letting him know how he betrayed himself? For any admin wanting to handle this case: please make sure you have my evidence before reaching a conclusion in this case. Sciurinæ (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You're presuming guilt here, or at least expecting everyone else to presume guilt as well. Basically what you're saying is "I assume the user in question is guilty and I have evidence to prove it but I won't show it because in that case the user in question is going to be able to defend their innocence". I know this isn't the Bill of Rights but that's really pushing it far.radek (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And sorry to get all weird and paranoid here, but that's what happens when you try to proceed in such a non-open manner on cases like this, but I presume that this statement on your talk page: [72] is relevant? In other words, this secret information is not informative or not useful? This is getting all weird and strange and conspiratorial.radek (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Sciurinæ works for the CIA :)? I'm joking of course but if indeed the evidence are there, they should be made public.--Jacurek (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz, I don't presume or assume anything - I know beyond all reasonable doubt and will provide a neutral admin with extensive evidence. Regardless of your court-rhetoric, I don't want Molobo to know how he betrayed himself, especially because the evidence is sensitive. To solve this dilemma, I will therefore submit the evidence confidentially to whoever will be the neutral admin dealing with this case. That's the end of this discussion for me. (P.S. just so you know, Radeksz, Skäpperöd received no info from me and declined the offer I made in my first edit here saying he "could not make use of the information" for the obvious reason that he's not an admin) Sciurinæ (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

@Radeksz:"As Skapperod mentions above, 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" - yes, this shows and may explain why you are defending him... --Thorsten1 (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin. Please exercise caution. Molobo is a valuable and well experienced user known for dampening down attempts at geopolitical irredentism in Eastern European affairs, hence the current attempts at investigation. His prior RfC proved nothing as far as the far-fetched accusations of sockpuppetry are concerned.[73] --Poeticbent talk 17:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin: Quote Poeticbent, "Molobo is a valuable ... user" - you may want to have a look at this to put that statement into context. --Thorsten1 (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Four comments:

• why would Gwinndeith ask about something that Molobo is an expert on?
• an annoying (to me) characteristic of Molobo is that his talk posts are poorly structured, often not indented and merging with sb else's posts. I reviewed G's talk posts and they don't seem to have the same issue.
• considering WP:RTV and Wikipedia's support for anonymity of editors (which as a general principle I am against), unless G has violated any restriction Molobo is under, or stacked votes, or tried to break 3RR or such, there is no need to take any action, including investigation.
• considering Molobo's name has been made worse then mud, due to him fighting German/Nazi POV-pushing editors and those editors slandering his name for years, branding him as a "uber-Polish nationalist POV-pushing revert warrior etc." I'd advise to consider if this thread is not designed to attack an editor who represents similar anti-Nazi POV and slander his name by association with Molobo? Speculation aside, either we have proof that G=M, or it should be clearly stated that G=/=M, to avoid sticking mud on G's name. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't you think it's time to stop protecting Molobo, Piotrus? You have even gone so far so as to abuse your admin tools by unblocking him twice. If you continue to protect Molobo it may cause even more editors to think that you secretly share his political views.--Berig (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What are Molobo's political views and why are they problematic? He seems to take a hard stance against possible German Nazi-era sources. Is that the political views you're referring to?radek (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

@Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus: "why would Gwinndeith [...] about something that Molobo is an expert on?" OK, so you are saying that whenever some suspected sockpuppet asks their suspected master something, this is to be taken as "proof" (or even just an indication) that it's not a sockpuppet? "consider if this thread is not designed to attack an editor who represents similar anti-Nazi POV and slander his name by association with Molobo". Molobo's politics are not subject of this procedure, but since you're bringing this topic up in his defence, it can't be left uncommented. In a nutshell, Molobo does not "represent an anti-Nazi POV", he represents, an anti-German POV, and he's never made a secret out of it. (For completeness's sake, on the rare occasion he deals with purely domestic Polish matters, he represents an extremely right-wing POV, too, as his smears in articles like Wislawa Szymborska, Zygmunt Bauman or Adam Michnik reveal.) To be fair, he may simply not be able to differentiate between "Nazi" and "German", but he shouldn't be allowed to press this POV on the rest of the world. It's a pity that an otherwise constructive editor like yourself continues to protect POV pushers. (BTW: It's interesting that you tend to ask Molobo, with his limited command of German, to translate German sources, when there's no shortage of German speakers on en.wikipedia.) But I'm getting tired of repeating this. "unless G has violated any restriction Molobo is under" - as Scirunae points out below, if the Molobo and Gwinndeith accounts are operated by the same user, then Gwinndeith has been used to evade Molobo's 1R sanction. --Thorsten1 (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

While I'm at it, here's some more finds: Both Molobo and Gwinndeith like to change "Cracow" into "Kraków": [74] [75]. Not that there's anything wrong with it in itself ("Cracow" is indeed dated), but in this context it may be an instructive piece of circumstantial evidence. (Interestingly, the Gwinndeith diff also shows the removal of the words "German" in any even remotely positive sense, another habit of Molobo's.) Incidentally, also the misspelling "irrelevent", another Moloboism ([76], crops up here... --Thorsten1 (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've moved the evidence submitted by Sciurinæ to the talk page. AdjustShift (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Having seen Sciurinæ's non-publicized evidence, which I'm sure he will share with any CU or Arb that takes an interest, there can be little doubt that Gwinndeith (as well as banned Koretek) are sockpuppets of Molobo. The chances of it being otherwise are very slim. As a result, Molobo should be banned from wikipedia for at least a year if not permanently. If it is necessary for it to stick, an ArbCom motion amending Eastern European disputes/Piotrus 2 to that effect should be sought. I know of few other users with a history as bad as Molobo's; he's already served a year ban for previous offences and has escaped permanent bans several times since. The records of other users in the area, such as Boodlesthecat, Gregoryparkavenue and Kuban kazak, all currently serving one year bans, are almost exemplary in comparison to Molobo's. That he is still continuing to edit with no respect for our rules and for our principles of collaboration is the final straw. Enough should really be enough here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• It is a fact that Deacon of Pndapetzim is a content opponent of Molobo, having been admonished in the Eastern European ArbCom case, so I really don't know how much weight should be attached to his take of this super-sekret evidence. To be fair, if Deacon has sighted this evidence, then I think at the very least other admins, say Piotrus, should be given an opportunity to sight it too. --Martintg (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Principled objection by Digwuren

As somebody who has been on the receiving end of a bogus checkuser request before, I object to the unprecedented use of secret, unchallengeable evidence in these proceedings in the strongest terms possible. Everybody can make mistakes, and checkusers are not immune to this (and I do speak from experience here). Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to object to "strong secret evidence". Evidence should be presented publicly, so that the defended should be able to reply to it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Before you start writing books and inviting Eastern European friends to argue about whether or not the investigating admin, CheckUsers, the ArbCom and other functionaries may receive privileged information, you should know that I have presented enough and to spare evidence in public already. Sciurinæ (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sciurinae, nobody invited me here, I came on my own and you might wanna watch civility there. The evidence you presented at presented enough and to spare evidence strengthens the objection to the use of secret evidence - it shows a superficial similarity between Molobo and Gwinndeith which an admin unfamiliar with how these Eastern European, Polish/German disputes work might interpret as evidence of sock puppetry. Yet, anyone familiar with Polish/German disputes on Wiki will immediately see that the similarity is simply due to Molobo's and Gwinndeith's common nationality. The concern is that the same is true of the "secret evidence". If you think that what you presented in public is sufficient to get Molobo for sock puppetry then go with that alone and leave "secret evidence" out of this.radek (talk) 02:08, 24 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) 03:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not about publishing after decision. It is about allowing the accused to review the evidence and point out possible flaws in its interpretation. Especially in cases that are unusual or innovative -- as this one obviously is -- it is important that well-motivated well-qualified people get to scrutinise the offered evidence. Analysing the secret evidence in private and then publishing selected clips of it -- perhaps even out of context, it's easy to do by accident -- in order to justify the decision, whatever it might be, runs counter to common sense. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 05:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my dear, it is not about publishing after the final verdict is passed. The evidences will be posted few days before the final verdict is passed. You can also look at the evidences and respond to it. AdjustShift (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• I'm analyzing this case. AdjustShift (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Clerk note: I have generated a report to assist in analysis. Synergy 12:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've asked AdjustShift for an update on his analysis. Nathan ^T 00:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm analyzing the Sciurinæ's evidence. The evidence is strong. AdjustShift (talk) 00:44, 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 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 on the talk page. AdjustShift (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll be closing this case on 29 May 2009. AdjustShift (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Clerk note: As I've already noted on the case talk page, this case has turned into an unmitigated trainwreck, and a shining example of how badly things can go wrong in SPI if we try to mess around with the system.

• The evidence (or in some cases opinion masquerading as evidence) has been voluminous in the extreme, as have the extensive rebutals, and counter-rebutals (and so on ad-infinitum). If ever there was a case of quantity over quality!!
• Attempts to drag the case off into a tit-for-tat mudslinging contest were met with take it to the case talk page instead of this isn't remotely relevant, please feel free to vent to your cat/dog/gerbil instead of on-wiki
• Having filled the talk page full of utter dross, we then started hiving off some of the evidence there as well, fragmenting the case, and making it into a positive nightmare to deal with.
• Then we have various people alluding to some "sooper sekrit" evidence that may have been seen by a CU or somebody on arbcom, but "anyway, the details aren't important, it's secret, and very convincing, so that's that". Well, no, sorry that isn't that. If a case contains secret evidence, then frankly it will not do to have various people "in the know" commenting about the quality of the unseen evidence (I haven't seen the supposed evidence, and I don't wish to). If there is evidence that must remain secret, then that evidence can be presented to arbcom/CU and we go with their view of the evidence, not the assurance of some arbitrary subset of "in-the know" editors. Unless and until somebody points to a CU/arbcom member who will give a definitive view of what the secret evidence says, it isn't evidence at all.
• I have collapsed huge amounts of stuff from the talk page as irrelevant. If I have collapsed anything that is actually evidence, any user is welcome to bring it to this page as evidence. Be warned, however, that any user who continues the mudslinging either here or on the talk page will be asked to cease contributing to this case per SPI procedures. Mayalld (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )

Current status – Endorsed for Checkuser attention.

• Pasting up a checkuser request and endorsing to see if we can't get this case moving along. It's not clear if a CU wasn't requested because there is reason to believe it wouldn't be effective, but given how this case has progressed (please see the talkpage also for additional argumentation and discussion of evidence) a CU result should attach to the outcome either way. Nathan ^T 15:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• This would be useful to establish if puppetry is not implausible. The unpublished evidence makes it highly likely that Molobo and the now unCUable Koretek were the same user, and I'm assuming someone did a CU check during the Piotrus 2 ArbCom hearing. As no action was taken on Molobo then, the CU evidence must have fallen short of proof. Because of the problems publishing this evidence, I think Adjustshift or Sciurinae should forward the evidence to the CU that takes this and the latter can use his own judgment based upon both. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm curious about this. How did you get to see Sciurinae's secret evidence? How come you but not other admins or users? It seems like this evidence is only "secret" to those who are not going to presume Molobo guilty. Was it passed around to everyone that has had arguments with Molobo in the past and kept away from anyone who's ever said something in his support? Apparantly not only is this "secret evidence", it's "selectively secret evidence". (I make this comment in good faith and the belief that it is relevant, as Deacon keeps referring to the "secret evidence" being "highly likely" after Mayalld stated above that that sort of thing "won't do").radek (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

---