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)

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[10]. 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([11] 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)

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: [12] 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.[13] --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": [14] [15]. 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 ([16], 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)

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)

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)

Conclusions

---