Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo/Archive: Difference between revisions
→Secret evidence: @Piotrus |
No edit summary |
||
Line 192: | Line 192: | ||
''Also, as I said above, if you are so sure you're innocent, why worry?'' |
''Also, as I said above, if you are so sure you're innocent, why worry?'' |
||
Because this is a secret trial, based on 'evidence' produced by somebody determined to stop me and who in the past has obsessively posted fake information on my person. |
Because this is a secret trial, based on 'evidence' produced by somebody determined to stop me and who in the past has obsessively posted fake information on my person. |
||
As to the rest. I have a growing conviction that is one of Scinurae "friends" or people from who I have seen on various boards threatening my name who tried to put me into bad light or stop me. There are multiple cases of such people posting such things against me on the net, after I worked on Nazi Germany articles(including death threat). --[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 21:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC) |
As to the rest. I have a growing conviction that is one of Scinurae "friends" or people from who I have seen on various boards threatening my name who tried to put me into bad light or stop me. There are multiple cases of such people posting such things against me on the net, after I worked on Nazi Germany articles(including death threat). If anything perhaps Scinurae revealed himself showing that he already knew my IP will be different then the one used by the other account ? --[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 21:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
<- As someone who has seen the "secret evidence" but doesn't have an ok to publish it, I'll say that it is merely a collection of observations (backed by diffs) about writing style similarities between the two users. Before anyone asks - I haven't closed this case myself because it hinges largely on a vast amount of behavioral evidence; which I, as one of the rookie checkusers, am not comfortable about making a call on. --[[User:Versageek|<span style="color:midnightblue">Versa</span>]][[User_talk:Versageek|<span style="color:darkred">geek</span>]] 20:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC) |
<- As someone who has seen the "secret evidence" but doesn't have an ok to publish it, I'll say that it is merely a collection of observations (backed by diffs) about writing style similarities between the two users. Before anyone asks - I haven't closed this case myself because it hinges largely on a vast amount of behavioral evidence; which I, as one of the rookie checkusers, am not comfortable about making a call on. --[[User:Versageek|<span style="color:midnightblue">Versa</span>]][[User_talk:Versageek|<span style="color:darkred">geek</span>]] 20:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
:A helpful reply - what a nice surprise! Thank you. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 21:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC) |
:A helpful reply - what a nice surprise! Thank you. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 21:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
::Thank you, this is a welcomed relief. Who gives ok to release of this information.--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 21:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::What else than a ''"observations (backed by diffs) about writing style similarities"'' did you expect, Piotruś, when this comes as a ''"nice surprise"''? After all, we only have two sorts of evidence: CheckUser - 100% reliable, but then I think nobody expected Molobo to be stupid enough and use the same internet connection for both accounts, not after years of playing cat and mouse with the wiki police, and writing style - always open to debate, and not 100% reliable even if scrutinized by professionals. So nothing new here, really. --[[User:Thorsten1|Thorsten1]] ([[User talk:Thorsten1|talk]]) 21:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC) |
::What else than a ''"observations (backed by diffs) about writing style similarities"'' did you expect, Piotruś, when this comes as a ''"nice surprise"''? After all, we only have two sorts of evidence: CheckUser - 100% reliable, but then I think nobody expected Molobo to be stupid enough and use the same internet connection for both accounts, not after years of playing cat and mouse with the wiki police, and writing style - always open to debate, and not 100% reliable even if scrutinized by professionals. So nothing new here, really. --[[User:Thorsten1|Thorsten1]] ([[User talk:Thorsten1|talk]]) 21:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::Another baseles accusation and personal attack Thorsten1 ? Could you stop being rude to me ?--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 21:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:15, 31 May 2009
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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes. The evidence provided by Sciurinæ is strong, and I would like to thank him for his work. Other editors can give their input below. AdjustShift (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Can the above pieces of evidence be numbered so that it is easier to refer to them in the comments?
collapsed content that is not appropriate for an SPI case
|
---|
<--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)
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 evidenceAs 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)
I always thought you, Piotrus, were the greatest supporter of secret communication. You've had Molobo in your Gadu-Gadu instant messenger list since at least 2006 ([7], confirmed in a limited hangout last year [8]). If it is legitimate Wiki business, feel free to publish the logs. If it is (also) personal, why don't you ever make anyone aware of your friendship with the one you so vigorously defend? You've even canvassed ([9]) and played judge for him ([10]). You also contacted Moreschi off-wiki because Molobo got blocked.[11] This year there will apparently not be any other policy for his Molobo.[12] [13] [14] Over a similarly secret way Radeksz was convinced to use Wikimail for off-wiki contact with you.[15] As the latest example shows, you two also do that in a twosome with Molobo ([16] [17] [18] [19] [20]). When you got blocked for 3RR, Piotrus, you did not protest on-wiki, either, but unblock-shopped via IRC with false claims.[21] This would not be the last time to use IRC like this.[22] Or when AGK invited "editors with any evidence of interest to email" him against Matthead (a user disliked by you, Piotrus),[23] no one protested, although both you and Martintg had been part of the case, who now protest. Almost needless to say, AGK received an email from you.[24] There's actually a good reason for off-wiki evidence, because the release of that evidence would be detrimental to being able to combat further sockpuppets of Molobo and I'm not going to release it openly. This additional evidence can be seen as an added bonus to what I've already posted above, on whose ground a block can be taken itself. The off-wiki part can be reviewed by the ArbCom or the functionaries and certain interested uninvolved administrators and help with a correct conclusion. Sciurinæ (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Archive
Enough, this isn't the purpose of this page. If the evidence is being considered by ArbCom, then WP:RFAR, WP:AE or a noticeboard is the proper place to discuss it. I'm taking AdjustShift at his word that this case will be archived within the few days. It seems clear that with publicly available evidence this SPI report will not arrive at a definitive conclusion, so leaving the case open is primarily a courtesy and a method to allow a recording of the final outcome. Nathan T 23:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Within the collapsed archive is a lot of additional (on-wiki) evidence, shouldn't this be extracted? Skäpperöd (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- There are some evidences on this page. Please don't archive it now. AdjustShift (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- There is no purpose to further discussion on this case here if ArbCom is making a determination. SPI isn't a forum for hosting nationalist disputes, and evidence should be on the case page not the talkpage. Do you have an explanation for encouraging argument here? Nathan T 13:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- ArbCom is not determining this case. This page was not hosted for talking about nationalist disputes. I've explanations for encouraging argument here. Sciurinæ's evidences are long and other WP editors should also get a chance to analyze his evidences, so I encouraged discussion here. But, the discussion turned in a "mini" Eastern European fight. AdjustShift (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Which, to me, sounds like a good reason for cutting off further discussion on this page. Nathan T 15:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Why not just move Sciurinae's evidence to the project page and the comments (except for the admin/clerk section and the evidence submitted by Thorsten1) from the project page here? It's pretty hard to keep up with everything here. On both the project and the talk page there is evidence, and on both the project and the talk page there are discussions. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Nathan, I'm wondering if it's OK to simply "wrap up" and put away a discussion, even if it's going into the wrong direction... In my view, the distinction between "project" and "talk" is most unhelpful in this case, but once the talk page has been used and contains important information, it should stay this way. --Thorsten1 (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Why not just move Sciurinae's evidence to the project page and the comments (except for the admin/clerk section and the evidence submitted by Thorsten1) from the project page here? It's pretty hard to keep up with everything here. On both the project and the talk page there is evidence, and on both the project and the talk page there are discussions. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Which, to me, sounds like a good reason for cutting off further discussion on this page. Nathan T 15:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- ArbCom is not determining this case. This page was not hosted for talking about nationalist disputes. I've explanations for encouraging argument here. Sciurinæ's evidences are long and other WP editors should also get a chance to analyze his evidences, so I encouraged discussion here. But, the discussion turned in a "mini" Eastern European fight. AdjustShift (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- There is no purpose to further discussion on this case here if ArbCom is making a determination. SPI isn't a forum for hosting nationalist disputes, and evidence should be on the case page not the talkpage. Do you have an explanation for encouraging argument here? Nathan T 13:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
<-- SPI cases aren't designed or intended to host discussions about generalized behavior problems or content/ideological/nationalist disputes. Such discussion doesn't further the object of this project, it can't impact any content, it won't lead to administrative sanctions, etc. Anything that isn't evidence for or against the allegation of sockpuppetry is extraneous to this forum. That restriction might shut down discussion that might be otherwise useful, but this case has been open for 20 days and little substantial evidence has been added recently. If this is going to be resolved, focusing on the allegation at hand here and shunting everything else elsewhere is the right move. Nathan T 17:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Nathan, in this particular case, a Polish editor is accused of sockpuppetry by German editors. As a neutral admin, I know which discussion to read and which discussion to avoid. AdjustShift (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Nathan about the scope of SPI in relation to what is going on here. Most of the clerks held off because we assumed there to be an arbitration discussion in progress, and thus we refrained from interfering. However, this case is getting extended more, and it has become a battleground for parties involved. It has got to stop.
- Further, cases without a request for checkuser attention should not be left to fester like this. If the case is not simple, and needs this much discussion and disputation, it should be deferred to a checkuser. We have endorsed a checkuser's attention for far less. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Never mind, Nathan endorsed one earlier. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- You are both right, of course, that by now this page contains a lot of stuff that doesn't belong here. However, it also contains a lot of stuff that does and shouldn't be sacrificed just to get rid of the off-topic stuff. --Thorsten1 (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- No. Evidence should be on the main case page, and discussion relevant to the case on this talk page. Please keep discussion to a minimum. Anything not relevant to this case should be archived to avoid having to read through all of it, please. Syn 21:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is pretty tough to handle these Eastern European cases. It can turn into a political debate at any time. AdjustShift (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- @Synergy: This SP case is not like any other SP cases. A Polish editor (Molobo) is accused of sockpuppetry by German editors. The Eastern European dispute is one of the major disputes on en.wikipedia. So, we should expect some off-topic discussion, even though we don't want any off-topic discussion on this page. AdjustShift (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- No. Evidence should be on the main case page, and discussion relevant to the case on this talk page. Please keep discussion to a minimum. Anything not relevant to this case should be archived to avoid having to read through all of it, please. Syn 21:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- You are both right, of course, that by now this page contains a lot of stuff that doesn't belong here. However, it also contains a lot of stuff that does and shouldn't be sacrificed just to get rid of the off-topic stuff. --Thorsten1 (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Skäpperöd's response to Molobo
collapsed content that is not appropriate for an SPI case
|
---|
Is this SPI case the result of a conspiracy ?Molobo says: "Please note that both Scinurea and Skapperod are in personal contact and Skapperod did inform Scinurea to inform admin about "secret evidence". What is interesting is that it happened just after Skapperod traveled back from a short trip from somewhere."
Skäpperöd (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Gwinndeith was attacked right awayMolobo says: "Gwinndeith was just a curious user who edited like most of Poles a couple of articles and was attacked right away by Skapperod" My interaction with the Gwinndeith account started when this account added stuff like "a daughter born to Nazi Germany" to a German MP in the lead of an article I had just developed, breaching at the very least WP:BLP and WP:NPOV with this line alone. In fact, The behaviour of the Gwinndeith account in the following led me assume that this account is not operated by someone new to wikipedia, eventually leading to this case. For all other allegations concerning my behaviour, I think it is best not to respond here as they are unrelated to the SPI case. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC) |
Procedural questions by Skäpperöd
I understand from the recent moves and discussion that the admins/clerks here are divided on how to structure this case, particularily on how to divide evidence from comments and case-related comments from general comments. I feel this uncertainty contributes to the growing amount of general comments on both the talk and the project page, as it encourages editors to present their views on who are the good/bad guys in the EE area.
- (1) May I ask if the clerks/admins handling this case have yet agreed on a procedure?
- (2) I understand the evidence must be on the project page for technical reasons (later archiving). Is this also true for all comments now on the project page (or which of them), i.e. sections "Comments by accused parties", "Comments by other users", "Comment", and "Principled objection by Digwuren"? If not, can these sections be moved to the talk page, if yes what kind of comments are legitimate on the project page, and what kind of comments should be made at talk?
- (3) What comments should not be made at all? Is it legitimate to discuss alleged motives, alleged nationalities, alleged underlying disputes and the like? I am asking because all these allegations have been made directed against me and others, and I am not sure if/how to respond. I can't really imagine that these more general discussions are legitimate here, since this case would then become a mixture of multiple user-RfCs and a revival of the Piotrus2-Arbcom, which certainly was not my intend when starting this case. My intend was that someone familiar with sockpuppeteers investigate the editing pattern of the Gwinndeith account and maybe find its master. Since AdjustShift in the "Archive" section above said that this case is somehow special and that some spill-over from EE disputes is expected here, I'd like to have a guideline on what is legitimate and what not on these pages, and what should be discussed on the project page, and what should be discussed on the talk page. Eg all the responses made by me in the section above are responses to alleged motives of mine, which prove to be false. Am I to ignore comments made on my motives (like that I am part of a conspiracy and sitting in the bushes ready to attack new users), or should I comment? I am sure this case can only benefit from a clear announcement and its enforcement.
- (4) Double and deleted posts: Woogie10w withdrew some of his earlier comments by deleting them from the threaded discussion. Is this legitimate, or should he be advised to restore them and strike them out? Also, Molobo's latest reply is still in here twice.
Thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- (1) I won't be archiving this page again, per AdjustShift's wishes, although I'm not sure this is the best approach.
- (2) Yes, evidence needs to be on the case page. Counter-evidence or responses to evidence should also be on the case page, and it will all be archived together. Discussion on the talkpage won't be moved off the page - when the case is closed, I will collapse the discussion here and note the case date.
- (3) The only discussion here should be (a) relevant to this SPI and (b) focused on supporting or refuting the allegation of sockpuppetry. Anything else (motives, conspiracy theories, history of disputes, etc.) belongs somewhere else.
- (4) General talkpage etiquette is that comments which others have responded to should be struck out and not deleted, so as not to render the comments of others nonsensical.
- Nathan T 13:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- If we include all counter-evidence or responses in the case page, the case page will be very long. It will be easier for me to analyze the case, if some discussions are on this page. I don't want any editor to start any Eastern European fight here. Please use this page to discuss about this SP case. AdjustShift (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk note:
- I restored the evidence to the case page, and am going to insist that it stays there, as there it belongs! SPI cases are complex enough without dreaming up a whole new way of dealing with a (not particularly remarkable) case.
- If there is anything else on the talk page that ought to be on the case page, I will move that there.
- Also, as time permits, I intend to remove any content on either the case or talk page that isn't relevant to the case, leaving pretty much just the procedural stuff here on the talk page.
- Basically, this case has turned into an almighty trainwreck, and will doubtless be cited for years to come as an example of how a case can go off the rails when we move away from presenting evidence to lengthy discussions. Mayalld (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Some of the things that you archived as "not appropriate for an SPI case" contains counter-evidence. Some of them are appropriate for this SPI case. AdjustShift (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Very probably! If there are comments that contain evidence that I've collapsed, they should be moved to the case page. Please feel free. Mayalld (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is difficult to filter them. Both needless comments and useful comments are mixed together in that archive. AdjustShift (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, no comments have actually been removed. I appreciate its somewhat inconvenient for when you are reviewing the evidence, but it is ultimately an improvement for keeping the case on track to close as soon as possible. Nathan T 15:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Some comments, as far as I can tell, were permanently removed, even through I don't see what was offensive or problematic about them: [26] :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 08:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, no comments have actually been removed. I appreciate its somewhat inconvenient for when you are reviewing the evidence, but it is ultimately an improvement for keeping the case on track to close as soon as possible. Nathan T 15:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is difficult to filter them. Both needless comments and useful comments are mixed together in that archive. AdjustShift (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Very probably! If there are comments that contain evidence that I've collapsed, they should be moved to the case page. Please feel free. Mayalld (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Some of the things that you archived as "not appropriate for an SPI case" contains counter-evidence. Some of them are appropriate for this SPI case. AdjustShift (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Secret evidence
Enough editors have criticized the idea of secret evidence, and enough time has passed without those concerned being addressed, that I've decided to take it to a wider forum. I find this case to be severly mishandled, starting with the very idea of "secret evidence", making it available only to selected editors without any official criteria, and ending at the serious delays to the case (it was supposed to be closed a week ago, and we still are not told what is the reason for the delays). I'd like to suggest that to alleviate the bad atmosphere at this particular SPI, the evidence should be made immediately available either to everyone (my preferred choice), or at least, to all admins that request it. We have waited long enough for it as it is. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Piotruś, the stated purpose of not making the evidence public at this point was not to reveal to Molobo how he betrayed himself. Even if he'll be let off the hook for "lack of evidence " this time, he could use the "secret evidence" to avoid getting himself identified when using socks in the future. (Always assuming he is using socks, of course; and to be sure, "lack of evidence" does not mean he's not using them.) So, would you be prepared to guarantee that you won't forward the material to Molobo? After all, you have been known to be on friendly terms with him and bailed him out of many unpleasant situations that he got himself into... Anyway, as no sanction has yet been issued against Molobo based on the "secret evidence", I think it's a bit too early to demand its disclosure. --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Here's a question for you: several editors promised that this evidence will be made public anyway. So why not make it public now? Sure, I can promise not to reveal it to Molobo, but why does it matters if its going to be made public anyway? And why has it not been made public yet, if it is, presumably, not changing? As I see it, this secret evidence is nothing but some kind of psychological pressure on Molobo, perhaps designed to make him give up on Wikipedia and leave this project, rather than to face continued harassment. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I never used a sockuppet and never will Thorsten. Your baseless and offensive claims, no matter how many times repeated will not change the reality. Furthermore we all are waiting for answer why a user with problematic history of relationship to Polish users received the whatever Scinurae created while others are denied this--Molobo (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- "I never used a sockuppet and never will Thorsten. Your baseless and offensive claims,..." I beg your pardon, but I gave the due caveat above: "Always assuming he is using socks, of course". Of course, I can't know for sure if you are (even though I think it's pretty likely based on the on-wiki evidence). "we all are waiting for answer why a user with problematic history of relationship to Polish users received the whatever Scinurae created while others are denied this". The rationale for not posting part of the evidence publicly was to make sure it doesn't end up in your inbox, for obvious reasons. I don't know if "a user with problematic history of relationship to Polish users" was shown the evidence, but if he did, then probably because he's unlikely to leak it to you. "received
thewhatever Scinurae created" - I'm sure that Sciurinae didn't "create" anything, he just collected diffs, a part of which was posted publicly and another part was not. The diffs are subject to interpretation, of course, and people may disagree as to their interpretation. However, diffs can not be "created" or "manufactured" [27]. --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC) - The rationale for not posting part of the evidence publicly was to make sure it doesn't end up in your inbox, for obvious reasons
- Yes, how convient that I should be judged by something I can't defend myself against. And I find it very interesting that A:Scinurae and couple of others on German noticeboard comment on how to "stop me" B: Scinurae already knows for some strange reason IP check won't show anything. C. Gwinndeith account was discovered to be operating from mobile web provider indicating no permanent residence in Poland D. Scinurae needs to send "secret evidence"(that only selected people are allowed to see) to convice others, that I need to be banned because I "use" a "sockpuppet".
- --Molobo (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I wonder if we will ever know the truth... isn't this exciting? Secret trials are so much "fun" - at least for the prosecutors... That sad, Molobo, please assume good faith. Your last para is hardly appropriate. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- @Molobo: "how convient that I should be judged by something I can't defend myself against" - why don't you wait until you actually have been judged? So far, nothing has been decided. (And personally, I'm quite pessimistic that anything will be decided due to the whole "secret evidence" problem.) But if you are so sure that nothing can be proved, there's no reason to be so terribly nervous, is there? --Thorsten1 (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody likes to be subject of a secret trial Thorsten1, especially with the amount of incivility and biased opinions expressed by some against others. Anyway...look, I was planning to actually use today to write something about Nazi occupation of Poland and regional differences, source numbers about theft of works of art, and instead I am being dragged constantly into this. I just wish for it to end so I can get back to my work on articles in peace.--Molobo (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Relax. First off, it's not a secret trial. True, a part of the exhibits are being kept secret at the moment, which is an unfortunate situation to be sure, but there is a rationale for it, after all. Also, as I said above, if you are so sure you're innocent, why worry? In the unlikely event that you'll be found guilty in error, you can always demand that everything be put on the table. I can well understand that you don't like to be the subject of this whole procedure, but let's not fool ourselves: With your track record of confrontational behaviour you had it coming. "Gwinndeith account was discovered to be operating from mobile web provider indicating no permanent residence in Poland" - I just had a look at the front page. Avi said the following: "although they [use] different IP pools, they geolocate to the same region in the country and one provider seems to be exclusively a mobile provider and the other seems to be a regular provider [...], which may be exploited by the same person." He just said that one provider "seems to be exclusively a mobile provider". He didn't say anything at all about the mobile provider "indicating no permanent residence in Poland". So either you have received more CheckUser information than is publicly available behind the scenes, or you know for some other reason whether or not the mobile provider indicates a "permanent residence in Poland". Could it be that you've just given yourself away? ;) --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody likes to be subject of a secret trial Thorsten1, especially with the amount of incivility and biased opinions expressed by some against others. Anyway...look, I was planning to actually use today to write something about Nazi occupation of Poland and regional differences, source numbers about theft of works of art, and instead I am being dragged constantly into this. I just wish for it to end so I can get back to my work on articles in peace.--Molobo (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- "I never used a sockuppet and never will Thorsten. Your baseless and offensive claims,..." I beg your pardon, but I gave the due caveat above: "Always assuming he is using socks, of course". Of course, I can't know for sure if you are (even though I think it's pretty likely based on the on-wiki evidence). "we all are waiting for answer why a user with problematic history of relationship to Polish users received the whatever Scinurae created while others are denied this". The rationale for not posting part of the evidence publicly was to make sure it doesn't end up in your inbox, for obvious reasons. I don't know if "a user with problematic history of relationship to Polish users" was shown the evidence, but if he did, then probably because he's unlikely to leak it to you. "received
- First off, it's not a secret trial'
It is a secret trial. but there is a rationale for it, after all. There is no rationale behind it but attempt to harass me and leave me without ability to defend myself. Also, as I said above, if you are so sure you're innocent, why worry? Because this is a secret trial, based on 'evidence' produced by somebody determined to stop me and who in the past has obsessively posted fake information on my person. As to the rest. I have a growing conviction that is one of Scinurae "friends" or people from who I have seen on various boards threatening my name who tried to put me into bad light or stop me. There are multiple cases of such people posting such things against me on the net, after I worked on Nazi Germany articles(including death threat). If anything perhaps Scinurae revealed himself showing that he already knew my IP will be different then the one used by the other account ? --Molobo (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
<- As someone who has seen the "secret evidence" but doesn't have an ok to publish it, I'll say that it is merely a collection of observations (backed by diffs) about writing style similarities between the two users. Before anyone asks - I haven't closed this case myself because it hinges largely on a vast amount of behavioral evidence; which I, as one of the rookie checkusers, am not comfortable about making a call on. --Versageek 20:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- A helpful reply - what a nice surprise! Thank you. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, this is a welcomed relief. Who gives ok to release of this information.--Molobo (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- What else than a "observations (backed by diffs) about writing style similarities" did you expect, Piotruś, when this comes as a "nice surprise"? After all, we only have two sorts of evidence: CheckUser - 100% reliable, but then I think nobody expected Molobo to be stupid enough and use the same internet connection for both accounts, not after years of playing cat and mouse with the wiki police, and writing style - always open to debate, and not 100% reliable even if scrutinized by professionals. So nothing new here, really. --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Another baseles accusation and personal attack Thorsten1 ? Could you stop being rude to me ?--Molobo (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- What else than a "observations (backed by diffs) about writing style similarities" did you expect, Piotruś, when this comes as a "nice surprise"? After all, we only have two sorts of evidence: CheckUser - 100% reliable, but then I think nobody expected Molobo to be stupid enough and use the same internet connection for both accounts, not after years of playing cat and mouse with the wiki police, and writing style - always open to debate, and not 100% reliable even if scrutinized by professionals. So nothing new here, really. --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)