Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Novickas (talk | contribs) at 02:25, 22 September 2009 (Statemen (I have the emails), question re evidence presentation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Important — please note The Committee, in passing the motion to open this case, provided explicit direction to all editors participating in this case: "Editors are expected to observe appropriate decorum on the case pages and in any other discussion of this incident." "Editors are instructed to refrain from disclosing on-wiki the name or other identifying information concerning any editor who does not edit under or disclose on-wiki his or her real-world identity. Any evidence that would have the potential effect of making such a disclosure shall not be posted on-wiki, but shall be e-mailed to the Arbitration Committee. The committee will take appropriate steps to ensure that no editor is sanctioned based on private evidence without an appropriate opportunity to respond to such evidence, while also seeking to ensure that editors' identifying information is not unnecessarily disclosed." "All editors, whether or not they are potential parties to the case, are strongly urged to exercise consideration and discretion in dealing both on- and off-wiki with all aspects of this highly sensitive situation. Any behavior that would unnecessarily inflame or widen the dispute should be avoided." The Clerk for this case is KnightLago (talk · contribs) who will be assisted by non-recused members of the Clerk team in enforcing the above rules. The Clerks will, wherever it deems necessary, refactor and remove statements where they violate the above directions, or where they violate the general standards of decorum and Misplaced Pages policies. The Clerks will, where required for particular egregious or repetitive violations, ban participants from the case pages for an appropriate period of time. Both the refactoring of statements, and case page bans, that are implemented by the Clerks, can be appealed to the Committee. If any user requires assistance in submitting private evidence to the Arbitrators in the method requested by Committee (see the second bullet point, above), please contact a member of the Clerks or, alternatively, an Arbitrator directly. —User:KnightLago (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Unusual case requires unusual procedures

I don't think a normal evidence page will work in this case. The question is not, are there factions that edit war with each other? This is abundantly clear from prior cases and enforcement requests. Rather, Arbcom needs to know is whether private messages resulted in on-wiki disruption. For example, if users Alfa, Bravo and Charlie were planning on taunting Delta to provoke Delta into making a blockable outburst or edit war, did this in fact happen? Or if Echo, Foxtrot and Golf coordinated a revert war against Hotel, did it work? But the mailing list messages will not be shared with the community, so how to present relevant evidence? I suggest dispensing with the normal evidence format. Instead, Arbcom will review the private messages and post a series of questions based on the messages, asking the community to verify whether the actions and plans described in the messages actually resulted in on-wiki edits, blocks, disruptive behavior, and so forth. Thatcher 01:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess they can say "Committee, refer to the email sent from User:Example at XX/YY/ZZ at AA:BB:CC, then compare to the swarm of participants of the mailing list who suddenly appeared in the next 12 hours to assist with reverting and protecting" (this is purely hypothetical). But I'll leave it to Committee members to respond more definitively, as my setting up of the case page was simply at what I implied their direction to be. Daniel (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of transparency, as much of this case needs to take place in public as possible. — Coren  01:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
(Also note the different /Workshop format). — Coren  01:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I see what you're doing there but I think that is more appropriate to an evidence page, especially if you are going to allow non-parties to participate (in essence, crowd-sourcing the discovery phase). Thatcher 01:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This is mostly uncharted territory — nothing prevents tweaking as things progress if things limp. I believe having a spot for "normal" evidence submission as appropriate remains needed, hence my repurposing the workshop instead. — Coren  01:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

On who is the party

I am still in the woods as for what evidence I can present, but I want to agree with Sandstein (in his evidence comment) - I don't see him is a party here. Too many people are going to get heavily wikistressed over this case, I'd ask ArbCom not to cause any unnecessary wikistress to people like Sandstein who have no involvement in this case (IMHO). A quick glance at the parties also makes me puzzled on the inclusion of Future Perfect at Sunrise, whom I'd also suggest to be removed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I already e-mailed the committee to say I don't see myself as involved either. My practical involvement in the affair was essentially restricted to forwarding that link to them. I don't see that makes me "involved" even in the purely formal sense of a "filing party". I could have imagined taking some initiatives in the matter on the community level, as we did back in the CAMERA case, but now that the arbs have taken the matter into their own hands, I have no intention of involving myself with it any further. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion how to proceed

I am not going to provide evidence against any other users whoever they are, including Russavia. And let's stay exactly on the subject: the email list and what is directly connected to it. No one needs new huge EE case. If there is any serious misconduct on my part in the intercepted email, could someone please direct me all my statements that allegedly violate WP policies (over the email), with a notice what exactly policy has been violated by me. This is needed because some of the messages may indeed be doctored as Piotrus suggested. I think so because some of the accusations by Alex who read the email are outright wrong. After verifying the messages (I do not keep the archive, but I remember my words), I would publicly comment in the Evidence section on the content of the messages, in connection with any events that took place right here. But I will be talking only about myself and about the alleged victim of my "abuse", with supporting diffs if needed. That is without disclosing any sensitive personal information. If someone has a better idea, this could be done differently.Biophys (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

We are reviewing the emails and looking for indication of on site policy violations. If we find them, then we will post them on site if possible or we will let you see the information in question by email. You will have a chance to respond to all evidence either on site or by email depending on the nature of the information discussed. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, we should keep most of the information private, in part to minimize the unnecessary wikidrama. Bad things said in private correspondence should not appear on public if they had no effect on anything here. I am ready to cooperate on that and whatever else is needed to help ArbCom. Most of the information currently at Evidence page is irrelevant to the case, which is not good.Biophys (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on tag team evidence

I find interactions like this to be very suggestive of tag team editing. But then again, the same names frequently occur on both sides of the debate. I would also appreciate if the anti-Russian non-Russian side presented similar "tag-team" evidence from the other side so that they can be compared. Cool Hand Luke 03:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you did not refer to one side of the debate as the "anti-Russian side". Nobody here, AFAIK, is anti-Russian. This kind of naming is insulting.radek (talk) 04:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry. I'll try not to do that again. Feel free to substitute non-Russian, or "those against Russian nationalism" or whatever. Cool Hand Luke 05:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

So their opponents are Russians or 'those who support Russian nationalism'? Not all of them are Russians and the word 'nationalist' has some negative connotations we should avoid, imho. Alæxis_¿question? 09:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

CHL: the forces were too uneven; with this or that pro-Soviet editor block occassionally, there was simply no team, at time leaving Russavia all alone. Which brings back the old conflict of consensus vs. NPOV vs. lack of editorial program: if again, as in previous arbcom rulings, the committee uphelds the comtemporary Polish viewpoint, would not it be fairer to openly speak it out at policy level ("yes, American wikipedia shares Polish nationalist POV and the others can take a walk") rather than covertly remove their opponents one by one? NVO (talk) 06:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Offliner, Russavia and PasswordUsername comprise the core team of the most aggressive tag-team wiki-warriors, for evidence, see Offliner's evidence and you will see these three present in most instances. HistoricWarrior007, Igny, FeelSunny, Shotlandiya and Vlad fedorov also are team members, but aren't as aggressively combative as Offliner, Russavia or PasswordUsername. I'll post additional evidence, but after the weekend, as I'd rather to spend my time in more pleasurable endeavors during the weekend break. --Martintg (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not want to present such evidence as not to fuel the wikidrama, but since Cool Hand asked to provide it, this should be possibly done.Biophys (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

There's definitely no tag team of the so-called Eastern European mailing list. For example, I've been named as party to this case and consequently a participant of that list, however, more often than not I have voted contrary to the people listed there by Offliner at workshop as main 'culprits'.
It's as clear as day that Jacurek and me won't make for a coördinated tag team. There were users who exchanged e-mails in order to share thoughts on Misplaced Pages and to cope with some problems like disruptive users - something that I have tried to do personally, too (and I have sent e-mails to many different users indeed). The fact that some users have coordinated their activities off-wiki isn't exactly new, either. What is new is that personal information obtained by criminals has been disseminated and is now 'investigated'. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 07:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's possible that Miacek has been behaving better than the others. For example, he does not always vote the same way as the others. However, the names listed here always seem to vote in the same way. I think is is highly suspicious when someone like Radeksz (who normally only edits Polish and WWII topics) suddenly appears in an AfD of a Russian article (which he never edited before), and starts voting the same as the other members of the list (often without giving much argumentation for his vote.) The same goes for edit warring. The most disruptive editors in the list seem to be Digwuren, Martintg, Piotrus, Radeksz and Biophys. Offliner (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That type of behaviour can easily be explained by the use of a watchlist or if users have the habbit of occasionally reading each others work. No maling each other is required for that. Grey Fox (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I want to get a sample of the "other side" as well. If the baselines are similar, it might be that potential mailing list communication didn't cause more tag teaming than would naturally exist. Or it might be tag teaming on both sides. I'm not sure what closer scrutiny might show. Cool Hand Luke 14:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I object calling me "non-Russian" (first thread). But "another side" also can not described as "Russian". "Pro-Putin" - yes. I fixed my evidence statement accordingly.Biophys (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My 3 points

A nightmare becoming a reality

I understand very well how the members of this closed trusted email group feel right now. They openly shared ideas and thoughts free of restraints and free of the thought police, and all of a sudden their private correspondence becomes a subject to public scrutiny. I find this development disturbing regardless of how this correspondence affected or allegedly affected Misplaced Pages.

That should go without saying that the private information should be taken care very discreetly, and I urge everyone who obtained this archive to delete it as soon as this case is closed. Once this case is closed I suggest to punish editors who threaten to use or use this private information to their advantage in the content disputes, I am pretty sure it would violate some policy, and if not then create such a policy.

At this moment I wish that there were strict rules over how to handle cases like that and I wish that there was an attorney to consult who would know the policies and is bound under attorney/client privilege, and who could represent the affected parties in the cases like this. I know I know, wishful thinking.

Teams/cabals etc

I understand that this was possibly a bust of a particular team conspiring to use team work to their advantage in various WP disputes. However you would be naive thinking that busting one team would solve the problem of other existing teams. I would think that the opponents of the said team are now collecting and submitting evidence of the team tagging/ conspiring for this particular team. And they are quite happy that now finally their circumstantial evidence is probably directly supported by the said email archive. Finally a bust! But they forget that this stick has two ends. It is possible to collect circumstantial evidence that the other teams exist as well, it would probably be never be supported by the unfortunate leaks of the off-wiki correspondence, but that does not mean that such off-wiki coordination does not exist in other teams.

That said, I could give my word that I myself never coordinated my efforts in various disputes with anyone off-wiki. But nonetheless it could be perceived or suspected that there is a team of me, Offliner, Russavia, and possibly others which cooperates off-wiki, and a circumstantial evidence is not that hard to find as our views more or less coincided in most of the debates. The perceived threat of our "pro-Russian/pro-Putin team" could in fact be the reason for our opponents to start coordinating their efforts off-wiki. In fact they could be all under impression that there are plenty of teams on Misplaced Pages conspiring against their common ideals and if they do not coordinate their efforts then all is lost, and Misplaced Pages is ruined, and these "evil" teams win.

The team tagging is one of the worst problem in Misplaced Pages in my opinion and I raised this issue several times before. I suspected that Biophys, Martin, Colchicum, Radek, Vecrumba coordinated their efforts against me but I could not prove it. But I am against team tagging in general not just this particular team (which admittedly annoyed me the most as they had various conflicts with me in many articles). I hope that this case will go beyond busting a particular team (if proven) and you would figure out a wider policy dealing with the other teams as well (unfortunately I do not have good suggestions about any such policies at the moment). A first step however would be to finally admit that the team tagging exists.

Suggestions

The busted team (if proven guilty) should not be topic banned. They did make various valuable contributions to the articles on Russia even if some of their contributions caused conflicts with other editors. 1revert/week could be sufficient, and their cooperation off-wiki should be prohibited and they should be warned not to do that again under a threat of further sanctions. The admins in the team (if proven guilty) should be dysoped for some time with the right to be reinstated later provided they will get the required vote of confidence from the community. However no topic bans should issued unless you have a good idea how to deal with other, luckier, undetected teams on the Misplaced Pages. All the sanctions against various editors which were affected by this team (if proven) should be lifted or significantly alleviated. (Igny (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC))

Igny, thank you for this comment. Yes, I mostly agree with you. I certainly admit many positive and constructive contributions by all the users involved, including Russavia and Offliner (although, I can not tell the same about certain edit warriors in "Ossetian war"). That's why I am so hesitant to provide more evidence even against Offliner who submitted a lot of evidence about me. Other users involved in this case might disagree with me of course.Biophys (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Igny, you saw that I did not want to fuel any wikidrama (and it was not me who initiated this case), but I now have to respond to false accusations by Russavia.Biophys (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Teams/cabals

You are probably right that not all cabals are known, but it is worth noting that historically when arbcom has found evidence of extensive organized activities offwiki that sought to target others, it has responded with significantly harsher sanctions than if those individuals were merely found to be doing the activities without coordination (see Bogdanov Affair, Durova, CAMERA, R. fiend, Scientology, and West Bank). I think the message that people could take away from it is that Arbcom recognizes it cannot catch everyone and that by applying harsher sanctions in these cases, it deters other groups from acting in a similar manner. Basically it places the burden on the offwiki group to show that its activities are not in violation of policy and do not negatively interfere with the functioning of the wiki. I haven't seen the emails in this case, but I would imagine that the alleged 1500 emails over 6 months about trying to harm a single person are a prima facie violation of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. MBisanz 15:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw only CAMERA case recently. That was an interference of an outside political lobbing group. However even in this case ArboCom ruled "no collective guilt". "The alleged 1500 emails over 6 months about trying to harm a single person". Yes, that would be really something, just like "planting their own checkusers" and other fantastic claims by Alex.Biophys (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not just conspiring about edit-warring, the team was planning and engaged in sock-puppetry, sharing accounts to throw off cus, harass and drive opponents to blocks, and so on. And while there is always a possibility that Russavia and the others in question were doing the same thing to a more limited extent, you can't call them guilty just because the team that gives them a hard time have been uncovered. Doesn't make any sense I'm afraid. Their guilt or innocence isn't changed by uncovering this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You say: "engaged in sock-puppetry" and "sharing accounts". Let's assume for a second that you are right. Then it will make no problem for ArbCom and Checkusers (especially knowing their plans from emails) to establish different IP addresses, which would appear for a shared account during the actual editing by the alleged sock puppets. If anyone was actually doing this, he/she well deserve appropriate sanctions.Biophys (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Didn't ArbCom just pass a motion on speculative musings? This speculation by Alex regarding "The alleged 1500 emails over 6 months about trying to harm a single person" is just that, speculation. Since Alex did pass on this alleged archive to Deacon one day after an Arbitrator requested that it not be passed on, and since both Alex and Deacon have now viewed that archive, this continued speculation over "1500 emails over 6 months about trying to harm a single person" is either: evidence that this alleged archive was doctored before they received it, or they are willfully misrepresenting the content of this alleged archive. Can the ArbCom please enforce their motions. --Martintg (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Marting, I think this is not a speculation, but a very definitive assertion by Alex, because he actually saw the entire archive. Was his assertion true or not should be decided by ArbCom.Biophys (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Since Deacon keeps making (false) accusations that people engaged in sock puppetry I think a proposal for an all around check user is in order - basically everyone on the involved parties list and (given his statements now and in the past, and his clear breaking of the just passed motion on speculative musings, I fail to understand why he's not on the involved parties list anyway. Besides, I think it's a tradition.). I for one have nothing to hide and I've never used a sock. I would like to propose then that all involved parties + Deacon be taken to CU. Who knows, maybe some very interesting info will come out of that?

I was going to make some kind of proposal to this effect anyway, but I wanted to wait until Sandstein and Future Perfect are taken off the "involved parties" list (as they obviously should be - and for the life of me, this thing is growing tentacles so fast I can't find the proper place to make a statement to that effect) but Deacon's repeated flaming and speculations force me to bring it up now. I still think that they should be taken off, then it's CU time for editor and administrator alike.radek (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I might as well add that at this point I personally got no problem with providing the committee with any kind of info on my current and past place of residence, my travels, and so on.radek (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Basic useful info - what's the date of earliest e-mails?

This is a specific (and easy) question directed at the Arbs, and my apologies if it was answered elsewhere as the discussions for this case are already all over the place. What is the approximate (or exact) date of the earliest e-mails to this list? I ask not out of curiosity but rather because it could have a bearing on folks who might want to present evidence. For example, I was involved in a discussion/dispute with some of the parties to this case (including several mailing list members) at the beginning of the year (I had no idea I was stepping into a much wider dispute at that point, and eventually it was resolved satisfactorily). If there was any list discussion of that particular dispute (and it's quite likely there wasn't) I would be willing to outline the on-wiki discussion for the Arbs in an evidence section if that would be helpful. Indeed as has been suggested there will probably be a lot of evidence like this—i.e. editors collecting on-wiki diffs that relate to list activity described very roughly by the Arbs.

Before some editors start gathering evidence in anticipation of correlating it to list activity, it would be useful to simply know the date of the first e-mails from the list in order to avoid possibly unnecessary evidence gathering. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The emails date from January 2009 until mid September 2009. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks FloNight. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

First cockroach, then sucker

Could we please uphold greater semblance of decorum? Durova 22:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing objectionable about that. It is presenting an opinion in a direct yet civil manner. The description of someone being "sucked in" to the purported "misinformation" is merely an opinion, and one which is based upon arguments which are expanded later on in the evidence section. It is a comment on your evidence as being misfounded, not you as an individual. I am assuming your disagreement stems more from the fact that it casts aspersions on some statements previously made; if so, I encourage all those who disagree with Badger Drink's assertions to counter them in their own evidence section. Daniel (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please to not mislead with inappropriate use of quotation marks. If that had been the actual statement there would have been no reason to complain. The actual words were "has already made a sucker out of at least one outside participant above" (linking directly to me). "A sucker" is a juvenile personal attack. Durova 16:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It is stretching it abit Durova, but i do think Civility needs to be maintained to the fullest possible extent in this case. Maybe have Badger Drink add that it wasnt meant in an offensive way? Omegastar (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

In my position as clerk of the case, I have determined there is nothing actionable. Durova is free to pursue the suggestion in the second half of the comment, above, If Durova or anyone else disagrees with this, they are free to contact the Committee. However, this issue at this level is, for all intents and purposes, closed. Daniel (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe you were called a cockroach? It looked to me like a metaphor about how we seem to find these "cabals" everywhere. Cool Hand Luke 21:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Notice formatting

Could a clerk reformat the {{tmbox}} at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Notice and the {{Ambox}} at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Evidence to use the more appropriate {{mbox}} format? MBisanz 06:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I prefer it as it is, to be honest. I deliberately want it coloured as it is, and specifically modified the template to make it as such. I see no reason to "migrate". Daniel (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, just making sure it was deliberate. MBisanz 22:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_MBisanz

Could you tell us who those two people are? If not, can you tell us that there is no doubt they are who they say they were, and not that their accounts have been hacked and false statements made (like in the recent case of Tymek's account)? Btw, as I said earlier, I agree with you that "the archive in general is authentic"; any forgeries would likely involve only a (very?) small number of emails (since despite allegations that 1,500 = ~50%? of the archive is about harassing Russavia, I am pretty sure most emails were "comments from the peanut gallery" on wikipolitics, real life politics and unproblematic content discussions). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Nothing has come to my attention that causes me to believe that they were not the persons who they said they were. MBisanz 22:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly what I asked. Could they be not who they claimed to be? Or are you sure, beyond reasonable doubt, they were who they claimed to be (particularly in light of our knowledge that one wiki account, that of Tymek, was indeed compromised later)? Did they gave you some way of verify their identities, or did you run a CU on them? Also, could you tell us the exact date(s) those emails were send to you? I am sure this is not a private info. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you really sure you want to go down this line of questioning? MBisanz 22:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose a more direct question would be: Who was in control of your IRC and email accounts at 9:24PM June 25, 2009, 12:26PM June 27, 2009, and 2:38PM June 29, 2009? MBisanz 23:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are implying that one of the users who contacted you was me, please say so clearly, I fully authorize you to do so. PS. Timezone? PPS. If you email the the contents of those emails/IRC archive logs (I keep neither) I can try to verify, in my recollection, whether I wrote them or not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope you will forgive me for being wary of forwarding you the email, but if you are unsure of who controlled your email, irc, and Misplaced Pages passwords (since all the communications were cross-referenced on the other services) for that extended period of time and there is already an admission of password sharing among list members by Tymek, then I am not sure I should forward you a copy, since I am unsure which person(s) currently have access to your communications. MBisanz 16:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if somebody else was and is controlling my communications, what can they do to the emails you send me? And presumably they already know them. Or you can send them to my university email, which should be googlable, and I'll compare them to see if any was tampered on their way (I'll access the university email from a uni computer lab, this should be safe). Just to be on the safe side, I authorize you to send them to somebody else I trust, like User:Durova or User:Radeksz for verification. Or how about we set up a Skype call (I can call you from my Skype, which is listed publicly on my wiki user page, or you can call me) - I think the chance that that got compromised / will be intercepted are not high (wow, somebody is being more paranoid then I am, that's refreshing :) PS. No other passwords of any kind where shared on our mailing list (AFAIK). PPS. And I have never given any of my passwords to anybody. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand now. MBisanz claims that emails in the archive refer to an IRC chat you had with him about my imposing 1RR on Radek, so therefore the archive is generally accurate. I don't think this is disputed though, an entirely faked archive of 3000+ messages would be easy to detect as a forgery, not to mention practically impossible to make. The claim of the list members is that the archive may have been salted with messages that are more incriminating than the general conversation. Thatcher 18:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That's about sums it up. The fact that I was discussing the 1RR on Radek at that time was (and is) hardly a secret - I was doing this on wiki, on IRC, and by email with many people. I am also certain that nothing I said was against wiki policies; I am sure that Thatcher will agree that I (and anybody else) had and has the right to discuss such issues. But if this is what MBisanz meant (in a very cryptic way...), it means my original questions are unanswered. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly one of the "two people" was you; the fact that the emails refer to a private chat is evidence that they are not fake, because the faker would not have known about the chat. But this does not prove that all the emails are authentic, only some of them. Thatcher 19:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now I get it - for a while there I too thought that MBisanz was saying that Piotrus sent the email to the 9 admins, and I had already began the implementation of the "repeatedly pinch oneself until awake" process. So I guess the other of the "two people" would be me. So sometime in June there was the whole "incident" with Thatcher (and I'd be happy to discuss frankly how I feel about that whole situation, but this isn't really the place). At the time I contacted several administrators both on Wiki and through their email asking for advice on how to appeal Thatcher's decisions and what they thought of it. I made no secret of this, and I believe that even in my emails to Thatcher I explicitly stated that I had contacted other admins to ask for advice. Piotrus also used IRC to also query admins, including MBisanz about the situation.

Anyway, without going into what admin said what at the time, I want to say that yes, at the time I also did ask for advice on the list and I think Piotrus, among others gave some. I remember that I wrote up a long draft of the proposal, which then I reposted at AE (ignoring some admin advice on that) almost verbatim. I'm guessing that these are the emails and IRCs MBisanz is referring to.

So yes, there is probably some kind of correlation between what MBisanz is saying really happened and stuff that's found in the emails in the supposed "archive" (which I have a copy off, obtained through Future Perfect, but which I have not looked at yet for reasons I'll explain elsewhere). But that doesn't mean anything.

There is a dangerous meme developing that just because something really happened on Wiki, and at the same time there appears to be SOME discussion of it in the "archives" then that must prove that the emails in the "archives" are genuine and unaltered (the "corroboration" argument). But it proves no such thing.

As I've said before, yes there was a mailing list, and yes, Wiki issues and happenings were discussed, - including the appeal and Thatcher - just like they always are on many internet forums. So if the contents of the "archive" are in any way based on genuine conversations - which still means they could be doctored or faked, just that this process was applied to real emails - there's going to be correlation between stuff in the "archives" and in past real Wiki going-ons. But this doesn't mean at all that the material in the "archive" is authentic or unaltered.radek (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, Thatcher, whom I contacted early on via wikiemail, explicitly told me to contact other admins and seek advice on that issue. Which I did. EOT :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The "evidence", request

I requested the archive from Daniel and was pointed to Arbcom (email). I emailed and was directed here. Please provide me access to the alleged evidence. As I have stated elsewhere, my recollection of my correspondence had little to do with commenting on the alleged "victims". Had my intent been nefarious I certainly would not use my publicly identifiable Email address. I've been working in data processing since 1974, so I ask my "opposition" to spare me the "caught you with your pants down" as, frankly, I would not be stupid enough to conduct anything nefarious using my public Email account knowing how easily addresses are spoofed and accounts hacked. That this archive allegedly has my public Email address speaks to my innocence, not guilt.
   Not to mention as a child growing up with my mother and her sister writing each other under assumed names during the Soviet era.
   Be this all as it may be, unless I can examine the entire archive and determine whether it matches my recollection of my correspondence, this is nothing more than a (potentially) planned, orchestrated,and executed witch hunt. Curious timing, isn't it? Just after Russavia's ban? And this being trumpeted as an "excuse" to lift Russavia's ban despite their choice of conduct being all their own?
   Equally importantly, personal life circumstances currently severely limit my spare time. I will require an extension to respond, and I do not consider the clock to start until I have had at least a day to start reviewing the "evidence." I would hope to provide an informed--and informative--response. But no response is possible without the evidence which has been circulated.
   Please inform me via my public Email as to instructions for retrieval. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Seconded. I also request access to illegal archive for myself as well as for all members of the leaked mailing list. Please deliver to all forum participants your instructions for its retrieval using WP email. The Arbitration Committee took an extraordinary step by making public the names of all members of that list, regardless of whether any of them committed any wrongdoing. Please follow up on your own actions and offer these Wikipedians the benefit of the doubt by sharing with them what you already have. --Poeticbent talk 14:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm %100 sure that since the "evidence" was so easily shared by user User:Alex Bakharev] with other users of his choice, there is A LOT more people now with full access to them than you guys think. I would like to REQUEST A COPY AS WELL. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Being one of the first people who got it, I can say I'd have no problem sharing my copy with any of the list members, if it wasn't for the practical problem that the file is too big for easy e-mail attachment. However, I did provide the original download link to Tymek, Piotrus and Radek early on, so I expect they took the opportunity and downloaded a copy before they had the file taken down from the web – can't you guys share this between each other? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that some of the most active EE warriors have already begun acting on the content of that archive by engaging in unilateral reverts of WP community decisions. So, there's a sense of urgency here. --Poeticbent talk 15:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I expect a copy of the archive from an admin in this case. Again, I can be contacted at my public Email address to make arrangements. Thank you. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If I've understood correctly, the evidence ArbCom wants now (before the 7 day deadline) is evidence of possible disruptive behaviour by the list members -- which can then be compared with events on the secret list. Later, ArbCom will ask questions (such as "did you send this email on 2009-xx-xx?", "did you arrive to edit war because of the 'call to arms' on 2009-xx-xx?") They will ask the questions on the workshop page, where there is no deadline. If this is correct, then Vecrumba & Co. don't really have to worry about the 7 day deadline. They will have enough time to defend themselves on the workshop page. Offliner (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I have not been clear. I need the deadline to present evidence. I do not intend to "defend" myself until I have had a chance to present my evidence and characterization of the situation, as editors have seen fit to resurrect editors misrepresenting sources and calling article corrections "lies" as paragons of Misplaced Pages glory days. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A statement

I do not feel well and probably will not be able to participate in this case. I ask User:Colchicum with whom I never had any email communications to re-edit, revert, modify or remove any my statemets made during last week, as he feels fit.Biophys (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please mind your health. It is much more important than Misplaced Pages. We will all understand that (I hope). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, probably I will not be around. Furthermore, what kind of evidence do you expect from me if I am not supposed to be familiar with the archive and don't really want to be? I don't think additional evidence is needed. For the record, from what has been said, I think that the archive is authentic, but Alex' original assessment was a gross exaggeration and methodologically wrong for reasons similar to those outlined by Kirill. "The list" as a whole cannot act and be held responsible, only individual participants can. The archive is likely to consist largely of mockery, which may be unpleasant to read, but is entirely legitimate and none of our business here. It wasn't supposed to be read by anybody else, after all. Possibly there were some occasional instances of coordinated wiki disruption, but certainly not on everybody's part (e.g. Alexia hasn't edited Misplaced Pages for some time at all). Just guessing. Additionally, forwarding the archive to an involved party (Deacon) is indeed alarming, just imagine a similar real life incident: you get a link, download a mail archive and forward it to an involved party. Not good. Colchicum (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I would never read email that was sent to someone else, and would never directed such mail to anyone else, Arbcom or not. I do not care that much about wikipedia business. But knowing that people like Deacon and Alex get access to some sensitive information in my emails and that every Russian user knows who I am in real life left me no choice but to abandon this project, or to abandon my account and edit only science. It was nice to have you around here. Good bye.Biophys (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement, question

I received a link to the web site containing the email list on Thursday and read some of them. Since then, various Wikipedians I trust have explicitly or implicitly stated they see no legal or ethical problems with discussing its contents.

If evidence from that link is acceptable, could the arbs please state how they would like to see it presented? Earlier, Deacon was asked to redact some evidence details, so I'd appreciate clarification.

You-all could demonstrate by presenting a detailed but completely hypothetical example. E.g.: "In an email timestamped Jan 2 2009 7:05 AM, editor Labrador asked members of the mailing list to make changes to the Rimadyl article to ensure its "correctness" and further its chances at DYK. Editor Golden, a member of the mailing list, responded in an email timestamped x that he had made reverts towards this end. The article's history (insert diffs here) does show that changes furthering the preferred version of the article were made by Golden without talk page discussion. Other blind reverts supporting that version were made by IPs 123.456.788 and 123.456.789 over the next two days, and a checkuser could confirm whether these were socks of mailing list members."

Is this format acceptable? If not, pls advise. Labrador could deny authorship, others could argue that the supporting details are strong. Novickas (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)