Dirty tricks cabal or just idle talk? Options

[carbuncle]

There are some strong accusations being thrown out about members of a certain closed mailing list.

Concentrated stalking and attacks against Russavia

Yesterday a member of a closed e-mail list named "Wikipediametric" forwarded me their archive asking me to do something about it. Out of the 3000+ emails more than a half is filled with discussion how "to get" and "attack" Russavia. Among the suggested methods were stalking Russavia edits, carefully crafted edit warring (making sure that no member of the group would make more than one or two reverts), low level personal attacks designed to engineer civility blocks for Russavia's responses, block shopping, attempts to out Russavia. "Friends of Russavia", particular User:PasswordUsername, User:Offliner, User:YMB29 as well as User:Anonimu were also under similar attack. The group was also discussing ways to plant their own checkusers, methods of creating sockpuppets untraceable by checkusering, etc. So far I have not found a single discussion or even kudos for creating noncontroversial wiki content but long series of joy on every block for the people listed as their enemies, particular Russavia. They specifically discussed how to nurture special relations with Sandstein and use them to block their enemies. Among the most active members are User:Digwuren, User:Biophys, User:Piotrus, User:Molobo, User:Radeksz. The emails are almost certainly genuine. It looks like for at list half a year Russavia was a target of constant coordinated attacks by a group of active wikipedians quite skillful in the art of achieving victory by banning their opponents. I am not sure he was aware of this particular group but the editing history of articles touched by Russavia is quite telling by itself. I do not think it is in the project best interest to let them succeed.

I am not sure what to do about this archive. I will forward it to the Arbcom and I could provide it to any administrator I trust. I would not give it to nonadmins (including Russavia himself) or anybody else (unless the authors give me permissions) as it contain a significant amount of personal information that might be abused. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[Somey]

So, has anyone attempted to make sense of the underlying dispute here? It looks like Russavia (T-C-L-K-R-D) is Russian and pro-Putin, and to some extent pro-Serbia (in line with the traditional Russian support of Serbia), whereas the people on the mailing list in question are... anti-Russia? Or just anti-Putin, or against pro-Russian attempts to whitewash Soviet history? Piotrus claims to be from Poland, and went to the University of Pittsburgh, so that would tend to reinforce that notion (i.e., he's likely to have a Western-influenced view of Soviet history).

Most of Russavia's edits are "wikignoming," adding categories and some rather unfortunate mass-stubbings of politician BLP's and the like, but I saw a few diffs in there like this one, the likes of which apparently led some of these mailing-list folks to accuse him of being a "neo-Nazi."

Sooo.... putting their tactics aside for the moment, I can't say I blame these mailing-list folks all that much for their dislike of Mr. Russavia. Then again, it's probably also true that a lot of the Russia-bashing that occurs on WP in general is unfair and inaccurate. Hence the problem, eh?

[Cla68]

So, has anyone attempted to make sense of the underlying dispute here? It looks like Russavia (T-C-L-K-R-D) is Russian and pro-Putin, and to some extent pro-Serbia (in line with the traditional Russian support of Serbia), whereas the people on the mailing list in question are... anti-Russia? Or just anti-Putin, or against pro-Russian attempts to whitewash Soviet history? Piotrus claims to be from Poland, and went to the University of Pittsburgh, so that would tend to reinforce that notion (i.e., he's likely to have a Western-influenced view of Soviet history).

Most of Russavia's edits are "wikignoming," adding categories and some rather unfortunate mass-stubbings of politician BLP's and the like, but I saw a few diffs in there like this one, the likes of which apparently led some of these mailing-list folks to accuse him of being a "neo-Nazi."

Sooo.... putting their tactics aside for the moment, I can't say I blame these mailing-list folks all that much for their dislike of Mr. Russavia. Then again, it's probably also true that a lot of the Russia-bashing that occurs on WP in general is unfair and inaccurate. Hence the problem, eh?

The Russia vs Poland vs Serbia vs Georgia vs Chechnya vs Azerbaijan vs Armenia vs the Bolshoi vs everything else related is one of the most ridiculously adversarial areas in Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

The Russia vs Poland vs ... vs ... vs ... vs ... vs Armenia vs the Bolshoi ... is one of the most ridiculously adversarial areas in Wikipedia.

Bloody hell ... I know I have been away for a few weeks but what have the Armenians got against Ballerinas!?!

Ladders in my pantyhose or not, I am going to take sides with the Armanian cabal against the Ermenegildo Zegnians.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Cla68]

MBisanz says that the emails have been posted online somewhere. Does anyone have the link?

[Mathsci]

MBisanz says that the emails have been posted online somewhere. Does anyone have the link?

Isn't it enough to know that the mailing list is entitled Wikipediametric?

[Cla68]

MBisanz says that the emails have been posted online somewhere. Does anyone have the link?

Isn't it enough to know that the mailing list is entitled Wikipediametric?

Thank you Mathsci, that did it. If those emails are genuine, and they appear to be, then they are extremely damning. Many of them are along the lines of, "Could someone go to History of Latvia and revert so-and-so? I've already used two reverts today. So-and-so editor is trying to tone down the criticism of the Tsars and needs to be stopped."

If ArbCom determines that the emails are genuine and matches them up with on-wiki actions, then I hope they ban the lot, with prejudice.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[No one of consequence]

Thank you Mathsci, that did it. If those emails are genuine, and they appear to be, then they are extremely damning. Many of them are along the lines of, "Could someone go to History of Latvia and revert so-and-so? I've already used two reverts today. So-and-so editor is trying to tone down the criticism of the Tsars and needs to be stopped."

If ArbCom determines that the emails are genuine and matches them up with on-wiki actions, then I hope they ban the lot, with prejudice.

FloNight said something about password sharing. Is this discussed in the emails? This would be another thing that could be verified (through checkuser).

Edit:
OK, Tymek has admitted to giving out his IP. That means the emails could have been sent through Tymek's account by anyone else on the list looking to be a whistleblower.

Besides Tymek, did any other editors share their passwords?

This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[MBisanz]

Besides Tymek, did any other editors share their passwords?

Evidence_presented_by_MBisanz presents a very bizarre line of questioning that indicates it is possible others shared passwords.

[No one of consequence]

Besides Tymek, did any other editors share their passwords?

Evidence_presented_by_MBisanz presents a very bizarre line of questioning that indicates it is possible others shared passwords.

That made my head ache. You seem to be implying that Piotrus emailed you, something which he now denies?

[MBisanz]

Besides Tymek, did any other editors share their passwords?

Evidence_presented_by_MBisanz presents a very bizarre line of questioning that indicates it is possible others shared passwords.

That made my head ache. You seem to be implying that Piotrus emailed you, something which he now denies?

Well specifically I allege I had a conversation with him on IRC at 9:24PM June 25, 2009 and references in emails dated 12:26PM June 27, 2009 and 2:38PM June 29, 2009 to the secret mailing list imply he has had conversations of the nature of my conversation around that time and with me, and that all of those things sync up to the subject of his edits at the time on Wikipedia. All of those occurrences he apparently denies or was not in control of his accounts when they were done.

Also Thatcher you may want to check my email to you of 9:38PM June 25, 2009 for a more full context.

[No one of consequence]

Well specifically I allege I had a conversation with him on IRC at 9:24PM June 25, 2009 and references in emails dated 12:26PM June 27, 2009 and 2:38PM June 29, 2009 to the secret mailing list imply he has had conversations of the nature of my conversation around that time and with me, and that all of those things sync up to the subject of his edits at the time on Wikipedia. All of those occurrences he apparently denies or was not in control of his accounts when they were done.

Also Thatcher you may want to check my email to you of 9:38PM June 25, 2009 for a more full context.

I got it now. I don't think the overall accuracy of the mailing list messages is in question, I think the claim is that the archive was salted with messages that were faked or altered to make them more incriminating.

[One]

I got it now. I don't think the overall accuracy of the mailing list messages is in question, I think the claim is that the archive was salted with messages that were faked or altered to make them more incriminating.

Yeah, that's the possibility that's harder to rule out. One could take a thread (headers and all) which discusses the weather and turn it into a discussion of vote stacking techniques.

Meanwhile, Durova has offered to use her techniques to determine whether the incriminating parts of archive are authentic, and the list members have enthusiastically agreed.

[Cedric]

Meanwhile, Durova has offered to use her techniques to determine whether the incriminating parts of archive are authentic, and the list members have enthusiastically agreed.

But of course. What wiki-scandal can be complete without the input of Durova, the Gladys Kravitz of Wikipedia?

(IMG:http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/1436/kravitz.jpg)

"Abner! Abner!! Come and look!

Those East Europeans are making a mailing list again!"

[Abd]

But of course. What wiki-scandal can be complete without the input of Durova, the Gladys Kravitz of Wikipedia?

I have complete confidence that Durova would attempt to do a fair analysis. However, were I on ArbComm I would move to exclude all such evidence as founded upon behavior very much to be discouraged: disclosure of mail written with an expectation of privacy. Individual editors could waive this, but they should understand the risks. Such individual editors, if they want to allow disclosure of their mail, should immediately provide their own list archives, if they have them, in order to assert forgery. Bad idea. Can of worms. Hot potato. Drop it immediately!

(Most likely behavior for forger anticipating scrutiny: use actual mails with content altered. That way, headers all fit editor times. Study and use actual language of the editors. All that's needed, probably, is to tweak it a little, give it some extra spin. Countermeasure: members of the list who keep their own archives immediately (like yesterday!) provide their own archives, as many of them doing this as possible. Then the sets of message can be compared with on-wiki activity to *compare* relative likelihood of authenticity. A lot of work, folks. I'm not at all sure it's worth Durova's time. But she might think it fun, I know I might.)

ArbComm should worry about this kind of list disclosure, and should take as strong a position as possible to discourage it in the future. I have an archive of Wikien-L. How about I post it, with all the email addresses of all those who sent mails, full headers, which, of course, also give IP addresses for these editors. That could be useful, right? I used mail like this in the past to identify a supposedly anonymous IP editor, who had a huge COI, and who just happened to be editing Wikipedia at the same time as sending identified mail to the list. Even better than checkuser, the data doesn't expire!

Do what you choose, of course you will, but don't say that there was no warning. Allow no advantage to those who burrow into the confidence of others and then post what they become privileged to see.