Wikipediametric/Cabal tactics

<Wikipediametric

The following is delicious copypasta from wikileaks of selected quotes from the Wikipediametric mailing list archive describing the tactics of various Wikipediametric cabal members. Despite all this damning evidence, the stupid Wikipedos are still going to let the web brigadiers off scotch free instead of doing the smart thing and permabanning these noobs.

Digwuren, AKA Cabal Ringleader

• <20090102-2219>

"We might consider adopting as standard tactic the practice that before the 3RR report is filed, somebody else should add a 3RR warning to the user's talkpage."

• <20090123-0814>

"I have been working on a wiki engine (. . .) I will set us up a copy for private use. For one, it can be a place to store battleplans and comment on them without strangers being able to misinterpret them, without the volatility of mail in a list. (. . .) Wikipedometer's data storage can keep deleted revisions of pages, or full histories of deleted pages"

• <20090205-1911>

"Piotrus: [[1]]

I responded, in what's a risky move but with potential for considerable payoff.

Essentially, I believe this a good candidate for Cristian's suggested "At long last, have you no sense of decency left?" manœuvre. But for it to stick, I may need somebody else to back me up when Deacon's ire is turned against me."

• <20090209-1035>

"I think I know a reasonably safe place to provoke BFF [User:Beatle Fab Four] into 3RR. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victory_Day_(May_9)&action=history>.

Who wants to participate, and when is a good time?"

• <20090216-1322>

"> Either way, I consider Jehochman dangerous, and will seek to "poison the

> well" re his neutrality in a few days. I hope to make it socially

> unacceptable for him to take administrative actions concerning me in the

> future. Ideas are welcome, and somebody please support me when the time

> arrives -- because I can't do this alone.

I have left a message to his talkpage, and his response fits with my scheme nicely. Please join in.

The plan is to develop appearance of a minor personality conflict"

• <20090321-1545>

"His tendency to hang around AE combined with his peculiar personality traits, for lack of a better euphemism, are threatening to develop into a serious problem.

Should anything preemptive be done about this? For instance, I could imagine me posting a medium-length whine to AN/I about how Jehochman has been mean to me even though I attempted to make up with him. At least in 2007, this used to work."

• <20090326-2003>

"Petri Krohn [User:Petri Krohn] at the Nashi press conference [+video]"

• <20090328-1138>

"I've created Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee based on news reports, and created redirects of all members to this page. This means that Johan Bäckman as well as Petri Krohn are currently redirects to this article."

• <20090328-1329>

"Somewhat surprisingly, Offliner has shown up and is demonstrating a willingness to edit-war. I need backup."

• <20090331-0910>

"Would it make sense to create a navigation box on historical revisionists? (. . .) An important but not immediately obvious result of such a template -- if we could make it stick -- would be that due to the connecting links, Google would begin associating Bäckman and Dyukov with the well-known historical revisionists such as Miguel Serrano, David Irving, and Harry Barnes."

• <20090403-1312>

"Wikipedia discussion culture is dead. There's no point in trying to convince William of this important issue -- since he doesn't trust us, he won't hear us.

Instead, we'll have to make sure to back each other up. The maximum number of reverts that is reasonably safe to do in any day is two. When those two reverts are up -- and preferrably even earlier --, call in reinforcement. Experience tells us that when the edit history of an article looks like a checkerboard of two editor's edits, administrators like to blame both editors -- but when there's one editor against several others, administrators tend to think the single editor is editwarring. Of course, if several teams are reverting each other, the article may get protected."

• <20090404-0946>

"he also published a street address in Australia and Google Street View link that supposedly showed his garage and his car. FayssalF oversighted the edit shortly afterwards, claiming "outing".

By the way, do you happen to remember the name? It would be interesting to see if Google knows anything about him."

• <20090521-1520>

>"Digwuren: See here: [[2]]

I'd like to thank everybody. This line of attack has been successfully deflected."

• <20090601-0858>

"I think sock accounts should be shared between wildly differing people of wildly differing habits. This tends to neutralise personality quirks, confuse Bayesian statistics, and with some luck, also draw less attention. Also, manufactured personality and spelling quirks are probably useful."

• <20090601-1731>

"Which means that either a proxy is needed, or the behaviour must be such that a technical checkuser will never raise. Or preferrably, both."

• <20090605-2009>

"One of the classic tactics involves overwhelming the opponent's revert count. To do this, we'd have to coördinate at the level of determining a day and consistently revert him (and the rest of the Cartel) until 3RR kicks in. The obvious downside is that a tight series of reverts such as this has the risk of catching administrative attention, with all the consequent risks."

• <20090607-1308>

"Happy happy_ joy joy PasswordUssername has earned his first block. It's a 3RR block after he filed a false 3RR report on Sander.

It demonstrates the dangers inherent in 3RR reports. The maximum reasonably safe number of reverts per day on any article is two; when you need more, call somebody else to help."

• <20090609-0909>

">Piotrus: Length. A lesson for the future: try to avoid discussions at 3RR. Now the admins are looking at it in disgust, and it is likely to be closed as "stale minor violation, no result.

Except when an ally is being threatened by a 3RR block, of course. Then, lengthy discussions are a handy tool for risk reduction."

• <20090610-1054>

"I've started Estonia#Nazi attack noticeboard. It permits more flexible coöperation with people not in our mailing list (probably most importantly Termer), and it gives us a handy excuse for appearance of coöperation when PasswordUsername begins insisting that there is a cabal. Because, as we all know, coöperative behaviour on Wikipedia is a Bad Thing."

• <20090611-2155>

"Finally, Dwiki can be usable for developing articles before copying them to Wikipedia. Reverts are much easier to mask when they're mixed with small improvements -- and small improvements are easier to find if they can be copy-pasted :-)"

• <20090612-0943>

"Check out the comparative threads at AN/I. Once we've gotten AE done with Shotlandiya, Peters can lift his thread -- together with the numerous diffs -- to AE, as recommended by Sandstein. PasswordUsername has nothing that can be used at AE; he's back in square one. He certainly made an attempt, but I don't see anything that he gained. He lost a chance to attack Sander, however, which is a good thing. (. . .)

I'm considering account replacement. Block log is like underwear: it should be kept clean.

I'm also planning to do a number of other spelling and wording quirks. Perhaps I can write a tool for Dwiki to do pre-specified quirks automatically, so Molobo can return, too. (. . .)

Piotrus, would you consider issuing an outing block to PU [User:PasswordUsername] if requested? (. . .)

It does not matter if the block is later removed. The only consistently referred record of reputation on Wikipedia is the block log, so it might even be beneficial to first issue a block, clearly mentioning WP:OUTing in the block summary, then tweak it, then, after discussion with the user lift it before expiration with a summary saying something like "PasswordUsername regrets; the block is provisionally lifted". That's three block log entries for price of one. Plus, if Piotrus lifts the block himself, even Deacon won't be able to claim that the block demonstrated some sort of anti-PU bias."

• <20090612-1039>

"With a new beginning, I should be able to pull off an RFA within a few months if I'm careful. I can express a different interest profile for the few months; in particular, refrain from controversies and play the silly countervandalism games instead. And if I'm not planning to go for Piotrus' Project Checkuser, I won't probably have to be very careful about IP addresses, either. In order to give a reasonable cover for my disappearance, I can post a "How doth Wikipedia suck? Let me count the ways ..." rant, indicating that I'm off to build a better Wikipedia, perhaps with a reference to Citizendium. By the time of the RFA, the three-month checkuser staleness limit will have passed, and as I noted previously, administrators are a pretty invulnerable bunch covered by WP:IAR."

• <20090614-1419>

">Sander Säde: probably Digwuren will be hit by another ban,

Which means that I'll disappear by the arbcom time, if not before."

• <20090615-0741>

"One possible rôle would be that of a descendant of Russian expatriates who have made their home in, say, America. Such a person could be searching their roots, and thus, show interest in everything Russian, perhaps even some radicalism, but could have an excuse for speaking very little of Russian for reasons such as "My parents always spoke French at home". First-generation immigrants trying to enhance their children's integration can do such things deliberately, so it's plausible. And a grade 11 or 12 student would be a teenager, so he can also plausibly express his disappointment over his parents for doing it. (. . .)

Make sure the full name is reasonably common, yet not conspicuously so. Or alternatively, lampshade its commonness. Don't rush offering a full name in the first place. Speak of generalities, such as a nice ice cream stand run by some Grigori, who taught you to spell your name in Cyrillic and liked to tell stories about Grigori Rasputin. Naturally, the Cyrillic name would have first name and patronym, while Western telephone directories and other googlable material commonly has first name and last name, so non-googleability would be excusable. Perhaps start a LiveJournal under the name a few weeks before the Wikipedia affair, and make sure it googles."

• <20090616-1120>

"Speaking of provocations, is my last notice to PU over the top? I want it to look like an innocent attempt to "reach over the aisle" to any reasonable third party. Any irritative effect will need to be contextual."

• <20090618-2004>

"Russavia and Deacon are still important targets."

• <20090619-1112>

"Also, please do try to soup up the dramu, as Piotrus suggested. The point is to demonstrate that as a vexatious litigator, Offliner has generated dramu-prone meritless two requests that are very complicated to handle properly."

• <20090621-2115>

"True. You don't say it out loud if you want to win a wikibattle. Only fools and loners are allowed to tell the truth."

• <20090629-1940>

"I'll study the document Piotrus linked to, and after a while, create a new account specifically to pass an RFA. Meanwhile, I might write an article or two for on-Wikipedia use, but the collaboration wiki problem still needs some sort of solution. If Peters can set up a MediaWiki, great. If not, I'll see if I can smuggle the necessary hardware into a friendly server park, or possibly get Dwiki to parse MediaWiki syntax properly."

• <20090705-1017>

"It reinforces my preconceived notion that Thatcher is suffering from the preconceived notion that there's an "EE cabal" which needs to be "rounded up". He's brushing Radek with "no stranger to controversy" because his pattern-seeking mammalian brain has drawn a (not entirely invalid) connection between Radek and the "EE cabal", and he really doesn't care if Radek *individually* merits sanctioning."

• <20090707-0759>

"The point that I'm not editing with this account will help me to avoid checkuser with my next account."

• <20090731-0918>

"Minor disagreements on-Wikipedia are OK, and actually encouraged -- it makes it harder for anybody opposing us claim that we're sockpuppets of each other --, but Poeticbent has been under severe risk of banning on Wikipedia for months now. A push like this can realise this risk, and that would be rather problematic. (. . .)

Poeticbent, as Piotrus said, please avoid continued reverting. Wikipedia is notorious for lax enforcement of all sorts of policies, but it sure loves the 3RR policy -- because it's so technical, so easy to assert and enforce. If you find an opposing party is reverting you repeatedly, call in help through the list. There are about ten of us; we can easily out-revert any single opponent *and* thus demonstrade wide consensus if it's necessary. Then, 3RR will work for us, not against us."

• <20090904-0723>

>Jacurek: "I'm not sure if you checked, but I follow your advice already and I did only up to 2"

"I'm sure Piotrus knows it. But Thatcher ... well, that's another story. So, Piotrus knowing that *pretends* to Thatcher he's handing out stern useful advice, which possibly mollifies Thatcher. It's just politics, don't take it personally."

Piotrus, aka Deputy Cabal Ringleader

• <20090102-1220>

"This is the third and last time I'll ask for help dealing with Irpen-like clone, Donald. (. . .) As I've been reminded by ArbCom to ignore edit warring, I am trying to s[t]ay on 1-2RR a day in that article, so I cannot by myself ensure it is correct."

• <20090102-2138>

"I reported him (Donald) and he got the critical failure on the random admin draw, with a week block and a final warning - more than I'd expect, but I am not complaining :>

I have a feeling blocking admin didn't even read the Donald's block log

carefully, as despite its length, he has only two real blocks, and only

one of them, from half a year ago, for edit warring:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ADonaldDuck

A good illustration of the theory that the length of your block log MATTERS A LOT."

• <20090113-0209>

"The real battle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_ArbCom_a_reliable_source.3F If we can gain consensus there, we can use it as a wedgehammer at the article proper."

• <20090205-2011>

"Peters, if you are reading it, if you could weight with your experience of MK and me, this would be a good time and place :)

Others may just want to post a general puzzlement along the lines "Why is Deacon targeting Piotrus again, like Irpen did in the past?""

• <20090206-1904>

"Note: before ArbCom, we could launch an RfC about Deacon - this may be a good way to irritate him and gather info on who else would like to see him taken down a peg..."

• <20090215-2055>

"> Digwuren: Either way, I consider Jehochman dangerous, and will seek to "poison the well" re his neutrality in a few days. I hope to make it socially unacceptable for him to take administrative actions concerning me in the future. Ideas are welcome, and somebody please support me when the time arrives -- because I can't do this alone.

Even not knowing him previously I've criticized him on ANI. This should be a good start."

• <20090402-2239>

"This only speaks of the need not to revert by yourself more then twice a day and if reverts are needed, request them here or on IMs or such. Revert warring by yourself leads only down this path. Learn from it."

• <20090402-2358>

"I told you before you need to just IM me and ask for a revert... :) "

• <20090404-0611>

"Please consider commenting at the requested move here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Vilnius_(1655)#Survey If we can make Deacon lose some temper, this could be reported to AE/ANI."

• <20090406-1831>

"A few comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Vilnius_(1655)#Survey may be helpful, as there is a good chance that Deacon will fly off the handle with other bad faith accusations, particularly if he recognizes some of his former foes. He already ranted at ANI about the Polish cabal again, so why not make him rant about some larger conspiracy :D"

• <20090407-0501>

"I've now split this part of the discussion into a separate section, which I expect he will try to revert. If and when he does so, it would be bad style for me to revert but if other editors could come into the discussion, restore the heading (this is how it looks in the version with my subheading: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&oldid=282275111#Off-topic_discussion_concerning_Radeksz) and comment that the entire Radeksz discussion is off topic and irrelevant, this would be appreciated. Deacon in the past has gotten into revert wars about headings and such on AE / ANI and similar pages, and another example of him warring on (disrupting...) such pages would be useful in the upcoming arbcom case."

• <20090407-1620>

"> Martintg: Looking at the AE noticeboard you linked to below, I see Deacon mentioned your recent closure of a 3RR report on behalf of your colleague: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=268517532 Do you think Deacon may attempt to exploit this in an upcoming arbcom case you speak of?

This will not work; he already tried to bring this to arbcom and got badly smacked down :) "

• <20090407-1621>

"> Digwuren: Tavix has offered to nominate Biruitorul for administrator."

"Good plan, I will try to attract some Polish editors to the vote if needed. Is Biru in our list? If not, I think we should invite him."

• <20090407-2254>

"We really need more admins on our teams, I have already once been accused of doing favors on ANI/3RR, we need more people to be able to step in."

• <20090412-1948>

"Per a recent suggestion, I invited Biophys and this time he agreed"

• <20090426-2019>

"you may want to write something about you respecting Russavia's edits, assuming good faith and just wanting to clarify a certain, non-personal issue. The bulk of the discussion should be handled by others. Feel free to requested specific comments to be made, I am not following that discussion very closely but I can certainly try to steer it to a certain degree.

If it hasn't been done yet, all editors who in the past expressed concern about this editing pattern of Russavia should be informed of this AN thread by email."

• <20090428-1957>

"A very good point, which is why my position on AN is now 100% "damage control" - i.e. torpedo any attempt to create a "consensus" that Biophys is stalking. I'd highly advise other members of our little group to post a message there strongly opposing this idea."

• <20090429-0549>

[concedes that an organized Russian team is BS] "I am sure that Russia could easily afford to swamp us with editors - they don't need many, just a few would be enough. The fact that we are dealing with on average one to three POV-pushers suggests to me that they we are dealing with unorganized Russian nationalists, with little connection to the government."

• <20090506-1615>

"Is actively edit warring at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tsarist_autocracy&diff=288275925&oldid=288214708 Help appreciated, I would like to avoid more then 2 reverts per day..."

• <20090522-1545>

"Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-05-18/Multilingual_contests

Perhaps our Estonian colleagues could try to contact them to get them interested in the slightly more useful English Wikipedia?"

• <20090524-1506>

"On strategy:

* considering your poor reputation, I'd suggest that the RfC should be filled by somebody else. Woogie10w may be the best choice, as he is not a Pole, and he is sympathetic to you, alternatively, you could try asking Tymek, or maybe Radekesz or me if Woogie will not do it.

* in that case, you should either reword the statements "I did something" to "Molobo did something", or cut this evidence from this version and post it as yourself after the RfC is opened by Woogie.

* considering that it is possible you'll be banned on May 29, I think it is imperative that the RfC is started before this, and that you post your evidence to it before May 29"

• <20090601-0734>

"That's all I have to say, other whenever Molobo comes back, his new account should behave sufficiently different to deal with future "behavioral analysis"."

• <20090601-1727>

"The problem with sharing accounts (which is forbidden - remember Russavia's recent case) is the CheckUser IP trace. If it could identify that an IP is shared, let's say, between several of us and Molobo, it would be BAD.

Perhaps some kind of a proxy would be useful?"

• <20090601-1730>

"Here's another hint for Molobo: contant the unfamous user Serafin, a permbanned sockpuppeteer who returns like a Boomerang, and try to work out something with him."

• <20090601-1733>

"Yes, but don't bother with normal unblock (well, you can, but I estimate a chance for its to work is 1%). Contact the blocking admin and ask for a reduction, citing the arguments I gave you before"

• <20090601-2122>

"Let's try to convince Avi to reduce the length of the block: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAvraham&diff=293801631&oldid=293739271 "

• <20090602-0618>

"One could then try to use limited time socks: edit for a month, and change the account, before this name becomes associated with the given edit pattern/formerly known editor."

• <20090602-1859>

"Yeah, with this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Radeksz&diff=prev&oldid=293991369) he is looking at a ban. I am too tired to report him myself, but this and some other recent diffs is enough rope to hang him easily :)"

• <20090603-0726>

"Everyone else who has already commented at Avraham talk could try baiting Deacon into another anti-P outburst; I've already replied to him at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAvraham&diff=294030252&oldid=294029001 Each evidence-comment he makes is one diff closer to taking him down. Just remember - don't say anything that may be used AGAINST you. We have to be paragons of virtue :)"

• <20090603-1312>

"Looking at who is active and interested in wikipolitics on Polish Wikipedia, how about considering Jacurek for membership in our cabal? (. . .) I know Tymek very well, even met him briefly f2f and can vouch for his integrity, he has also helped me with reverts and similar issues"

• <20090604-1923>

"Yes, I got some emais from him [User:Woogie10w]; he doesn't seem very.... stable. I wouldn't pass any confidential information to him (like the fact that we have our email cabal list :>)."

• <20090605-2029>

"He [User:Kurfürst] is also annoying some other editors there; there is little harm in wikiemailing them to sound them out and later innocently bringing WP:DIGWUREN to their attention :) "

• <20090606-0618>

"A crucial point is to avoid reaching 3RR, since people with streaks of three reverts per day have been known to get punished for edit warring. If we can coordinate reverts so that none of us has 2 reverts but Offliner has 3 reverts, after a relatively long streak on several articles he should fall for edit warring at ANI/3RR."

• <20090606-0903>

"I was thinking: the fact that our current listserv does not eliminate headers is a potential security risk. With headers, it is much more difficult to deny autorship of an email if it is leaked by forwarding. If we could adjust the listerv so that it wouldn't be forwarding headers, this would improve the security of our list."

• <20090606-0919>

"I think we need to plan long term, and get a CU of our own. This will involve first getting an admin status, and then, CU. I don't think I am likely to get CU myself, if for nothing else then that I am not involved and not interested in dealing with CU issues, and one will have to prove that one is interested in CU issues unrelated to EE for that.

In order to do this, I'd suggest that one of us excercises the WP:Right to vanish to clear his name from any association to Poles/Batlics/etc. that would be likely to draw opposition "because of his friends" and creates a new account, one that would for the most part avoid interaction with EE issues, and would become increasingly involved in anti-vandal / admin issues, embarking upon a track for adminship and then, CU (it may be worthwhile to analyze edit history and pattern of existing CU and emulate them).

Who could do this? It has to be somebody with a clean record, to avoid being compromised in the future along the lines "you hid your bad block log" - I would not put it above CU to run checks on their future buddies. WP:RTV gives an editor the right to discard a previous identity, but hiding a bad block log (Dig or Molobo - sorry guys - sorry :>) could sink our plan. Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOCK#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts I am afraid that such an account would also mean retiring the old identity, and not running other socks. Any thoughts who would like to embark on such a wiki-life changing move?

Do note that becoming a CU is only slightly less difficult then becoming an ArbCom member...: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CheckUser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight_elections http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight_elections/February_2009

On a related note, we have previously discussed admining more of us; I think it is still possible. Vecrumba is the most likely candidate (clean block log, lack of wiki warring) for that. Tymek has a clean block log, but little interest in wikipolitic/adminship issues (correct me if I am wrong?). Radeksz has only one 3RR block, it should be possible to bypass that, same for Marting; Miacek's record also seems defensible. Any other candidates? Do note that once you reach admin level, you are that much closer to CU.

Considering the pool of our members, I think that getting a few more admins is possible, but getting a CU will take time (years?). Still, if we don't try..."

• <20090606-1529>

"Keep sending us the diffs here, and we will keep reverting him :) [User:Skäpperöd]"

• <20090608-0903>

"I suggest that the ani thread should be entitled "abuse of admin privileges". As winning this is crucial, not only for Jacurek but for taking down Deacon, I suggest we try to mobilize all of our resources here - but let's not spam the thread (particularly by users in not-so-good standing), instead I'd suggest we reach out to friendly admins and ask them for involvement (it may also be worthwile to see if Deacon has other enemies and inform them of this thread - he is involved in some other arbcoms and such). I'll be contacting a few people as soon as the ANI thread is posted.

PS. As agreed before, I've asked Jacurek if he wouldn't like to join our email list."

• <20090608-1119>

"> I'll be contacting a few people as soon as the ANI thread is posted.

I've contacted AGK and Darwinek. Radeksz, Jacurek, Tymek - please contact Darwinek as well, he is a Polish admin that used to be active in wikipolitics.

Any suggestions who else to contact would be appreciated; perhaps Radeksz could ask Sandstein?"

• <20090608-1735>

"We are expanding. Tymek in an IM to me recently suggested adding some Ukrainian editors; perhaps we could discuss this in more detail?"

• <20090609-0802>

"Length. A lesson for the future: try to avoid discussions at 3RR. Now the admins are looking at it in disgust, and it is likely to be closed as "stale minor violation, no result."

• <20090613-0647>

"> Biophys: Many people including some of us could be also sanctioned for edit warring and questionable edits. A lesson to be learned.

Don't revert more then twice on article per day, unless you are dealing with clear vandalism or a solely noobie/ip that will not have cabal support.

Or you are an admin (but even I try to avoid 3 rr). Which reminds me: we should really start thinking about getting adminship. Who wants to go first and SOON? We need to try our strength at RfA."

• <20090614-1425>

"Write up what should be posted and I am sure we can find somebody to do so :)"

• <20090615-0407>

"Again, this is a very good argument for those of us who can to start seriously consider getting an adminship. As long as you are a normal editor, there is a chance an admin will decide the stars are shining wrong on you and block you."

• <20090615-1733>

[on infiltrating pro-Russian editors:] "Well, we don't have to go that far. They may welcome a leftist commie / Russia / Putin symphatizer, living in a Western country, likely of Russian descent but not 1st gen, so one for whom Russian is not a primary language (hence no need for Cyrillic keys). Add to this strong desire for privacy and anonymity, and there is little need for any major back story."

• <20090615-1742>

"I am sorry to say, but inactive cabal members are nothing but a potential security risk.

I think we should have a policy that a member who is inactive for a month is automatically warned and then unsubscribed (with notifications in our general channel)."

• <20090619-0036>

"Hmmm. Reading this entry gave me an idea: perhaps we could create entry on our opponents on Encyclopedia Dramatica? After all, a big chunk of its entries are rants against some editors... might as well share the love :)"

• <20090619-0038>

"Avoid spamming the anti-Offliner thread, unless you can add evidence (I'd suggest doing so in a separate subsection entitled "evidence presented by ..."). Remember: lenght is counterproductive. Which means, of course - spam the hell out of whatever thread he started :>"

• <20090619-1800>

"I think it was suggested before here that we should not post non-3RR reports (AE, RFC, etc.) without discussing them here. Such discussion can result in better diffs, better argument and better strategic timing.

Once again I'll implore those of us who have their own websites to consider setting up MediaWiki for us. I strongly believe that we will not be at our optimal potential till we can collaborate via our own MediaWiki."

• <20090621-1626>

"Let's face this: your current account names are pretty muddy, and it is more and more likely some future restriction will be pretty bad for you (it is likely to be bad for both sides, but that's a different issue). But if your accounts were to drastically limit their activity or become inactive, and new ones were, well, new and better behaved, ArbCom could be convinced to ignore you due to you being inactive."

• <20090621-1911>

"Recruitment - why no Georgians here? Are there any Georgian editors we can reach out to?"

• <20090621-1920>

"Indeed. From my 5 years of Polish editor on Wikipedia perspective, I take it as a good sign that on the Russian front, we have defended the neutrality of Polish topics, and are now taking the fight to the enemy, and are able to defend our (mostly Baltic) allies. (. . .) Logistics, for me, is stuff like this list (an expanding it), getting our own MediaWiki set up (on which we could design ready-to-be pasted Rf...s), learning how to use IMs for insta-speed reverts and alerts, and stuff like that."

• <20090621-2121>

"Good idea to frame it that he [User:Jehochman] is picking on another admin [User:Piotrus] and thus a danger to other admins. I'd suggest one of us in good standing tries to start a thread at ANI on that."

• <20090622-1620>

"Another idea to throw pattern analysis software / minds off track is the use of single purpose accounts, restricted to one article only."

• <20090622-2140>

"That's a common misconception. RfAdm requires an initial investement in the week of the nomination (timely replies to raised questions and such) but as soon as you pass, you are free. Admins are never checked up on what they do. Heck, inactive admins still retain their admin flag even if the leave the project... once you are an admin, you must really and ACTIVELY mess up to lose it. I do hardly any "admin" work regularly - I rollback some vandalism I stumble upon, delete an occasional page, and that's it :) "

• <20090623-0417>

"Not counting multiple notifications and warnings, I'd even say that at this point is seems like a minor victory for our side. Some may want to consider the vanishing trick. If a situation on some articles deteriorates, I suggest noting that here, and we will deal with it."

• <20090623-2157>

"I note that Thatcher did not set up a duration on his 1RR blocks. That's bad, since it prevents one from vanishing with a clean (no restrictions) record. I will ask him about that; if he refuses to add a lenght to them I suggest that in half a year those of you who want to vanish ask for a review of their behavior and lifting of this restriction (which should happen if you will not break the 1RR in that period), THEN vanish."

• <20090624-0249>

"We could discuss inviting him [User:HanzoHattori] here, perhaps?"

• <20090624-1607>

"Has he [User:Colchicum] been asked for email? If not, perhaps one of our less obvious cabal members (Miacek? Ostap? Hillock?) could do so."

• <20090629-1838>

"You may also contact others. It doesn't matter how many you spam with the same message about how Thatcher agreed to review your case if neutral admins ask her to :) The more, the merrier, actually :)"

• <20090630-2207>

"Somebody with a little time should look at their [User:Skäpperöd, User:HerkusMonte] recent diffs, as things are going on AE those days, just a brush ups with 3RR in the past month or two may be enough to give an editor a 1RR or a topic ban :( Idiocy, but if one side is throwing nukes, well..."

• <20090701-0204>

"I strongly encourage adopting voluntary 1RR for a while. Let's try to use our numbers to deal with them, if they do more than 1RR a day they should become objects of Thatcher affection :)

I am almost thinking that considering his irrational attitude (sanctioning editors who are reverting like 0.25 a day on a given article) it may be a good idea to create SPS to take care of reverting. As long as the socks are not identifiable, and if they do only a few reverts before being retired, they should not be easy to identify with existing editors... I hate to suggest such an option, but if he is going to sanction people for a few related reverts over a period of a month, we have to consider such actions."

• <20090702-2349>

"Incidentally, I wonder if we could make Darwinek our ally again. He was an active member of our Polish group till he got desysoped; I helped him get resysoped but since then he decided to stop being involved in all controversial editing :("

• <20090704-0348>

"I added a brief supporting statement and now I am waiting for Jech to raise to the bait and move it out of the uninvolved section again. With three diffs I think I'll have enough to take this matter somewhere"

• <20090711-1625>

"AfD of interest: Soviet-run peace movements in Western Europe and the United States"

• <20090712-2106>

"> Jacurek: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_July_11#File:German_Soviet.jpg

The image was deleted; I restored in in the act of admin civil disobedience (doing so once shouldn't be held against me) and I asked the admin who closed it and deleted it to reconsider his decision. The best argument is that large numbers of editors see the Fair Use Rationale as valid. Feel free to pile in with similar comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chase_me_ladies,_I%27m_the_Cavalry#Re:_File:German_Soviet.jpg "

• <20090717-1732>

"the AfD is still ongoing and can use some votes"

• <20090719-2258>

"Dawrinek is in trouble: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Darwinek_.28admin_edit_warring.29

It's his own fault, and he admits as much in his email to me. I am tempted to say to him that if he hadn't abandoned our cause, he would be able to receive council and edit support, now... "

• <20090731-0630>

"I cannot assume that this communication channel nor anything I will say here are secure anymore, particularly as some of the things said here can be easily used to justify a ban on the members of this discussion group."

• <20090731-0652>

"Final note: its AN/3RR not ANI. The report is badly formatted, known defusing strategy is to blow hot air and make the thread so confusing it will be closed with no action."

• <20090731-1648>

"I wonder if I am uninvolved enough to close the thread [Edit_warring#User:Poeticbent_reported_by_user:Faustian] by protecting the article. I haven't really edited the article in any controversial manner for a very long time, and as Ostap refactored his post, ArbCom is no longer mentioned."

• <20090812-2007>

"> Radeksz: What's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim&curid=1650731&diff=307065491&oldid=307054816 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim&curid=1650731&diff=307065491&oldid=307054816> all about?

Dunno, but looks good :) I would suggest that in a month if he is still gone we move to desysop him as inactive (and irresponsible, arguing that if he comes back he should reapply for adminship)."

• <20090816-0839>

"And how many times you reverted...? I am too tired to check the details but history implies 4, and remember - even three can get you in trouble. In other words, if you have to revert 3 times, you are making your opponent reverts meaningless, since you are in danger of getting a double block :(("

• <20090817-1951>

"And here's an easy way to deal with IP socks:

* fill in report for page SEMI protection at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection

* let me know about it here :D

* few hours later I'll protect the article, and if anybody asks me why I can claim I was following your edits and if they think it's not right they can ask you to complain about my stalking ;p"

• <20090818-0328>

"Russavia has voted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_August_12#File:1Comp_obwSambor_inspecDrohobycz_Burza3.jpg

We could use a few more friendly votes..."

• <20090819-2328>

"If he is making offensive posts, gimme diffs, I'll add them to my black book :) (. . .) Feel free to invite him [User:Lysy] (. . .) Try to frame this as a discussion group rather then cabal"

• <20090822-1840>

"And we still desperately need a working wiki to start collaborating on our black book diffs for future dispute resolutions..."

• <20090823-1947>

"I'd prefer to avoid showing off Polish-Ukrainian conflict in public, to avoid weakening us against other editors."

• <20090825-2011>

"If he keeps it up, we should be able to report him to AE for something :)

If somebody could edit here - I don't want the history log to look like I have three reverts in a row :) "

• <20090826-0008>

"CfDed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_25#Category:Survivors_of_The_Expulsion please vote. Once this dies, we can kill The Expulsion category next."

• <20090826-0252>

"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithuanian_nobility&diff=310089327&oldid=310069350 Again, I don't want to have too many reverts."

• <20090830-1820>

"Look at his recent contribs, go to talk pages, and vote oppose on the off chance something he proposed passes."

• <20090904-0129>

"LOOSMARK [User:Loosmark] should be invited here. (. . .) But are we sure he would not reveal the existence of this list with an ill-thought comment?"

• <20090907-0107>

"Talking about users to form closer relations with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mosedschurte (created the template) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Colchicum (I thought he left?)"

• <20090907-0129>

"A renaming discussion of minor importance (. . .) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ti%C5%A1kevi%C4%8Diai_Palace,_Palanga"

• <20090907-0139>

"I uploaded it to commons (. . .) The 1923 year is for publications in the US. Europe is still "life of the author plus 70 years", and Kostrzewski died in 1969... let's hope nobody starts complaining :)"

• <20090909-1718>

"Russavia got Bannned ! (. . .) Excellent time to revisit articles where they gained the upper hand, and see if we can use this opportunity to turn the tables on them :)"

• <20090910-2144>

"mass renaming proposal for articles on World War II evacuation and expulsion

See [3] I think we should support it."

• <20090915-1732>

"Are you on a 1RR restriction? If not, file an unblock request, 2 reverts should not get you blocked. (. . .) Either way, the trigger happy admin who blocked Biophys may be useful if we want to report somebody who made two reverts ;p"

• <20090915-1802>

"Since most of the edits are from IPs/newly registered editors, I slapped a semi-protection on it instead of reverting :)"

Martintg

• <20090203-0500>

"I've listed a proposal here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Estonian_sentiment#Merge_eSStonia"

• <20090327-0234>

>"Digwuren: It needs good preparation. PK [User:Petri Krohn] has been keeping low profile since his

> return; creating this article is likely to force his hand. Are we ready for

> such a confrontation?

We could prepare the article offline, see how it develops. (. . .) Petri, being a member of this committee, would be subject to COI, so it would be interesting to see how he will react. :)"

[Martintg would play dumb about his planned baiting.[4],[5],[6].]

• <20090403-0013>

"You might want to lend an opinion on my talk page about my previously

clean block log and that I am usually careful and I obviously stopped

editing the article and reverted myself once I realised and that you

recommend shortening the block to "time served", as they should be

preventative rather than punitive."

• <20090403-1015>

"I've just been unblocked early.

Thanks to Piotr, Biruitorul and Dorin for your comments on my talk

page, it evidently convinced William to lift my block."

• <20090404-0554>

"One thing we could perhaps exploit is the fact that Russavia claims to

be Australian not Russian. Maybe if we could subtlety suggest that his

antics are a gross parody of a Russian nationalist, a wannabe Russian

who is over doing it by being more Russian than a Russian. Will it

work?"

• <20090404-1052>

"That's a good idea. A few occasional comments in conversations to

third parties to plant the seeds of doubt...."

• <20090407-2342>

"Our beloved template Notpropaganda is up for deletion

See:

[[7]]"

• <20090424-0500>

"It could probably only work if someone other than myself, Biophys or

Digwuren would act on this, as most admins would probably view such

action as continuation of WP:BATTLEGROUND."

• <20090507-0450>

"The first priority is to restore Occupation of the Baltic states

back into its original state, then we can go after Hiberniantears.

This RFC/U is a distraction from the first goal, which if it can be

achieved without drama, i.e. scare off an admin from moving it back,

then completion of this first goal enhances the likelihood of success

in the second goal."

• <20090615-0607>

"I have an idea.

What if one of us creates a new Wikipedia account (or even uses an

existing one), it would have to be someone who had a grasp of Russian,

then after a week or two does some pro-Soviet edits, then get to know

PU, Offliner and Russavia. Perhaps they also run some sort of off-wiki

channel that this user may then get invited into.

It would be a great way to learn their backgrounds, find out who these

people are.

We could fake little edit wars with our mole, even have our mole

violate 3rr, to make it convincing. The Cabal have had a set back with

PU blocked and Shotlandiya topic banned, so they may welcome a new

comer. Now may be a good opportunity to do this."

• <20090620-0258>

"The aim here at this stage is not to have ArbCom accept the case, so

we don't wa[n]t to dive in with diffs and counter accusations because

this will only reinforce in ArbComs mind that there really is a battle

going on, and thus make it more likely they will accept the case."

• <20090622-1128>

"Seems likely that I will be sanctioned, most likely a topic ban. I may

as well visibly depart as yet another casualty and assume new

identity, focus on some totally benign area for several month and gain

adminship. I think this current identity has out lived its usefulness."

• <20090624-0712>

"I've already written to Thatcher (I though he is a she) about

Colchicum, stating that while I don't often see eye to eye with this

young Russian he does have a clean block log. (Okay I fibbed, I quite

like the guy, but I wanted to show that I was being magnanimous and

Thatcher may believe he is of the opposing camp due to his ethnicity)."

• <20090804-0059>

"Check out this AfD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russian_influence_operations_in_Estonia_(2nd_nomination)

I commented as an anonymous IP."

• <20090806-0526>

"This AfD appears to be coming to a critical point. Those who haven't

checked it out, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Communist_genocide#Communist_genocide "

• <20090813-0025>

"Could somebody post this to AN3 please (I would do it but I just

recently escaped a similar report, so I don't want to be seen as

combative)"

• <20090818-0352>

"Can someone revert PU on Neo-Nazism and Nochnoy Dozor (group), I need

hime to make a third revert for this 3RR report I'm writing."

• <20090818-0407>

"Can Jack or someone else not involve post the 3RR report below"

• <20090902-0110>

"On the other hand, 20 years ago probably 95% would have believed

Moscow doesn't share any responsibility [for starting World War II], so there is progress here.

The publicity surrounding this does appear to be higher this year, so

no doubt many are looking at this for the first time, most likely via

Wikipedia. So perhaps next year less people will think Moscow doesn't

share any responsibility."

Vecrumba

• <20090122-2302>

"I would leave sleeping dogs (eSStonia) lie. As long as it's somewhat off the radar screen, it's a future bargaining chip. Also, there's always the possibility of adding a "controversies" section which explains that the Estonians are not fascists, it's all Russian propaganda--which if Russavia gets drawn into a revert war over, is something in our favor.

Also as long as eSStonia is around, Russavia can't lobby for an AFD of Putinism, so that buys some time there as well.

If Russavia launches their intended arbitration attack, I think we are in a reasonable position to defend ourselves. Keeping eSStonia and similar around gives us the opportunity to launch diversions."

• <20090607-1825>

"We do need a 3RR "early warning" system for ourselves. It would be more work to build something that retrieved the diffs and identified reverts (i.e., version A, B, A, B, C, A...)."

• <20090818-0043>

"I'm now working on South Ossetia, where I can use some help... before I attempt to drive a stake through PasswordUsername's and HistoricWarrior007's hearts at South Ossetia, I need confirmation from a Russian speaker that the following is correct."

• <20090910-0218>

>Martintg: "I'm just going to keep quite and create a few new articles, Russavia is his own worse enemy.

Hmm.. I need to get back to the history of Riga. Seriously, Martin and Andrei should lie low. I'll come visit Litvinenko in a day or two... patience, we don't want to look like we're being opportunistic in any way."

• <20090820-0359>

"There's no need to rush, patience to see if Bandurist digs himself deeper."

Sander Säde

• <20090610-0840>

"Some help with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaak_Aaviksoo, please - PasswordUsername wants to remove Aaviksoo's and insert van der Linden's irrelevant comment. I don't want to revert him more then I have done already."

• <20090614-0811>

"I filed [[8]]. Don't rush in adding your comments, let him get the noose nice and tight himself - he will predictably attack me as a defense."

• <20090618-0711>

"I've used my two reverts already."

• <20090622-0526>

"Can someone please add Shotlandyia and FeelSunny to the arbitration request? That will help further to compromise Deacon's claim about bigger Polish-Baltic cabal - and in the unlikely case of arbitration actually happening, users who will definitely get punished are PasswordUsername and Shotlandyia."

• <20090813-1946>

"And here we go again: [9]"

Biophys

• <20090430-0106>

"If you have a bias - hide it."

• <20090501-1458>

"Look at the situation from Hiber's perspective. A user (Dojarca) tells him about a Cabal of Baltic editors. He comes to talk with you, and indeed finds the Cabal. Digwuren makes some questionable remarks about him. He asks another admin (with 100,000+ edits) to help. Digwuren makes some questionable remarks about this admin too (I am sorry, Digwuren). This another admin lefts messages to several other admins about you all. This is road to hell."

• <20090601-1436>

"To be invincible, one should use another strategy. See that user from UK who edits under a wide variety of different IP numbers (81..., 84..., 86..., 90..., etc.) (. . .) Once I reported him to AV, but they could not block him, because that would cover a too wide IP range."

• <20090618-1957>

"What I did was an experiment. There are two possible outcomes: (1) all of that is dismissed as content dispute and bickering, and (2) Offliner and me are restricted."

• <20090629-1229>

"Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Viriditas#Comment_by_Mosedschurte

If you like contributions by Viriditas, there is nothing wrong to comment."

• <20090910-0018>

"Look at the text (I now reverted) and make a few minor changes. Than it will be harder to revert again for him."

Biruitorul

• <20090123-1750>

"Internet operations by Russian secret police -> Allegations of internet operations by Russian secret police.

Based on recent discussion, Offliner, Ellol, Beatle Fab Four and KNewman can definitely be added to our blacklist.

By the way, I repeat my question: where is Irpen? I don't expect anyone to know for sure, but informed speculation is welcomed."

• <20090202-0559>

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/4414018/Vladimir-Putin-faces-signs-of-mutiny-in-own-government-as-protests-break-out-in-east.html

http://kara.allthingsd.com/files/2008/05/oz-wizard-behind-the-curtain-769602.jpg comes to mind. I hope the whole rotten edifice comes crashing down.

By the way, to those of you who are knowledgeable about Ukraine: have you been reverting some of Irpen and Kuban kazak's more noxious edits now that they're gone? The other Russians don't seem nearly as interested in Ukraine, so I imagine the editing environment on the subject of Ukraine has improved considerably.

• <20090224-1640>

"I'd appreciate it if everyone could take a look here: Talk:Ana_Ivanovic#Requested_move . We all like diacritics, so it's important."

• <20090326-0538>

"Looking through the Russia-Georgia war vote, I've compiled a new friends/enemies list. (. . .) Enemies (I'm not sure if the ones in parentheses are Russians):"

• <20090326-1736>

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Albanian-Moldovan_relations

A Canadian dolt is holding up consensus on this, but we have our ways of getting around him ;)"

• <20090405-0327>

"Would setting up a sockpuppet with all the right templates ({{lang-ru}}, {{pro-putin}}, etc) and maybe some pro-Russian edits, and then e-mailing him in Russian be a good idea?"

• <20090406-1530>

"I think he would be great to have, but he hasn't enabled e-mail. Would it be safe for Andres to ask him publicly to send him an e-mail, or does someone already know his address?

I don't want to sound repetitive, but the Greeks (who are people we can do business with, can help us if needed (and appear uninvolved), and have a nice, tightly-run team) are still begging for votes at Talk:Greece/Naming_poll#Oppose . (I know Andres voted, so he can ignore this appeal.)"

• <20090424-0550>

"If I'm sufficiently untainted (it's borderline), I'll gladly post verbatim a message written by Martin, Piotr and/or Andres, under my name."

• <20090424-1635>

"Even if the GFDL argument is bogus, we don't need to let the vulgus know that, do we? One more accusation against Russavia, even if false, can only help us."

• <20090424-1829>

"It's really up to you guys - I think this is one time our team can, through effective coordination, achieve some real results. Let's not allow the opportunity to pass. I'm willing to help however I can, but I won't make a move without orders (so to speak), as I'm not as familiar with Russavia as with previous problem editors, and don't want to inadvertently cause this chance to blow up."

• <20090427-0647>

"Russavia is now losing his marbles. I wonder if we could help that process along."

• <20090501-1944>

"I'm assuming everyone's seen this already, but:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baltic states and the Soviet Union."

• <20090609-1540>

"Fresh enemies list :"

• <20090615-1916>

"Just create a new folder for receiving messages from this list (mine is aptly named "Guy Fawkes")"

• <20090619-0702>

"I kind of hope Fsol is Bonaparte. Last time, Anonimu was banned partly because Bonaparte created a sockpuppet called "Anonimul din Constanta" [User:Anonimu din Constanta] -- and the admins bought that it was Anonimu!"

• <20090908-2120>

"Russavia got Bannned ! [User Russavia's real name] of [Russavia's location] is not a happy man today."

• <20090912-1939>

"Please see [10] . He wants to move Communist Romania to Socialist Republic of Romania. I've outlined why this should not be so, and I'd appreciate any assistance."

Dc76

• <20090216-2033>

"Could you please give me the link to the ANI thread where I can comment as well. Also, please tell me in 2-3 sentances what should be the tone of my comment, i.e. how far should I go."

• <20090403-1303>

"and we should all behave very nice when editting there, but a little bit provocative, only enough that Offliner, Russavia, the anon (possibly Baeckman) and/or PetriKrohn react in a bad behaved fashion.

When this happens, Martin can step up and say to William: there are two ways to respond to such edits: 1) give up editting the article and let it be owed by the offender, or 2) revert with the risk of getting 3RR reported and mud stuck at you. And then we all can step up and say that it is abnormal to be put in front of such an alternative, and that William should do something to avoid in the future such dilema-situations.

If this is too complicate, then at least I could help do some reverts/edits in these articles at times."

• <20090615-0620>

"Several technical problems:

1) It needs to be a separate computer and a separate IP address, untraceable to our accounts, otherwise we can be blocked (their revenge for treason would be mad, plus this would show to admins a spirit of increasing the level of fight, the permaban is guaranteed)

2) Cyrillic keys. It is possible to install them, but secondary things must also be in Russian, not just the content of emails. Compiling a list of such things is a challenge already.

3) Acting, and I mean talent. Not everybody can do this. The story must be big and full, with tons of details. They should be able to see the email path to a country and city were there is plausible to exist Russians. Also you have to be able to tell stories about that place, and be able to tell something about the Russian community there. Even better would be if "your full name" was googleable. Not having any traceable details would raise suspicions.

Interestingly, but you know, many secret services have started this way... :) I mean if you go back 100 years ago. For example, the Chinese Communist Party had a secret service since 1920s, and it started with a number of guys like us. I once read a book about this. :):):)"

• <20090625-1603>

"At some point in the future we would have to have some voting on suggesting to ban Anonimu. In order for him not to feel as if somebody is piling in, it would be better that 2-3 more people in the following weeks "meet" him in non-related articles and point to him to refrain from reverts and engage in discussion. That is the standard "wooden language" that I apply to him: "please, refrain from reverts and engage in discussion". When his behavior would be discussed, he would know he had annoyed you in "other" ways.

Hint: he is a deep communist believer. Any blatantly anti-communist edit is like red to him. Use this in case you don't know how to annoy him. Once you annoy him, blame him for being too rush and for not engaging in discussions. Occasionally you can let him do some "damage", so he can accumulate a negative record. Check his "contribs", and if you find an article close to what you have been editing in the past, do some anti-communist edit there."

• <20090630-1250>

"if you deal with him, just provoke him, without trying to nail him, and do that so that you appear in best light."

• <20090708-1433>

"Don't start the new account for a week or so after you retire the old one (just black the user page and leave), because starting the very next day with a new account looks like militantism. In the worst case scenario, you can say that you took one week off, cooled down and only after that you decided you will come back, start anew, but won't edit the same articles. Make the reformed story be proven in the record, in case it comes to that. Good luck, and don't tell us your new identity, let us discover you as a wikignome. :)"

• <20090716-0135>

"Excellent opportunity to radicalize him here! While we were bothering finding evidence against him in other places, we need but do the most obvious: Traian Basescu and Monica Macovei, and other BLP (Elena Udrea? :) Ion Iliescu? someone else he cares about? ). radicalize him, and we can get a ban/black for BLP violations. Just perfect!"

• <20090902-2029>

"We need to make the facts known better so in a couple years there would be more than half acknowledging USSR's role in starting WWII.

We don't have to aim for 80% or 90%. 51% is enough. Because these 51% would be well-informed, while most of the remaining 49% would be ignorant about the facts. From 51% to 90% it will go by itself in a natural way. We can do or undo nothing at that point. Our focus should be 51%."

Molobo

• <20090531-1339>

"Perhaps I would write the complaint and somebody else would post it ? It would look better I believe."

• <20090531-2049>

"And yes Wikipedia is a gang and a mob, most people after certain time on Wiki realise that, of course in spirit of Great Computer we can't say that in public space. But everybody knows about the level of ethnic based conflicts, Russian disinformation, CAMERA and so on..."

• <20090606-1259>

"From time to time I will write articles and would welcome if somebody would post them as their own creation." [block evasions]

• <20090623-1635>

"As others noted, each of us has interests and knowledge in his favourite fields. We should write articles, then protect them for each other."

• <20090706-1610>

"once I get some time free I would rather write something for you guys to post in article."

• <20090623-2208>

"sometimes I consider myself as an old scared ork ;] (. . .) It is even more satisfying to see them pissed when from one or two sentences you create a full-fledged, well sourced article."

• <20090725-1946>

"Since Skapperod has started reverting you perhaps it would be better if you would be assisted by Radek or Tymek or other editor that knows Polish and good add this source."

• <20090806-0025>

"Heh, Radek the more we dig into this the more skeletons in the closet we find don't you think ? And I mean not just Wiki but also Germany in general."

• <20090903-2127>

"Perhaps It would be advisable fist for somebody to establish a more private link to him before invitation with first trying personally to coordinate some edits, ask about background that sort of thing."

• <20090908-1825>

"However Piotrus, this means we do lose a contributor who was able to absorb time and effort of unfriendly contributors, and who did patricipate in votes. additionally Skapperod would gain credibility as "victim" and productive member of Wiki community. I agree that Xx236 is completely clueless as to avoiding personal attacks, but still I think a word or two of warning to him to stop it might avoid a ban. If he continues-well it's sad, but like Hanzo some people are unable to exploit Wiki doublespeak."

• <20090827-0905>

"Skapperod's walking right into our little trap :)"

• <20090911-0106>

"Wikipedia double speak mode on:Obviously naming oneself after a Soviet agent would indicate a heavy POV of the user, and as such he can't be judged to objectively view the article(s) in question.

So there is an argument one can hammer into infinity when dealing with him in discussions."

Tymek

• <20090610-2315>

"I know it sounds childlish, but at the same time it can be helpful. Now and again, it is quite reasonable to make a fake argument with each other. Our edits are carefully watched by some people, also in possible situations, those arguments are a good evidence of us not cooperating with each other.

Something like this [11]"

• <20090618-1913>

"I have no idea who Offliner is, but if you need some help, give me the diffs, or better write the whole message, and I will copy/paste wherever necessary."

• <20090702-1754>

"Molobo, if you find all the diffs and write here a post, I can copy and paste it on Wikipedia. I do not have time to do it myself. So, if restricting Skaperod is our goal, let us just do it."

• <20090702-1758>

"I can file whatever you need, but please write here whatever is necessary, and I will paste it. I want to help you guys, and I really do not have time to search all diffs, to keep all these lists and stuff. So whatever you need, just write here. You guys know best what is going on in all these conflicts and arbitrations."

• <20090728-1345>

"Jacurek, please log yourself as me in such situations. I was away on weekend, besides I twisted my wrist during a soccer game, and I cannot open a bottle of beer, not mentioning writing stuff on my computer."

• <20090810-0333>

"Hope this asshole Deacon leaves Wikipedia forever."

• <20090814-0455>

"If you guys want to report him on my behalf, please do, you know my password. I am not following PU's edits, and I have no idea what is going on, but still, if you need my help, do not hesitate."

Jacurek

• <20090610-2359>

"There is no rush but sooner or later fake arguments and even occasional reverts between the members should be conducted once in a while. The arguments must also look real to be effective, especially, if for example, Radeksz was arguing with Piotrus. I think such staged operation should be planned ahead of time by the people who decide to do it. If correctly executed they would be a very good defense tools in case of accusations of cabal, coordinated edits etc..but also would seriously confuse opponents who might be watching."

• <20090628-1358>

"Please keep an eye on the articles edited by him. Also please always tell me what should be changed. You [User:Molobo] could even post text here you think is appropriate and I will insert it into and the articles."

• <20090702-2345>

>Radeksz: "Also, just for the record at this time I'd be against asking Loosemark to join. Support him, yes, and keep talking to him, but I'd hold off on anything more than that."

"You are right, we should keep supporting Lossmark and see what happens. People have to be %100 trusted to be here."

• <20090711-2122>

"we have to think who would be the best person to file the report. I consider myself , I'm pretending to be "friends" with him but this could change right?, or Tymek or somebody else on the sidelines . What do you think?"

• <20090816-2332>

"I'm also pro Lithuanian, don't get me wrong, the only reason I'm making these crazy edits is because Lokyz and especially Mr Dan (SON OF A B&*&%&^&$!!) "stepped on my toe" really bad."

• <20090818-0557>

>Martintg: "Can Jack or someone else not involve post the 3RR report below:"

"Done"

• <20090902-1512>

"Done [posting Molobo's article]. Let me know when another articles are ready to be posted."

• <20090903-2114>

"LOOSMARK should be invited here."

• <20090911-1954>

"!!Loosmark needs support (Ukrainian members may help?)!! [link]" [12]

• <20090915-0727>

>Radeksz:"pretty obvious attempt by Offliner to try and get me for edit warring"

"I reverted his edits on Putin in respond maybe he will get the message. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Putin&diff=prev&oldid=314052299"

Radeksz

• <20090601-1851>

>>Digwuren: "Which means that either a proxy is needed, or the behaviour must be such that a technical checkuser will never raise. Or preferrably, both."

>Piotrus: "We have to assume that a checkuser will happen - Murphy's Law..."

"A lot of this comes just from the fact that the sock puppet always

can't help themselves and end up being very topic specific. (. . .)

and the way to beat that is to throw in lots of noise into

the data so that no correlation comes out significant. And that means

just taking the time to edit completely random articles totally

unrelated to the sock master's area of interest. Basically something

like, every other day clicking the "random article" link, taking

whatever shows up, doing a quick web/google books search on it and

making even a minor edit. It's extra work but no one said sock

puppeting is easy.

What's harder to hide (and I think this is what clinched the case

against Molobo) is the temporal correlations - in Molobo's case the

fact that his and Gwinn's edits were always hours apart (and I think

here the secret evidence basically just suggested some kind of

home/work split). That's where a sock-buddy can help as both the

master and the puppet can edit at the same time. Too much of this can

probably get suspicious too though."

• <20090601-2147>

"I'm going to keep quite fon this or a day or so since I think I

might've annoyed Avi and some others with my persistent hectoring but

if/when the discussion develops I'll be sure to chime in. Also I'm not

sure that an admission of guilt and plea for mercy on the part of

Molobo himself is the best strategy at this point - at least not yet."

• <20090603-0813>

"Well, I tried

[ [13] ]

and we'll see how he responds - I tried to be sufficiently patronizing

that he should be at least irritated. I also tried to feed him a

couple of lines that can easily be taken as uncivil if he says it.

I think we should wait just a tad before going to AE since we've been

frequent visitors there lately. Basically one or two more comments

like that and it should be good (the first one you cite probably isn't

strong enough)"

• <20090608-0433>

"(maybe we could get some

editors that we've had problems with before but that have since then

gotten along with, like Malik Shabazz, to say something in Jacurek's

support)

This seems to indicate that at this point Deacon's trying to avoid a

confrontation ("drama") either because he's not ready, because he

feels to be on shaky ground or because he's busy with stuff and

doesn't have time for it (which doesn't change the fact that this also

makes him vulnerable.)"

• <20090613-0720>

"getting him to do 3 diff

reverts on 3 different people (even if they are all a "Polish

tag-team") should be enough to file a case (though I don't think I

should be the one to do it again - and I won't have the time). There

should probably be more talk page comments, even if they are fairly

superfluous - basically take each of his edits and call him on it

(. . .)

I'd love to be able to go on my wiki break knowing that at least some

fear has been put into that guy."

• <20090621-1853>

"But the things he's right about include:

*We do have superior numbers - this matters, although it is not all

that matters (the formula for winning admin-decided cases is probably

something like = experience*(square root of (numbers)), for winning

editing conflicts it is something like = numbers*(reliable sources

squared))*(square root of experience) (last one for avoiding 3RR

etc.). Both of course these also involve a term which captures random

errors and deviations.

*Most of our opponents are inexperienced in relative terms to us,

older folks like Ghirla and Irpen having been driven out. This leaves

people like Deacon, and perhaps a few unfavorably disposed admins

(also some among the Greater Germany editors but that's more of a

Poland-specific problem and a number of them, like Matthead, make up

in sheer stupidity for what they've gained in experience)

*We are probably better organized - and by that I don't mean just this

list, a lot of this organizations formed informally at some level

before; I started watching a lot of you guyz's edits long before I

joined this list - this is also a function of the experience.

(. . .)

The Tactics is all the blocking and banning we want to get and how we

get it. It mostly covers all the AE, ANI, 3RR etc. cases that we want

to file and also how we defend against those cases which are filed

against us. Whether to be quiet, or whether to stir up dramu.

Assessing who is the biggest threat and what are their weaknesses;

edit warring, incivility, other. Which editors should become engaged

when and when should they stay out. Which editors that are not on this

list can be regarded as close allies (Mosedchurte, Colchicum, etc.)

Which admins are favorable. Longer term, per Piotrus' suggestion, it

involves getting more of us into the ranks of admins, or pulling the

vanishings to clear the records.

Logistics is the actual content related stuff - coordinating the

reverts when needed so that no one violates 2RR, creating appropriate

articles (like the Historical Truth Commission), exposure of created

articles (which includes getting some of this stuff up on DYK and

getting it to GA/FA status), talk page discussions and related

matters. Remember that this is about information, but information not

only has to be created but also disseminated. Also very importantly,

finding reliable sources since that pretty much renders the text

untouchable"

• <20090621-1911>

"It'd probably not be a good idea

to contact him but watching the articles he edits and throwing a

favorable revert to his version once or twice might make him more

amiable in the future "

• <20090621-2114>

"Sure (though, given my limited time, I was trying to fly this one

under the radar) - but where exactly, since this has spread and

there's talk of places only admins can comment. Also I think Piotrus

should first innocently inquire about what exactly is going on here?

Just act puzzled and surprised and disappointed."

• <20090621-2144>

"he very clearly means to send a

direct threat here and scare Piotrus. But of course, in the world of

Wiki hypocrisy, direct threats violate good faith and incivility so

it's best to leave as little evidence of the threat itself as

possible. So after sending the threat, you redact it to something much

more nicer and cuddly - then the object of the threat has probably

gotten the message, while you've only "discussed" things with them.

It's a basic mafia tactic ("we only want to protect you", "shame if

anything happened to that beautiful daughter of yours") and one, I

must admit, that I've used myself on talk pages before."

• <20090621-2248>

"One more note: since Jeh is basically questioning the competence of

the AE admins it might be worth while to offer a few words of support

for Sandstein, AGK and that other fella somewhere - something along

the lines of "they're working hard, sometimes they decided not quite

in a way that I wanted, but I respect their hard work and they should

be commended instead of having abuse heaped upon them. Overall for the

most part they've decided cases correctly (include some examples where

it was a pretty clear cut matter, like Smith2006)".

Benefits is brownie points, positioning yourself as "part of the

system" that bad admins like Jeh are trying to upset"

• <20090622-1805>

"One thing to keep in mind is that at least for now an all around 1RR

restriction is favorable to us, especially if some of us manage to

slip past the radar, because of numbers."

• <20090622-1818>

"Hypothetically, if I can keep quiet for a few months

(though my revert trigger itches) and have folks forget me and then

either try in the fall, or vanish in the fall, come back and edit only

economics related articles for a few month and then try [to run for adminship]."

• <20090627-0916>

"We might want to talk a little bit about how to proceed and any advice

on how to file these things are welcome.

Note some things:

-per the comment above I'm going to play the "neutral party" that

became "collateral damage"

-to make that appear credible I will have to distance myself from some

of you and maybe even make some slightly critical remarks. I might say

something like "...if you compare my clean blog with that of Digwurgen

(sic) or Passwordname, you'll see that...""

• <20090703-1749>

"As long as we're being devious here, what about "Kamikaze Sock" accounts?

In your typical case to get somebody for edit warring you have to create the opportunity for them to revert a lot. But if you're doing this yourself then that means that you expose yourself to charge of edit warring as well. Alternatively, a few of us can get together and uh, well, tag-team, but then we get accused of tag-teaming.

Instead if somebody makes an IP account, makes some minor edits to establish a minor history and then basically "sleeps" until a relevant dispute develops, then comes in, reverts a few times, gets the other side to revert a lot - then they both get restricted but the Sock was a throwaway account anyway and the other side has a blemish on their record.

In a weaker way that's essentially what that annoying anon is doing to us on the Poland/German pages.

To make it work the IPs would probably have to be created by someone in a big city, the background history would be on articles only weakly related, and care would have to be taken so that whatever edit summaries/comments are made don't resemble the main account - faking bad English might be a good way to go.

It might not work the first or second time so multiple "sleeper" accounts would be a good - the idea being to substitute the quantity of multiple "throw away" accounts for quantity of edits and not give CU much to work with.

Of course the strategy has big potential danger so maybe editors with less too loose - those already under serious restrictions, like mayb Molobo, would be the best candidates."

• <20090703-2217>

"It'd probably be a good idea to wait before commenting and not everyone all at once - let's see how this develops first. Hopefully a few more admins that Piotrus contacted earlier will chime in first - and any unneccesarry drama might scare them off."

• <20090706-2016>

"Woohoo!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Radeksz&diff=next&oldid=300660312#1RR_limit

Thanks to everyone for support and advice!"

• <20090716-2317>

"On the other hand, if there's some revert that needs to be made an anonymous Belgian IP might be able to provide it"

• <20090716-2346>

"I've put up Conrad Letzkay for a DYK:

[ [14] ]

with a at least somewhat purposefully provocative hook "

• <20090731-1726>

"I emailed Faustian to see if he'd respond. I asked him to just ask for a warning for Richard and say that :no blocks or bans are necessary. I worded my email so that if it's somehow made public, there's nothing :incriminating in there. I just politely asked him if he'd consider."

• <20090801-1837>

"Basically, some one give me the dirt on Sciurinea and I will comment on his report."

• <20090806-1901>

"Can you just drop a short "support" note for the proposed merger here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prussian_estates "

• <20090908-1904>

"[WPM] Russavia got Bannned ! I came back from being out all day, checked my email and then my wife said "that's an evil laugh right there" - she was right."

• <20090908-2111>

"And for desert: He got a 55 hr block for edit warring too."

• <20090909-2314>

"If he's talking to people who know how this stuff works then they should be telling him to back the hell off, quit insulting people, quit insulting Sandstein (and Sandstein gets credit for being a straight up guy in all of this, and in general) and to start acting remorseful, "I went over the line..." etc. and then propose that instead of a ban he gets mentoring."

• <20090913-0218>

"This isn't you [ [15] ] is it? Maybe if we push Loki just a bit we can get him for making unfounded personal attacks."

• <20090915-0533>

"I saw it and even wrote a protest but then didn't post since I'm in a fight with like 3 admins at the moment."

• <20090915-0536>

"Not sure exactly how this works - we give you the info and then we can log in and plot to our hearts content w/o being seen? Just in case maybe it would be better to have different usernames there and then we can coordinate who's who there. Just being paranoid."

• <20090915-1810>

>Piotrus:" Since most of the edits are from IPs/newly registered editors, I slapped a semi-protection on it instead of reverting :)"

"I'll follow it up with a revert to the "good" version in a bit."