On 7/27/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Here's
something:
I counted the number of viewable revisions prior to 19:50, 3 June
2006. There are 1109, which is equal to the number restored by
Musical Linguist. If "Musical Linguist deleted the article and
restored all but one revision (or possibly a handful) to remove
personal information (I'm guess that's what PI stands for), and then
the next day Jayjg restored that revision(s) too", then the number of
revisions would be greater than 1109.
So it appears something *was* oversighted. This doesn't say anything
about what it was, though.
I agree, that's definitely something. There might be another
explanation, but I can't think of one (it is 3:20am here, though, so
that's not saying much). Might be easiest just to ask an oversighter
to check the logs...
The answer won't change my opinion on the matter. I'd fully expect
the oversighter to either refuse to comment or to lie about it, at
least to me and the general public. And the evidence that something
was oversighted is too strong. If one looks on Wikipedia Review there
is a thread there around the time the oversight took place. As it
turns out the oversight logs were made public in the early days of
oversight, and "Lir" noticed the oversight of revisions from the Pan
Am 103 article and posted a link to them (on June 7th). These logs
are no longer public, and Wikipedia Review isn't a very reliable
source ("Lir" is a banned Wikipedian), so this in itself isn't proof
of anything in itself, but it fits in perfectly with the simplest
explanation: "Musical Linguist" deleted the article and restored 1109
revisions, perhaps not knowing about the new oversight function or not
being able to find an oversighter at the time. Then the following day
"Jayjg" restored the deleted revisions and someone oversighted them.
The date of the WR post even fits in with the dates of the logs which
*are* still public.
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post the link to the WR thread or not,
so I won't. It's easy enough to google for it if you care. But like
I said, that's not the proof, in itself.
Anthony