On 7/27/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@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