X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Tue Jul  7 22:24:19 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <929ed1ec0907071257x75de5276xcdbe0eb2fbfe7147@mail.gmail.com>
References: <25890ca0907031517taba84aaodd143d82c724e8db@mail.gmail.com>
	<929ed1ec0907061610o58cd553cw39ee9c1de14f6bf@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A5299F1.1000207@post.pl>
	<929ed1ec0907070059v59ab4d50wca39f1a9d5a87cc8@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3b2b3db0907070514m197bc2a0o1baab97ce1a1c625@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0907070533m7f13c010p8b06b8a6a2e1edbc@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0907070621k61699b99kc595911ad1914881@mail.gmail.com>
	<929ed1ec0907070955g12b898f7i7b9adb461218cc24@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0907071029i797e4a8eh9ecad7b50b1992dd@mail.gmail.com>
	<929ed1ec0907071257x75de5276xcdbe0eb2fbfe7147@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:24:06 -0500
Message-ID: <25890ca0907071324o77afa88ar3bc19ef4c8ad23f3@mail.gmail.com>
From: radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: -0.9
X-Spam_score_int: -8
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software,
	running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or
	label similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  How about something like this for a comment: ; Comment
	for Igny (and Thatcher) Ok, first, Wikipedia isn't a classroom and
	editors aren't "students" and administrators aren't "teachers" - I
	sincerely hope that things haven't gotten to the point where the
	accepted view of the editor-admin relationship is the same, in terms of
	power etc., as between scolding teachers and pupils. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.9 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-deb (2006-10-05) on 
	pakkun.mirky.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,
	HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] Appeal
X-BeenThere: folks@wikipedometer.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Id: Wikipedia statistics <folks.wikipedometer.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Help: <mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1793473430798243873=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -0.9
X-Spam_score_int: -8
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
	similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  How about something like this for a comment: ;Comment
	for Igny (and Thatcher) Ok, first, Wikipedia isn't a classroom and
	editors aren't "students" and administrators aren't "teachers" - I
	sincerely hope that things haven't gotten to the point where the
	accepted view of the editor-admin relationship is the same, in terms of
	power etc., as between scolding teachers and pupils. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.9 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org

--===============1793473430798243873==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6587a0c84d7cd046e2367ff

--0016e6587a0c84d7cd046e2367ff
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

How about something like this for a comment:

;Comment for Igny (and Thatcher)

Ok, first, Wikipedia isn't a classroom and editors aren't "students" and
administrators aren't "teachers" - I sincerely hope that things haven't
gotten to the point where the accepted view of the editor-admin relationship
is the same, in terms of power etc., as between scolding teachers and
pupils.

Second, quite simply, the Digwuren case specifically allows for the
possibility of an appeal. Presumably this possibility of an appeal isn't
just there to decorate the Case Page. It could actually be used once in
awhile! My appeal was suggested by Thatcher himself as well as by other
admins, and endorsed by a few as well.

Having said that, I was 100% sincere in my reply to Sandstein [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AE#Remedy_proposed_by_Radeksz_in_place_of_sanction]
that the right to appeal needs to be balanced against "the ability for an
effective enforcement of the arbitration case". In fact it appears to me
(and others may very well disagree) that Thatcher's subsequent action of
"vacating" his restriction on everyone he sanctioned has created exactly the
situation that Sandstein worried about, with suggestions going around that
anyone who's ever been sanctioned at AE/Digwuren appeal their bans, blocks
and sanctions. Wouldn't it have been better to let the appeal run its course
before embarking on such a unilateral action (which parallels the earlier
quick and ad hoc handing out of sanctions, over the head of Shell Kinney who
was working on an extensive report)

It seems like there's a weird polarization going on here; either ALL editors
get sanctioned, or no editors get sanctioned. Either all appeals are just
"students questioning their grade" or all appeals must be granted. But
there's no need for that and what gets lost in between the two extremes is
just plain commons sense. '''Some''' editors do need to get sanctioned,
while others merely warned. '''Some''' appeals do need to be heard, while
others rejected as spurious. There needs to be a COST to filing an appeal
(which is why I took great care with filing mine) and only appeals with
merit should be considered (which is why my appeal was based on not just
procedural issues but also other arguments - though the bureaucratic one is
the one that everyone focused on). There might also have to be a "gate
keeper" system (I nominate Sandstein, who, despite the fact that he didn't
support my appeal and didn't quite rule the way I wanted to him to in the
past, I consider a very capable and also neutral admin) - though that'd be
more of a request for amendment rather than clarification.


Too much? Don't stir more trouble up? Wait to see what happens with
Shot/BFF?

Radek


2009/7/7 Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com>

> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 20:29, radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> *In general this is a legit concern. At the same time appeals need to have
>> a chance of succeeding (hence my disagreement with Sandstein on THIS
>> particular appeal)
>
>
> That's quite tricky a thing.
>
> In real-world courts, the point of the appeal system is to enforce a
> measure of consistency between many courts staffed with varying human
> beings.  But Wikipedia's sanction mechanism does not require consistence;
> instead, it's high on discretion of individual administrators.  And with
> discretion on the high horse, what is the point of allowing appeals to
> succeed?  It would only reduce the discretionary powers of the
> administrators.
>
> Naturally, it doesn't matter in the actual on-Wikipedia discussion.  I'm
> just pointing out some of the philosophical nuances.
>
> *This is part of the reason why I filed my appeal with three arguments -
>> not just the procedural one - this makes my appeal exceptional. Basically to
>> their own peril, most admins took the 'bureaucratic view' and focused just
>> on the lack of a warning, procedural, aspect.
>
>
> Standard us versus them sociology.  In this case, the "us" is "good
> Wikipedians" and the "them" is "a troublemaker nobody knows".
>
> At this point there's probably no chance in getting the sanctions
>> reinstated on Offliner and PU, and probably not Russavia, but it should be
>> possible to prevent sanctions being removed from BFF and Shot.
>
>
> Let's start by drawing the line between Thatcher's sanctions (which can be
> depicted as rash and poorly thought of, leading to Thatcher undoing them
> himself) and Sandstein's sanctions (which aren't rash and poorly thought
> of).  For one, only Thatcher went for the "canary theory"; Sandstein
> actually considered BFF and Shotlandiya, one by one.
>
> --
> Andres Soolo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia statistics discussion list
> folks@wikipedometer.net
> http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks
>
>

--0016e6587a0c84d7cd046e2367ff
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

How about something like this for a comment:<br><br>;Comment for Igny (and =
Thatcher)<br><br>Ok, first, Wikipedia isn&#39;t a classroom and editors are=
n&#39;t &quot;students&quot; and administrators aren&#39;t &quot;teachers&q=
uot; - I sincerely hope that things haven&#39;t gotten to the point where t=
he accepted view of the editor-admin relationship is the same, in terms of =
power etc., as between scolding teachers and pupils.<br>
<br>Second, quite simply, the Digwuren case specifically allows for the pos=
sibility of an appeal. Presumably this possibility of an appeal isn&#39;t j=
ust there to decorate the Case Page. It could actually be used once in awhi=
le! My appeal was suggested by Thatcher himself as well as by other admins,=
 and endorsed by a few as well.<br>
<br>Having said that, I was 100% sincere in my reply to Sandstein [<a href=
=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AE#Remedy_proposed_by_Radeksz_in=
_place_of_sanction">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AE#Remedy_propos=
ed_by_Radeksz_in_place_of_sanction</a>] that the right to appeal needs to b=
e balanced against &quot;the ability for an effective enforcement of the ar=
bitration case&quot;. In fact it appears to me (and others may very well di=
sagree) that Thatcher&#39;s subsequent action of &quot;vacating&quot; his r=
estriction on everyone he sanctioned has created exactly the situation that=
 Sandstein worried about, with suggestions going around that anyone who&#39=
;s ever been sanctioned at AE/Digwuren appeal their bans, blocks and sancti=
ons. Wouldn&#39;t it have been better to let the appeal run its course befo=
re embarking on such a unilateral action (which parallels the earlier quick=
 and ad hoc handing out of sanctions, over the head of Shell Kinney who was=
 working on an extensive report)<br>
<br>It seems like there&#39;s a weird polarization going on here; either AL=
L editors get sanctioned, or no editors get sanctioned. Either all appeals =
are just &quot;students questioning their grade&quot; or all appeals must b=
e granted. But there&#39;s no need for that and what gets lost in between t=
he two extremes is just plain commons sense. &#39;&#39;&#39;Some&#39;&#39;&=
#39; editors do need to get sanctioned, while others merely warned. &#39;&#=
39;&#39;Some&#39;&#39;&#39; appeals do need to be heard, while others rejec=
ted as spurious. There needs to be a COST to filing an appeal (which is why=
 I took great care with filing mine) and only appeals with merit should be =
considered (which is why my appeal was based on not just procedural issues =
but also other arguments - though the bureaucratic one is the one that ever=
yone focused on). There might also have to be a &quot;gate keeper&quot; sys=
tem (I nominate Sandstein, who, despite the fact that he didn&#39;t support=
 my appeal and didn&#39;t quite rule the way I wanted to him to in the past=
, I consider a very capable and also neutral admin) - though that&#39;d be =
more of a request for amendment rather than clarification.<br>
<br><br>Too much? Don&#39;t stir more trouble up? Wait to see what happens =
with Shot/BFF?<br><br>Radek<br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2009/7/7 =
Digwuren <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:digwuren@gmail.com">digwur=
en@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span><br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class=3D"gma=
il_quote"><div class=3D"im">On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 20:29, radek szulga <spa=
n dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:rsszulga@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">r=
sszulga@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
*In general this is a legit concern. At the same time appeals need to have =
a chance of succeeding (hence my disagreement with Sandstein on THIS partic=
ular appeal)</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>That&#39;s quite tricky =
a thing.</div>

<div><br></div><div>In real-world courts, the point of the appeal system is=
 to enforce a measure of consistency between many courts staffed with varyi=
ng human beings. =A0But Wikipedia&#39;s sanction mechanism does not require=
 consistence; instead, it&#39;s high on discretion of individual administra=
tors. =A0And with discretion on the high horse, what is the point of allowi=
ng appeals to succeed? =A0It would only reduce the discretionary powers of =
the administrators.</div>

<div><br></div><div>Naturally, it doesn&#39;t matter in the actual on-Wikip=
edia discussion. =A0I&#39;m just pointing out some of the philosophical nua=
nces.</div><div class=3D"im"><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quot=
e" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt =
0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">

*This is part of the reason why I filed my appeal with three arguments - no=
t just the procedural one - this makes my appeal exceptional. Basically to =
their own peril, most admins took the &#39;bureaucratic view&#39; and focus=
ed just on the lack of a warning, procedural, aspect.</blockquote>

<div><br></div></div><div>Standard us versus them sociology. =A0In this cas=
e, the &quot;us&quot; is &quot;good Wikipedians&quot; and the &quot;them&qu=
ot; is &quot;a troublemaker nobody knows&quot;.</div><div class=3D"im"><div=
>
<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid=
 rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
At this point there&#39;s probably no chance in getting the sanctions reins=
tated on Offliner and PU, and probably not Russavia, but it should be possi=
ble to prevent sanctions being removed from BFF and Shot.</blockquote>
<div>
<br></div></div><div>Let&#39;s start by drawing the line between Thatcher&#=
39;s sanctions (which can be depicted as rash and poorly thought of, leadin=
g to Thatcher undoing them himself) and Sandstein&#39;s sanctions (which ar=
en&#39;t rash and poorly thought of). =A0For one, only Thatcher went for th=
e &quot;canary theory&quot;; Sandstein actually considered BFF and Shotland=
iya, one by one.</div>

<div><br></div></div><font color=3D"#888888">-- <br>Andres Soolo<br>
</font><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Wikipedia statistics discussion list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:folks@wikipedometer.net">folks@wikipedometer.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks" target=
=3D"_blank">http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>

--0016e6587a0c84d7cd046e2367ff--


--===============1793473430798243873==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia statistics discussion list
folks@wikipedometer.net
http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks

--===============1793473430798243873==--


