X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Fri Feb  6 20:12:34 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
Message-ID: <498C8BC2.4080708@post.pl>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:13:06 -0500
From: Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.8.1.17) Gecko/20080829 MultiZilla/1.8.3.4e SeaMonkey/1.1.12
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
References: <498B34BB.8030309@post.pl>	<6c9a05ec0902060407u3a10e23tb29caea71d749963@mail.gmail.com>
	<f826636f0902060815l52f3be7l46d6c58da122da12@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f826636f0902060815l52f3be7l46d6c58da122da12@mail.gmail.com>
X-Spam_score: -2.2
X-Spam_score_int: -21
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:  Dorin Cheptea wrote: > Piotrus, > > You have now all 4
	arbitrators that commented so far, in your favour, so > the issue should
	settle all right. There is only one thing they softly > critisize: you
	should not have closed a 3RR report on an article you > have 300+
	edits.
	This is, for example, more than the number of edits on > my top article,
	so perhaps you shouldn't have there, but instead you > should have asked
	an admin among us to do it. Which brings me to the > main question:
	what
	other admins besides you are here? We should do > something about it.
	[...] Content analysis details:   (-2.2 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO       Received: contains a forged HELO
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.3 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-deb (2006-10-05) on 
	pakkun.mirky.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] An AE thread involving me
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-Archive: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/private/folks>
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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -2.2
X-Spam_score_int: -21
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:  Dorin Cheptea wrote: > Piotrus, > > You have now all 4
	arbitrators that commented so far, in your favour, so > the issue should
	settle all right. There is only one thing they softly > critisize: you
	should not have closed a 3RR report on an article you > have 300+ edits.
	This is, for example, more than the number of edits on > my top article,
	so perhaps you shouldn't have there, but instead you > should have asked
	an admin among us to do it. Which brings me to the > main question: what
	other admins besides you are here? We should do > something about it.
	[...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.2 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO       Received: contains a forged HELO
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.2 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

Dorin Cheptea wrote:
> Piotrus,
>  
> You have now all 4 arbitrators that commented so far, in your favour, so 
> the issue should settle all right. There is only one thing they softly 
> critisize: you should not have closed a 3RR report on an article you 
> have 300+ edits. This is, for example, more than the number of edits on 
> my top article, so perhaps you shouldn't have there, but instead you 
> should have asked an admin among us to do it. Which brings me to the 
> main question: what other admins besides you are here? We should do 
> something about it.

Unfortunately, as far as I know, none. There are no admins I trust 
completely other then Darwinek, and during the last arbcom he has stated 
that he is afraid to lose his adminship again and will not help me 
further. Which is why I occasionally try to get help on admin-IRC, with 
little effects :(

> Also, try in your replies to mention negatively Deacon rather than the 
> whole mixture of Deacon and Lithuanians. You should show at least 
> formally eagerness to reach out to Lithuanians. I do not imagine you 
> getting on friendly terms with Deacon, but in some future I think you 
> should colaborate well with at least one-two Lithuanians. Look for 
> example at _Novickas_ 's reply: I read into it quite a degree of 
> frustration to be associated to the Soviet team. Don't get me wrong: 
> M.K. 's actions that I saw (as few as I had the pacience to read) were 
> clearly in bad faith, and I can imagine other Lithuanians are provoked 
> by M.K.'s involvement to defend a "Lithuanian side of the story". This 
> is pure diplomacy. We all should try to single out M.K. and Deacon, and 
> not mention Lithuanians in general even when they are factually wrong. 
> So that other Lithuanians start feeling the pressure to reach out to us 
> and to dissociate from M.K. (and Deacon). I am not saying to invite 
> Lithuanians in the forseeable future, but simply to drive a wedge 
> between the most radical and the abstract Lithuanian user. The abstract 
> Lithuanian user should feel that the origin of the problems lies in 
> their ranks (M.K. and association with team USSR). Associations built on 
> ethnic groups are very strong. The success of Piotrus2 case was in part 
> based on the fact that we stressed that there is a Soviet lobby (we 
> never said Russian, moreover we had a couple Russians on our side). 
> IMHO, the same strategy should work with Lithuanians. You cannot expect 
> the average modern Russian be very anti-Soviet, but you can expects a 
> sizable fraction (20%?) to be. I wouldn't worry about Germans and Jews: 
> you will never have all or even most of them against you. (Plus you and 
> we all have a lot friends among Germans and Jews.) The most serious 
> danger, IMHO, lies strangely in the smallest group: Lithuanian. Even 
> when you are 100% right and they are 100% wrong, do whatever possible 
> not to say (even if non-explicitely) something against them as a group.

I agree on principle, but in reality, I tried that and failed. There are 
very few active Lithuanian editors (that are involved in those issues). 
Currently, there is MK, Novickas (who seems more refined but shares MK 
prejudices, and loves to stick anti-Polish quotes in articles), and 
admin Renata, who while in private email to me once disassociated 
herself from MK, she also reputedly told Halibutt that "seeing Polish 
spelling Wilno for Vilnius breaks her heart and makes her cry", and who 
publicly prefers to criticize me and defend her Lithuanian compatriots 
(see her statement in last arbcom for example; that said, she never lets 
her biases go into article content, and I respect her as a neutral 
content creator).

And thanks heaven Lokyz is so far inactive...

In the past, I tried to reach out to Lithuanians 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lithuania/Conflict_resolution) 
and was shot down. They chased Halibutt off wiki. While their numbers 
are dwindling, I don't see a single person among them who is willing to 
breach the gap.

So yes, I'll try to make sure I don't speak of "Lithuanians" in general 
(no need to force them into their own cabal, assuming it doesn't exist), 
but other then that, until new, reasonable Lithuanian editors appear, I 
don't know what I could to to improve the wiki Polish-Lithuanian 
relations :( There is simply nobody on their side to work with :(


-- 
Piotr Konieczny

"The problem about Wikipedia is, that it just works in reality, not in 
theory."

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

