X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Mon Jun 22 00:11:49 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <929ed1ec0906211507t40b06546n96fa2e485f48ec5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A3E9C6F.4040704@post.pl>
	<929ed1ec0906211401s5b6f5011hc6c5073933981872@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A3EA461.2050208@post.pl>
	<25890ca0906211423x2123ead9v1da04a5fa7e3242c@mail.gmail.com>
	<929ed1ec0906211428y5ea28c88wafdde68863c6a2bd@mail.gmail.com>
	<929ed1ec0906211430n74ede828t87898697dbadcaa0@mail.gmail.com>
	<929ed1ec0906211432i395bb0d1v4ace9d2f4da52cc4@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0906211438u405219b9se5a775761f8b8a7e@mail.gmail.com>
	<929ed1ec0906211441w1782cb63x753f942d98d167bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<929ed1ec0906211507t40b06546n96fa2e485f48ec5@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:11:37 -0500
Message-ID: <25890ca0906211511v542ad8dj252f7043e6eb1bb8@mail.gmail.com>
From: radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: -0.8
X-Spam_score_int: -7
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: Here's the text I wrote up for AGK's talk page but it
	can be easily adopted for Tiptoety or another admin's (appropriate
	venue?): "Hi, and sorry to trouble you again with this topic. Recently I
	filed the case on Deacon of Pndapetzim at AE
	[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=295193286]
	to basically established that he was not an "uninvolved" administrator
	for Eastern European disputes. It seems the same issue has arisen again
	in relation to the admin Piotrus and Baltics-related disputes (the case
	known as "Digwuren"). I'll freely admit here that since getting drawn
	into some of this drama I've put several editors talk pages on my
	watchlist. Recently, admin Jehochman posted this "warning"
	[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Piotrus&diff=next&oldid=297787433]
	on Piotrus' talk page, warning Piotrus "not to comment" and threatening
	to "ban him". A few edits later, perhaps realizing he's gone too far,
	Jehochman re-edited his comment to a friendly sounding piece of
	"advice"
	[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Piotrus&diff=next&oldid=297788006]
	(which to me looks like a mafia tactic of making a threat then quickly
	following it up with "but I'm just kidding, we're all friends here" for
	disclaimer purposes). My question is - who gets to decide whether an
	admin is "involved" or "uninvolved" in these cases? By filing the
	Deacon
	case with AE I thought I was following formal Wiki procedures and
	guidelines and going through the appropriate channels - if an admin is
	"involved" there should be a statement to that affect made by either
	consensus or an AE ruling. However, here it seems like any admin can
	usurp the authority to declare another admin "involved" and threaten
	them with bans from the relevant discussions. This is beyond and above
	the fact that these kinds of threats assume bad faith and border on
	incivility. Once again, I apologize if this isn't the appropriate venue
	for my question - is this something that should be brought up at ANI? -
	but I still get lost in all the bureaucracy of Wikipedia. Thank you for
	your time.~~~~" [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.8 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.1 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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST autolearn=no version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] Jehochmann and Piotrus
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: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -0.8
X-Spam_score_int: -7
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:  Here's the text I wrote up for AGK's talk page but it
	can be easily adopted for Tiptoety or another admin's (appropriate
	venue?): "Hi, and sorry to trouble you again with this topic. Recently I
	filed the case on Deacon of Pndapetzim at AE
	[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=295193286]
	to basically established that he was not an "uninvolved" administrator
	for Eastern European disputes. It seems the same issue has arisen again
	in relation to the admin Piotrus and Baltics-related disputes (the case
	known as "Digwuren"). I'll freely admit here that since getting drawn
	into some of this drama I've put several editors talk pages on my
	watchlist. Recently, admin Jehochman posted this "warning"
	[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Piotrus&diff=next&oldid=297787433]
	on Piotrus' talk page, warning Piotrus "not to comment" and threatening
	to "ban him". A few edits later, perhaps realizing he's gone too far,
	Jehochman re-edited his comment to a friendly sounding piece of "advice"
	[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Piotrus&diff=next&oldid=297788006]
	(which to me looks like a mafia tactic of making a threat then quickly
	following it up with "but I'm just kidding, we're all friends here" for
	disclaimer purposes). My question is - who gets to decide whether an
	admin is "involved" or "uninvolved" in these cases? By filing the Deacon
	case with AE I thought I was following formal Wiki procedures and
	guidelines and going through the appropriate channels - if an admin is
	"involved" there should be a statement to that affect made by either
	consensus or an AE ruling. However, here it seems like any admin can
	usurp the authority to declare another admin "involved" and threaten
	them with bans from the relevant discussions. This is beyond and above
	the fact that these kinds of threats assume bad faith and border on
	incivility. Once again, I apologize if this isn't the appropriate venue
	for my question - is this something that should be brought up at ANI? -
	but I still get lost in all the bureaucracy of Wikipedia. Thank you for
	your time.~~~~" [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.8 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.1 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

Here's the text  I wrote up for  AGK's  talk page but it can be easily
adopted for Tiptoety or another admin's (appropriate venue?):

"Hi, and sorry to trouble you again with this topic. Recently I filed
the case on Deacon of Pndapetzim at AE
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests=
/Enforcement&diff=3Dprev&oldid=3D295193286]
to basically established that he was not an "uninvolved" administrator
for Eastern European disputes. It seems the same issue has arisen
again in relation to the admin Piotrus and Baltics-related disputes
(the case known as "Digwuren"). I'll freely admit here that since
getting drawn into some of this drama I've put several editors talk
pages on my watchlist. Recently, admin Jehochman posted this "warning"
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DUser_talk:Piotrus&diff=3Dnext&=
oldid=3D297787433]
on Piotrus' talk page, warning Piotrus "not to comment" and
threatening to "ban him". A few edits later, perhaps realizing he's
gone too far, Jehochman re-edited his comment to a friendly sounding
piece of "advice"
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DUser_talk:Piotrus&diff=3Dnext&=
oldid=3D297788006]
(which to me looks like a mafia tactic of making a threat then quickly
following it up with "but I'm just kidding, we're all friends here"
for disclaimer purposes). My question is - who gets to decide whether
an admin is "involved" or "uninvolved" in these cases? By filing the
Deacon case with AE I thought I was following formal Wiki procedures
and guidelines and going through the appropriate channels - if an
admin is "involved" there should be a statement to that affect made by
either consensus or an AE ruling. However, here it seems like any
admin can usurp the authority to declare another admin "involved" and
threaten them with bans from the relevant discussions. This is beyond
and above the fact that these kinds of threats assume bad faith and
border on incivility. Once again, I apologize if this isn't the
appropriate venue for my question - is this something that should be
brought up at ANI? - but I still get lost in all the bureaucracy of
Wikipedia. Thank you for your time.~~~~"


2009/6/21 Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 00:41, Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well, Biophys just mentioned one of the movings on Piotrus' talkpage, so
>> it stands to reason that after a while, you'd go and watch it. =A0And th=
en,
>> you'd know. =A0But still, getting admins to look into Jehochman's powerg=
rab
>> seems to have higher priority.
>
> In his relentless quest to antagonise everybody, Jehochman has just
> proceeded to threaten Biophys with a ban when Biophys pointed out that
> Piotrus is uninvolved:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DUser_talk:Piotrus&diff=3Dpre=
v&oldid=3D297800117>
> --
> Andres Soolo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia statistics discussion list
> folks@wikipedometer.net
> http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks
>
>

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

