X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Wed Jul  8 00:23:22 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
Message-ID: <4A53CAC3.4010702@post.pl>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:22:59 -0400
From: Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090303 MultiZilla/1.8.3.4e SeaMonkey/1.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
References: <25890ca0907031517taba84aaodd143d82c724e8db@mail.gmail.com>	<929ed1ec0907061547r48b175adk91f8f9cc8fc69339@mail.gmail.com>	<4A5282D8.5000604@post.pl>	<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>
In-Reply-To: <25890ca0907071029i797e4a8eh9ecad7b50b1992dd@mail.gmail.com>
X-Spam_score: -2.4
X-Spam_score_int: -23
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: radek szulga wrote: > If this continues then perhaps
	someone should really complain about > Thatcher's behavior - throwing
	his little hissy fit - somewhere (on the > clarification request, since
	he commented broadly on the appeal there?) > - particularly in light of
	Sandstein's comments at my appeal. Something > like; > > *Sandstein was
	concerned that granting my appeal will reduce the > effectiveness of AE
	administrators to enforce the case > *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) >
	*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. >
	*Thatcher unilaterally "vacating" his sanctions, without waiting for the
	> appeal to finish - perhaps in an attempt to save face - combined with
	> his subsequent comments about editors being "crybabies" have resulted
	in > exactly the situation that Sandstein was worried about - with
	Offliner > lobbying for Russavia, and now much more problematic users
	like BFF and > Shotlandiya. Why didn't Thatcher just wait till the
	appeal was finished? > Even it had been decided in my favor, the present
	situation would've > been avoided and the incentive to file spurious
	appeals would not have > been created. > *This is a second instance in
	the recent past that Thatcher has > "short-circuited" standard
	procedures and avenues and acted > unilaterally, more or less cutting
	other admins out of the the decision > making process. The first time
	was going over the head of Shell Kinney > which resulted in her being
	quite upstet and probably being the reason > for her lack of
	involvement
	in all of this (where in fact she'd probably > be one of the better
	qualified admins to participate). > > At this point there's probably no
	chance in getting the sanctions [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.4 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]
	0.1 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=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=unavailable 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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -2.4
X-Spam_score_int: -23
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:  radek szulga wrote: > If this continues then perhaps
	someone should really complain about > Thatcher's behavior - throwing
	his little hissy fit - somewhere (on the > clarification request, since
	he commented broadly on the appeal there?) > - particularly in light of
	Sandstein's comments at my appeal. Something > like; > > *Sandstein was
	concerned that granting my appeal will reduce the > effectiveness of AE
	administrators to enforce the case > *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) >
	*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. >
	*Thatcher unilaterally "vacating" his sanctions, without waiting for the
	> appeal to finish - perhaps in an attempt to save face - combined with
	> his subsequent comments about editors being "crybabies" have resulted
	in > exactly the situation that Sandstein was worried about - with
	Offliner > lobbying for Russavia, and now much more problematic users
	like BFF and > Shotlandiya. Why didn't Thatcher just wait till the
	appeal was finished? > Even it had been decided in my favor, the present
	situation would've > been avoided and the incentive to file spurious
	appeals would not have > been created. > *This is a second instance in
	the recent past that Thatcher has > "short-circuited" standard
	procedures and avenues and acted > unilaterally, more or less cutting
	other admins out of the the decision > making process. The first time
	was going over the head of Shell Kinney > which resulted in her being
	quite upstet and probably being the reason > for her lack of involvement
	in all of this (where in fact she'd probably > be one of the better
	qualified admins to participate). > > At this point there's probably no
	chance in getting the sanctions [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.4 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]
	0.1 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

radek szulga wrote:
> If this continues then perhaps someone should really complain about 
> Thatcher's behavior - throwing his little hissy fit - somewhere (on the 
> clarification request, since he commented broadly on the appeal there?) 
> - particularly in light of Sandstein's comments at my appeal. Something 
> like;
> 
> *Sandstein was concerned that granting my appeal will reduce the 
> effectiveness of AE administrators to enforce the case
> *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)
> *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.
> *Thatcher unilaterally "vacating" his sanctions, without waiting for the 
> appeal to finish - perhaps in an attempt to save face - combined with 
> his subsequent comments about editors being "crybabies" have resulted in 
> exactly the situation that Sandstein was worried about - with Offliner 
> lobbying for Russavia, and now much more problematic users like BFF and 
> Shotlandiya. Why didn't Thatcher just wait till the appeal was finished? 
> Even it had been decided in my favor, the present situation would've 
> been avoided and the incentive to file spurious appeals would not have 
> been created.
> *This is a second instance in the recent past that Thatcher has 
> "short-circuited" standard procedures and avenues and acted 
> unilaterally, more or less cutting other admins out of the the decision 
> making process. The first time was going over the head of Shell Kinney 
> which resulted in her being quite upstet and probably being the reason 
> for her lack of involvement in all of this (where in fact she'd probably 
> be one of the better qualified admins to participate).
> 
> 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.

I'd suggest sending this, in a slightly redacted form (less advocacy for 
"our side") to Kirill. You can phrase it more or less along the lines 
above - that Thatcher fit is undermining a lot of good she has done...

-- 
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

