X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Thu Jul  2 14:36:34 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4A4C3798.1080006@post.pl>
References: <25890ca0906281732s3836a51i757b5568dd328d63@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0906300826w3d2e7055k36965f3a3ed4729e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A4A8840.8040803@post.pl>
	<25890ca0906301452q70e09962v271a9b21198f06ad@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3b2b3db0906301558l3dd6f4b9p3f901958325e637a@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0906301642qa1b9a47ncd8a4c76dfb74e1a@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A4AC42E.9080204@post.pl>
	<c3b2b3db0906301929o30d77c9bi2b9114bf6be20c3c@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3b2b3db0907011244l6efbb29wf0ea850c623211cf@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A4C3798.1080006@post.pl>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:36:18 -0400
Message-ID: <c3b2b3db0907020536u5cae907ex36ca309bf64cdad@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrei Dombay <wikibiophys@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: -0.5
X-Spam_score_int: -4
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 it is:
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions
	"an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not
	engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the
	user receiving sanctions." [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.5 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
	0.4 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=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] Appeal at AE (was: Let's give Thatcher some breathing
	space)
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="===============2814176332555764783=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -0.5
X-Spam_score_int: -4
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 it is:
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions
	"an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not
	engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the
	user receiving sanctions." [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.5 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
	0.4 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

--===============2814176332555764783==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00163645805a50684b046db84914

--00163645805a50684b046db84914
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions

"an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not
engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user
receiving sanctions."

You, Deacon, or Alex certainly qualify as such.

There is a difference between an appeal (challenging an administrative
sanction), and request for clarification - something to facilitate work of
administrators at AE.  I could file it, but this  should be better done by
someone else.


On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl> wrote:

> Andrei Dombay wrote:
> > I suggest that someone should  file a clarification request to ArbCom to
> > clarify several confusing issues that already caused problems at AE
> > (let's help AE administrators and user . The questions:
> >
> > (1) Uninvolved administrators. According to current definition, people
> > like Piotrus, Alex_Bakharev and Deacon would certainly qualify. Please
> > reconfirm this or change the definition of uninvolved administrators. If
> > these admins do not qualify, one could dispute Jehochman and some others
> > as well.
>
> What definition? I can't find one, and that's a big part of the problem.
> Currently, being involved or not depends on the PERCEPTION of the person
> making the comment.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Definition_of_an_.28un.29involved_admin
>
> > (2) Warnings. Should the users receive an official warning (logged in
> > the case), then be given some time to improve, and sanctioned if that
> > does not happen, as stipulated in the Arbcom decision?  This issue was
> > first raised by Grandmestein at AE (see his appeal), and now there is a
> > confusion about Thatcher's sanctions (I asked him a couple of questions
> > at talk page to clarify his opinion).
>
> Thathcher first warned editors... than restricted them further
> ~hours/day later - this seems like gaming the system. And he never
> warned Radek - actually Radek is still not mentions in the DIGWUREN log
> for warned people...
>
> > (3) Edit warring. If someone limit himself to 1RR per article per day
> > AND participate in discussion,  can he be safe from sanctions for "edit
> > warring"? Last sanctions by T. show that no one is safe. Let's place
> > some reasonable safeguards.
>
> Indeed. Once we start restricting people that revert 3 times in two
> weeks, this is a free season for anyone. This is why 3RR rules was
> created; and edit warring should be clearly defined as well. Leaving it
> to arbitrary admin's decisions creates chaos and unfair treatment of
> editors depending on what admins looks at them and in what mood is he
> that day...
>
> > (4) Tag-teams mentioned by T in his official 1RR restriction message.
> > Should the idea of collective responsibility ever be used by
> > administrators? (several users treayed as one, as Deacon said). The
> > tag-team is a controversial concept, which was not supported by ArbCom
> > in the last EE case. A group of editors may indeed revert someone who
> > fights against  consensus. A tag-team?
>
> Exactly. EE Arbcom specifically noted that there is no conclusive
> evidence about existence of those tag teams. So I think it is pretty
> clear that admins should not impose sanctions "per sides", and thus T
> went against the ArbCom wisdom / intents. Collective responsibility =
> collateral damage.
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>

--00163645805a50684b046db84914
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Here it is: <br><a href=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_=
for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions">http://en.wikipedia.org/w=
iki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions</a>=
<br>
<br>&quot;an administrator will be considered &quot;uninvolved&quot; if he =
or she is not
engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the
user receiving sanctions.&quot;<br><br>You, Deacon, or Alex certainly quali=
fy as such.<br><br>There is a difference between an appeal (challenging an =
administrative sanction), and request for clarification - something to faci=
litate work of administrators at AE.=A0 I could file it, but this=A0 should=
 be better done by someone else. <br>
<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Piotr K=
onieczny <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;piokon@post.pl&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockqu=
ote 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"im">Andrei Dombay wrote:<br>
&gt; I suggest that someone should =A0file a clarification request to ArbCo=
m to<br>
&gt; clarify several confusing issues that already caused problems at AE<br=
>
&gt; (let&#39;s help AE administrators and user . The questions:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; (1) Uninvolved administrators. According to current definition, people=
<br>
&gt; like Piotrus, Alex_Bakharev and Deacon would certainly qualify. Please=
<br>
&gt; reconfirm this or change the definition of uninvolved administrators. =
If<br>
&gt; these admins do not qualify, one could dispute Jehochman and some othe=
rs<br>
&gt; as well.<br>
<br>
</div>What definition? I can&#39;t find one, and that&#39;s a big part of t=
he problem.<br>
Currently, being involved or not depends on the PERCEPTION of the person<br=
>
making the comment.<br>
<a href=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests=
#Definition_of_an_.28un.29involved_admin" target=3D"_blank">http://en.wikip=
edia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Definition_of_an_.28un.29=
involved_admin</a><br>

<div class=3D"im"><br>
&gt; (2) Warnings. Should the users receive an official warning (logged in<=
br>
&gt; the case), then be given some time to improve, and sanctioned if that<=
br>
&gt; does not happen, as stipulated in the Arbcom decision? =A0This issue w=
as<br>
&gt; first raised by Grandmestein at AE (see his appeal), and now there is =
a<br>
&gt; confusion about Thatcher&#39;s sanctions (I asked him a couple of ques=
tions<br>
&gt; at talk page to clarify his opinion).<br>
<br>
</div>Thathcher first warned editors... than restricted them further<br>
~hours/day later - this seems like gaming the system. And he never<br>
warned Radek - actually Radek is still not mentions in the DIGWUREN log<br>
for warned people...<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
&gt; (3) Edit warring. If someone limit himself to 1RR per article per day<=
br>
&gt; AND participate in discussion, =A0can he be safe from sanctions for &q=
uot;edit<br>
&gt; warring&quot;? Last sanctions by T. show that no one is safe. Let&#39;=
s place<br>
&gt; some reasonable safeguards.<br>
<br>
</div>Indeed. Once we start restricting people that revert 3 times in two<b=
r>
weeks, this is a free season for anyone. This is why 3RR rules was<br>
created; and edit warring should be clearly defined as well. Leaving it<br>
to arbitrary admin&#39;s decisions creates chaos and unfair treatment of<br=
>
editors depending on what admins looks at them and in what mood is he<br>
that day...<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
&gt; (4) Tag-teams mentioned by T in his official 1RR restriction message.<=
br>
&gt; Should the idea of collective responsibility ever be used by<br>
&gt; administrators? (several users treayed as one, as Deacon said). The<br=
>
&gt; tag-team is a controversial concept, which was not supported by ArbCom=
<br>
&gt; in the last EE case. A group of editors may indeed revert someone who<=
br>
&gt; fights against =A0consensus. A tag-team?<br>
<br>
</div>Exactly. EE Arbcom specifically noted that there is no conclusive<br>
evidence about existence of those tag teams. So I think it is pretty<br>
clear that admins should not impose sanctions &quot;per sides&quot;, and th=
us T<br>
went against the ArbCom wisdom / intents. Collective responsibility =3D<br>
collateral damage.<br>
<font color=3D"#888888"><br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class=3D"h5">Piotr Konieczny<br>
<br>
&quot;The problem about Wikipedia is, that it just works in reality, not in=
<br>
theory.&quot;<br>
<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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>

--00163645805a50684b046db84914--


--===============2814176332555764783==
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

--===============2814176332555764783==--


