X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Tue Jul  7 19:29:28 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <929ed1ec0907070955g12b898f7i7b9adb461218cc24@mail.gmail.com>
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>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 12:29:12 -0500
Message-ID: <25890ca0907071029i797e4a8eh9ecad7b50b1992dd@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: 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; [...] 
	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]
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	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,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="===============7449680063641972853=="
Mime-version: 1.0
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:  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; [...] 
	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]
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	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

--===============7449680063641972853==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e659f8c80ddc7b046e20f639

--0016e659f8c80ddc7b046e20f639
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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.

Radek

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

> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 16:21, radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> After Thatcher's latest at the Clarification request I think I'm going to
>> skip thanking him. A part of me wants to ask him who's a bigger crybaby, an
>> editor who appeals an unjust sanction, or an administrator who just can't
>> stand to have his rulings and omnipotence questioned? Not gonna, but want
>> to.
>
>
> Those were Thatcher's sanctions.  Offliner is now lobbying to get
> Sandstein's sanctions also lifted.  This includes Shotlandiya and Beatle Fab
> Four.
>
> What will the outcome be?  Nothing else that the EE area will be slightly
> more unstable on Wikipedia: some more administrators will be reluctant to
> get involved in even simple things, and we can only expect more people like
> Jehochman to show up occasionally.
>
> --
> Andres Soolo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia statistics discussion list
> folks@wikipedometer.net
> http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks
>
>

--0016e659f8c80ddc7b046e20f639
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

If this continues then perhaps someone should really complain about Thatche=
r&#39;s behavior - throwing his little hissy fit - somewhere (on the clarif=
ication request, since he commented broadly on the appeal there?) - particu=
larly in light of Sandstein&#39;s comments at my appeal. Something like;<br=
>
<br>*Sandstein was concerned that granting my appeal will reduce the effect=
iveness of AE administrators to enforce the case<br>*In general this is a l=
egit concern. At the same time appeals need to have a chance of succeeding =
(hence my disagreement with Sandstein on THIS particular appeal)<br>
*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.<br>
*Thatcher unilaterally &quot;vacating&quot; his sanctions, without waiting =
for the appeal to finish - perhaps in an attempt to save face - combined wi=
th his subsequent comments about editors being &quot;crybabies&quot; have r=
esulted in exactly the situation that Sandstein was worried about - with Of=
fliner lobbying for Russavia, and now much more problematic users like BFF =
and Shotlandiya. Why didn&#39;t Thatcher just wait till the appeal was fini=
shed? Even it had been decided in my favor, the present situation would&#39=
;ve been avoided and the incentive to file spurious appeals would not have =
been created.<br>
*This is a second instance in the recent past that Thatcher has &quot;short=
-circuited&quot; standard procedures and avenues and acted unilaterally, mo=
re 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 b=
eing quite upstet and probably being the reason for her lack of involvement=
 in all of this (where in fact she&#39;d probably be one of the better qual=
ified admins to participate).<br>
<br>At this point there&#39;s probably no chance in getting the sanctions r=
einstated on Offliner and PU, and probably not Russavia, but it should be p=
ossible to prevent sanctions being removed from BFF and Shot.<br><br>Radek<=
br>
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2009/7/7 Digwuren <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:digwuren@gmail.com">digwuren@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span><br><blo=
ckquote 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"gmail_quote"><div class=3D"im">On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 16:21, =
radek szulga <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:rsszulga@gmail.com" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">rsszulga@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); marg=
in: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">

After Thatcher&#39;s latest at the Clarification request I think I&#39;m go=
ing to skip thanking him. A part of me wants to ask him who&#39;s a bigger =
crybaby, an editor who appeals an unjust sanction, or an administrator who =
just can&#39;t stand to have his rulings and omnipotence questioned? Not go=
nna, but want to.</blockquote>

<div><br></div></div><div>Those were Thatcher&#39;s sanctions. =A0Offliner =
is now lobbying to get Sandstein&#39;s sanctions also lifted. =A0This inclu=
des Shotlandiya and Beatle Fab Four.</div><div><br></div><div>What will the=
 outcome be? =A0Nothing else that the EE area will be slightly more unstabl=
e on Wikipedia: some more administrators will be reluctant to get involved =
in even simple things, and we can only expect more people like Jehochman to=
 show up occasionally.</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>

--0016e659f8c80ddc7b046e20f639--


--===============7449680063641972853==
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

--===============7449680063641972853==--


