X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Tue Jul  7 22:40:40 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <25890ca0907071324o77afa88ar3bc19ef4c8ad23f3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <25890ca0907031517taba84aaodd143d82c724e8db@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>
	<929ed1ec0907071257x75de5276xcdbe0eb2fbfe7147@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0907071324o77afa88ar3bc19ef4c8ad23f3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 16:40:25 -0400
Message-ID: <c3b2b3db0907071340k5b87cce3yb97f79e873b8a364@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrei Dombay <wikibiophys@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: -0.6
X-Spam_score_int: -5
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:  I suggest that we leave Thatcher and all other
	administrators alone and wait till the end of comments by arbitrators
	on
	the clarification request. Based on last comment by Bainer, it is likely
	that everyone's sanctions will be lifted. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.6 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
	0.3 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=-0.6 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="===============8301760743291041749=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -0.6
X-Spam_score_int: -5
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:  I suggest that we leave Thatcher and all other
	administrators alone and wait till the end of comments by arbitrators on
	the clarification request. Based on last comment by Bainer, it is likely
	that everyone's sanctions will be lifted. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.6 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
	0.3 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

--===============8301760743291041749==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d59e1fe82921046e23a119

--0016e6d59e1fe82921046e23a119
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I suggest that we leave Thatcher and all other administrators alone and wait
till the end of comments by arbitrators on the clarification request. Based
on last comment by Bainer, it is likely that everyone's sanctions will be
lifted.



On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:24 PM, radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote:

> How about something like this for a comment:
>
> ;Comment for Igny (and Thatcher)
>
> Ok, first, Wikipedia isn't a classroom and editors aren't "students" and
> administrators aren't "teachers" - I sincerely hope that things haven't
> gotten to the point where the accepted view of the editor-admin relationship
> is the same, in terms of power etc., as between scolding teachers and
> pupils.
>
> Second, quite simply, the Digwuren case specifically allows for the
> possibility of an appeal. Presumably this possibility of an appeal isn't
> just there to decorate the Case Page. It could actually be used once in
> awhile! My appeal was suggested by Thatcher himself as well as by other
> admins, and endorsed by a few as well.
>
> Having said that, I was 100% sincere in my reply to Sandstein [
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AE#Remedy_proposed_by_Radeksz_in_place_of_sanction]
> that the right to appeal needs to be balanced against "the ability for an
> effective enforcement of the arbitration case". In fact it appears to me
> (and others may very well disagree) that Thatcher's subsequent action of
> "vacating" his restriction on everyone he sanctioned has created exactly the
> situation that Sandstein worried about, with suggestions going around that
> anyone who's ever been sanctioned at AE/Digwuren appeal their bans, blocks
> and sanctions. Wouldn't it have been better to let the appeal run its course
> before embarking on such a unilateral action (which parallels the earlier
> quick and ad hoc handing out of sanctions, over the head of Shell Kinney who
> was working on an extensive report)
>
> It seems like there's a weird polarization going on here; either ALL
> editors get sanctioned, or no editors get sanctioned. Either all appeals are
> just "students questioning their grade" or all appeals must be granted. But
> there's no need for that and what gets lost in between the two extremes is
> just plain commons sense. '''Some''' editors do need to get sanctioned,
> while others merely warned. '''Some''' appeals do need to be heard, while
> others rejected as spurious. There needs to be a COST to filing an appeal
> (which is why I took great care with filing mine) and only appeals with
> merit should be considered (which is why my appeal was based on not just
> procedural issues but also other arguments - though the bureaucratic one is
> the one that everyone focused on). There might also have to be a "gate
> keeper" system (I nominate Sandstein, who, despite the fact that he didn't
> support my appeal and didn't quite rule the way I wanted to him to in the
> past, I consider a very capable and also neutral admin) - though that'd be
> more of a request for amendment rather than clarification.
>
>
> Too much? Don't stir more trouble up? Wait to see what happens with
> Shot/BFF?
>
> Radek
>
>
> 2009/7/7 Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com>
>
>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 20:29, radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  *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)
>>
>>
>> That's quite tricky a thing.
>>
>> In real-world courts, the point of the appeal system is to enforce a
>> measure of consistency between many courts staffed with varying human
>> beings.  But Wikipedia's sanction mechanism does not require consistence;
>> instead, it's high on discretion of individual administrators.  And with
>> discretion on the high horse, what is the point of allowing appeals to
>> succeed?  It would only reduce the discretionary powers of the
>> administrators.
>>
>> Naturally, it doesn't matter in the actual on-Wikipedia discussion.  I'm
>> just pointing out some of the philosophical nuances.
>>
>> *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.
>>
>>
>> Standard us versus them sociology.  In this case, the "us" is "good
>> Wikipedians" and the "them" is "a troublemaker nobody knows".
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Let's start by drawing the line between Thatcher's sanctions (which can be
>> depicted as rash and poorly thought of, leading to Thatcher undoing them
>> himself) and Sandstein's sanctions (which aren't rash and poorly thought
>> of).  For one, only Thatcher went for the "canary theory"; Sandstein
>> actually considered BFF and Shotlandiya, one by one.
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
>

--0016e6d59e1fe82921046e23a119
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I suggest that we leave Thatcher and all other administrators alone and wai=
t till the end of comments by arbitrators on the clarification request. Bas=
ed on last comment by Bainer, it is likely that everyone&#39;s sanctions wi=
ll be lifted.<br>
<br>=A0 <br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:24 PM, =
radek szulga <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:rsszulga@gmail.com">rs=
szulga@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"=
 style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.=
8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
How about something like this for a comment:<br><br>;Comment for Igny (and =
Thatcher)<br><br>Ok, first, Wikipedia isn&#39;t a classroom and editors are=
n&#39;t &quot;students&quot; and administrators aren&#39;t &quot;teachers&q=
uot; - I sincerely hope that things haven&#39;t gotten to the point where t=
he accepted view of the editor-admin relationship is the same, in terms of =
power etc., as between scolding teachers and pupils.<br>

<br>Second, quite simply, the Digwuren case specifically allows for the pos=
sibility of an appeal. Presumably this possibility of an appeal isn&#39;t j=
ust there to decorate the Case Page. It could actually be used once in awhi=
le! My appeal was suggested by Thatcher himself as well as by other admins,=
 and endorsed by a few as well.<br>

<br>Having said that, I was 100% sincere in my reply to Sandstein [<a href=
=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AE#Remedy_proposed_by_Radeksz_in=
_place_of_sanction" target=3D"_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedi=
a:AE#Remedy_proposed_by_Radeksz_in_place_of_sanction</a>] that the right to=
 appeal needs to be balanced against &quot;the ability for an effective enf=
orcement of the arbitration case&quot;. In fact it appears to me (and other=
s may very well disagree) that Thatcher&#39;s subsequent action of &quot;va=
cating&quot; his restriction on everyone he sanctioned has created exactly =
the situation that Sandstein worried about, with suggestions going around t=
hat anyone who&#39;s ever been sanctioned at AE/Digwuren appeal their bans,=
 blocks and sanctions. Wouldn&#39;t it have been better to let the appeal r=
un its course before embarking on such a unilateral action (which parallels=
 the earlier quick and ad hoc handing out of sanctions, over the head of Sh=
ell Kinney who was working on an extensive report)<br>

<br>It seems like there&#39;s a weird polarization going on here; either AL=
L editors get sanctioned, or no editors get sanctioned. Either all appeals =
are just &quot;students questioning their grade&quot; or all appeals must b=
e granted. But there&#39;s no need for that and what gets lost in between t=
he two extremes is just plain commons sense. &#39;&#39;&#39;Some&#39;&#39;&=
#39; editors do need to get sanctioned, while others merely warned. &#39;&#=
39;&#39;Some&#39;&#39;&#39; appeals do need to be heard, while others rejec=
ted as spurious. There needs to be a COST to filing an appeal (which is why=
 I took great care with filing mine) and only appeals with merit should be =
considered (which is why my appeal was based on not just procedural issues =
but also other arguments - though the bureaucratic one is the one that ever=
yone focused on). There might also have to be a &quot;gate keeper&quot; sys=
tem (I nominate Sandstein, who, despite the fact that he didn&#39;t support=
 my appeal and didn&#39;t quite rule the way I wanted to him to in the past=
, I consider a very capable and also neutral admin) - though that&#39;d be =
more of a request for amendment rather than clarification.<br>

<br><br>Too much? Don&#39;t stir more trouble up? Wait to see what happens =
with Shot/BFF?<br><br>Radek<br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div clas=
s=3D"im">2009/7/7 Digwuren <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:digwuren=
@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">digwuren@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span><br>

</div><blockquote 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>On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 20:29, radek szulga <span dir=
=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:rsszulga@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">rsszul=
ga@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<div>
<div></div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
*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 partic=
ular appeal)</blockquote><div><br></div></div></div></div><div><div></div>
<div class=3D"h5"><div>That&#39;s quite tricky a thing.</div>

<div><br></div><div>In real-world courts, the point of the appeal system is=
 to enforce a measure of consistency between many courts staffed with varyi=
ng human beings. =A0But Wikipedia&#39;s sanction mechanism does not require=
 consistence; instead, it&#39;s high on discretion of individual administra=
tors. =A0And with discretion on the high horse, what is the point of allowi=
ng appeals to succeed? =A0It would only reduce the discretionary powers of =
the administrators.</div>


<div><br></div><div>Naturally, it doesn&#39;t matter in the actual on-Wikip=
edia discussion. =A0I&#39;m just pointing out some of the philosophical nua=
nces.</div><div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"b=
order-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; paddin=
g-left: 1ex;">


*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.</blockquote>


<div><br></div></div><div>Standard us versus them sociology. =A0In this cas=
e, the &quot;us&quot; is &quot;good Wikipedians&quot; and the &quot;them&qu=
ot; is &quot;a troublemaker nobody knows&quot;.</div><div><div>
<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid=
 rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
At this point there&#39;s probably no chance in getting the sanctions reins=
tated on Offliner and PU, and probably not Russavia, but it should be possi=
ble to prevent sanctions being removed from BFF and Shot.</blockquote>

<div>
<br></div></div><div>Let&#39;s start by drawing the line between Thatcher&#=
39;s sanctions (which can be depicted as rash and poorly thought of, leadin=
g to Thatcher undoing them himself) and Sandstein&#39;s sanctions (which ar=
en&#39;t rash and poorly thought of). =A0For one, only Thatcher went for th=
e &quot;canary theory&quot;; Sandstein actually considered BFF and Shotland=
iya, one by one.</div>


<div><br></div></div></div></div><font color=3D"#888888">-- <br>Andres Sool=
o<br>
</font><br><div class=3D"im">______________________________________________=
_<br>
Wikipedia statistics discussion list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:folks@wikipedometer.net" target=3D"_blank">folks@wikipedo=
meter.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></div></blockquote></div><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>
<br></blockquote></div><br>

--0016e6d59e1fe82921046e23a119--


--===============8301760743291041749==
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

--===============8301760743291041749==--


