X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Mon Jun 29 04:03:05 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <25890ca0906281732s3836a51i757b5568dd328d63@mail.gmail.com>
References: <25890ca0906281732s3836a51i757b5568dd328d63@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:02:44 +1000
Message-ID: <4f045a880906281902n56be257ao44cc951550f8b1e9@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin <martint20@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: -0.4
X-Spam_score_int: -3
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 thought your restriction was six months? Anyway, I'd
	appeal to ArbCom via RFAR, (and mention Colchicum in your appeal).
	Martin On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:32 AM, radek
	szulga<rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm going to try and file the AE
	appeal either tomorrow or Tuesday. Of > course I'll post a draft here.
	I'm not sure how detailed I should be > and to what extent to mention
	the off-wiki conversation I had with > Thatcher. > > Basically the
	argument is that: > *I made 3 reverts in 2 weeks and for that got a 1RR
	a WEEK, INDEFINITE > restriction. This is a completely crazy definition
	of "edit warring" > and a extremely harsh restriction. > *I admit that
	I
	probably should have said something on talk, but these > were 3 reverts
	in 2 weeks - at best this is a minor infraction on my > part.
	Furthermore, I used edit summaries each time to explain my edits > (ask
	for sources, revert reverts w/o edit summaries). If I had > reverted 3
	times in one day, or reverted once per day for two weeks > then yes,
	sure, it'd be edit warring, particularly w/o talk > discussion. But this
	was 3 reverts in 2 weeks. Not every edit is going > to have an essay
	attached to it and to insist on that for 3 reverts in > 2 weeks is
	unrealistic. > *There was no prior warning nor had I been previously on
	any kind of > sanctions or restrictions. Thatcher's restriction came
	out
	of nowhere > and blindsided me. I was not even given a chance to change
	my conduct > in any way. > *Unlike most other editors who were
	restricted (I'm not sure if I > should bring up Colchicum here by name
	-
	if so then "all editors > except for Colchicum") I do not have an
	extensive block log which also > makes this unprecedented (if this
	develops further - I got one block > in four years and I can try and
	ask
	Malik to comment that there's been > no further trouble between us) >
	*I
	was mentioned in a very minor way by Shell Kinney on that EE page > but
	not as one of the "major" editors. She mentioned me in the context > of
	an "edit war" in an instance where I made 1 edit (in the space of 2 >
	weeks) on one article, and another instance where I made 2 edits (in >
	the space of 2 weeks) on another. This [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.4 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
	0.5 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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST 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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -0.4
X-Spam_score_int: -3
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 thought your restriction was six months? Anyway, I'd
	appeal to ArbCom via RFAR, (and mention Colchicum in your appeal).
	Martin On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:32 AM, radek
	szulga<rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm going to try and file the AE
	appeal either tomorrow or Tuesday. Of > course I'll post a draft here.
	I'm not sure how detailed I should be > and to what extent to mention
	the off-wiki conversation I had with > Thatcher. > > Basically the
	argument is that: > *I made 3 reverts in 2 weeks and for that got a 1RR
	a WEEK, INDEFINITE > restriction. This is a completely crazy definition
	of "edit warring" > and a extremely harsh restriction. > *I admit that I
	probably should have said something on talk, but these > were 3 reverts
	in 2 weeks - at best this is a minor infraction on my > part.
	Furthermore, I used edit summaries each time to explain my edits > (ask
	for sources, revert reverts w/o edit summaries). If I had > reverted 3
	times in one day, or reverted once per day for two weeks > then yes,
	sure, it'd be edit warring, particularly w/o talk > discussion. But this
	was 3 reverts in 2 weeks. Not every edit is going > to have an essay
	attached to it and to insist on that for 3 reverts in > 2 weeks is
	unrealistic. > *There was no prior warning nor had I been previously on
	any kind of > sanctions or restrictions. Thatcher's restriction came out
	of nowhere > and blindsided me. I was not even given a chance to change
	my conduct > in any way. > *Unlike most other editors who were
	restricted (I'm not sure if I > should bring up Colchicum here by name -
	if so then "all editors > except for Colchicum") I do not have an
	extensive block log which also > makes this unprecedented (if this
	develops further - I got one block > in four years and I can try and ask
	Malik to comment that there's been > no further trouble between us) > *I
	was mentioned in a very minor way by Shell Kinney on that EE page > but
	not as one of the "major" editors. She mentioned me in the context > of
	an "edit war" in an instance where I made 1 edit (in the space of 2 >
	weeks) on one article, and another instance where I made 2 edits (in >
	the space of 2 weeks) on another. This [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.4 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
	0.5 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

I thought your restriction was six months? Anyway, I'd appeal to
ArbCom via RFAR, (and mention Colchicum in your appeal).

Martin

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:32 AM, radek szulga<rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm going to try and file the AE appeal either tomorrow or Tuesday. Of
> course I'll post a draft here. I'm not sure how detailed I should be
> and to what extent to mention the off-wiki conversation I had with
> Thatcher.
>
> Basically the argument is that:
> *I made 3 reverts in 2 weeks and for that got a 1RR a WEEK, INDEFINITE
> restriction. This is a completely crazy definition of "edit warring"
> and a extremely harsh restriction.
> *I admit that I probably should have said something on talk, but these
> were 3 reverts in 2 weeks - at best this is a minor infraction on my
> part. Furthermore, I used edit summaries each time to explain my edits
> (ask for sources, revert reverts w/o edit summaries). If I had
> reverted 3 times in one day, or reverted once per day for two weeks
> then yes, sure, it'd be edit warring, particularly w/o talk
> discussion. But this was 3 reverts in 2 weeks. Not every edit is going
> to have an essay attached to it and to insist on that for 3 reverts in
> 2 weeks is unrealistic.
> *There was no prior warning nor had I been previously on any kind of
> sanctions or restrictions. Thatcher's restriction came out of nowhere
> and blindsided me. I was not even given a chance to change my conduct
> in any way.
> *Unlike most other editors who were restricted (I'm not sure if I
> should bring up Colchicum here by name - if so then "all editors
> except for Colchicum") I do not have an extensive block log which also
> makes this unprecedented (if this develops further - I got one block
> in four years and I can try and ask Malik to comment that there's been
> no further trouble between us)
> *I was mentioned in a very minor way by Shell Kinney on that EE page
> but not as one of the "major" editors. She mentioned me in the context
> of an "edit war" in an instance where I made 1 edit (in the space of 2
> weeks) on one article, and another instance where I made 2 edits (in
> the space of 2 weeks) on another. This means that she was referring to
> the fact that others were edit warring on those articles but obviously
> does not mean that I, specifically, was edit warring. I think Thatcher
> misinterpreted her statement and jumped to a hasty conclusion - he
> slapped the restriction on every user there without actually looking
> at the details.
> *My name is nowhere near the Digwuren case, it's restrictions, it's
> sanctions or anything associated with it. Thatcher - per the text of
> the restriction - seems to be partly basing his restriction on the
> mistaken impression that I was somehow involved or part of that case.
> *Since I am not engaged in any edit wars, have not been in any
> recently, I am not violating BLP or copy vio, and I am not being
> un-civil to anyone or violating any other Wikipedia policies or
> guidelines, Thatcher's restriction is purely (and inappropriately)
> punitive. And it is a very harsh punishment (again, 1RR per WEEK,
> INDEFINITELY) for making 3 edits in 2 weeks. It seems like Thatcher is
> trying to make a POINT (what he calls a "canary in the coalmine") and
> I've become collateral damage in that endeavor.
> *Yes, there was an edit war going on at the time but I had not been
> involved much in Estonia-Russia articles until very recently (and I
> can explain how*). Hence I thought I was acting as a neutral, outside
> editor , doing regular grunt editing work and I acted on what I
> thought were the merits of the situation. Thatcher has asked why there
> was no neutral editors - but by his definition, anyone who showed up
> and made even a single edit is obviously automatically not neutral.
>
> I think part of the way I screwed up with Thatcher is that I
> immediately volunteered to a 1RR on the articles that Shell listed.
> This was a mistake on my part as it didn't leave room for him to
> engage in face-saving bargaining - either he agrees to my proposal or
> it's his original decision. I should have just asked for the removal
> of the restriction, let him propose the voluntary 1RR and then agreed
> to it. So as not to repeat that mistake again, I'm just going to ask
> for the removal of the restriction. At some point, if it looks like
> the right time and things look troubled, Piotrus, or one of the admins
> he contacted on IRC, should probably jump in and propose the voluntary
> 1RR - make it PER DAY though, and only on the articles listed by
> Shell, hopefully that will be enough - and at that point I'll be like
> "Yeah, of course I can do that, no problem" and then hopefully other
> uninvolved admins will say "ok, he's agreed to voluntarily abide by
> 1RR, no need for the ugly sanction". Hopefully this will fly.
>
> There's a part of me which wants to sugar coat all the above with
> "fundamentally Thatcher acted appropriately" and "he was essentially
> correct, except for me" ... but hypocrisy is labor intensive and I
> don't have time for that right now, so I'd rather just, more or less,
> tell it like it is, roll the dice, and hope for a bit of luck.
>
> *The story here is essentially true - "I was editing an article when a
> I got suspicious that Kupredu was a Jacob Peters sock. I mentioned it
> to Moreshi who's had experience with him before. Apparently some guy
> named Biophys noticed the same thing at the same time and commented at
> Moreshi's talk same as me. After that  I started watching Biophys'
> edits just in case the JP sock showed up again in another guise. This
> led me to looking at some of the Estonia-related articles. And then,
> BOOM! all of sudden I'm restricted."
>
>
> Input appreciated.
>
> Radek
>
> 2009/6/27 Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>:
>> radek szulga wrote:
>>> Durova suggested that I file an appeal of my restriction on RFAR
>>> (that's this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFAR right?)
>>> which if my final appeal to Thorsten (including my argument that it's
>>> best to settle this off wiki and avoid large scale drama) doesn't work
>>> is what I'm going to do early next week.
>>
>> I'd think that AE would be the right place for that, not RFAR. You can
>> always go to RFAR once AE fails.
>>
>> I contacted some admins on IRC and they were somewhat supportive, and
>> should've contacted Thatcher. If there is no chance in a day or so, we
>> can consider starting an AE thread. I'd suggest to look over the draft
>> of what Radek wants to post here.
>>
>>> -to make that appear credible I will have to distance myself from some
>>> of you and maybe even make some slightly critical remarks. I might say
>>> something like "...if you compare my clean blog with that of Digwurgen
>>> (sic) or Passwordname, you'll see that..."
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

