X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Mon Jun  1 09:35:03 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
Message-ID: <4A238480.5040704@post.pl>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 09:34:24 +0200
From: Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20081204 MultiZilla/1.8.3.4e SeaMonkey/1.1.14
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: -2.3
X-Spam_score_int: -22
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:  Long story short, since I don't have much time, it was
	ill advised of Molobo to use a sock to avoid the 1RR restriction, and
	even more ill advised how he did it. That said, I think the 1 year block
	leaves open one avenue: an appeal to ArbCom (not th ANI dramu!).
	Following arguments should be used (I don't have time to write an
	appeal
	for him): * his reputation was ruined after the first block, hence after
	his return, he was treated with little good faith, and 1 3rr violation
	led to the unfair permanent 1rr restriction * he should have appealed
	that but annoyed with Wikipedia he created a sock account (my
	speculation, but sounds plausible) * neither he nor the sock has
	violated 3rr and there was little edit warring, in other words, since
	June last year his behavior was little different from an average new
	user * however his bad reputation resulted in assumption of much bad
	faith, and now resulted in another year long block Thus the appeal
	should be for the committee to consider whether a year long block is
	really fair in this case. Molobo should ask for a much shorter block (1
	month) and no 1rr restriction. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.3 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=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: [WPM] [WMP] Molobo ban
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: -2.3
X-Spam_score_int: -22
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:  Long story short, since I don't have much time, it was
	ill advised of Molobo to use a sock to avoid the 1RR restriction, and
	even more ill advised how he did it. That said, I think the 1 year block
	leaves open one avenue: an appeal to ArbCom (not th ANI dramu!).
	Following arguments should be used (I don't have time to write an appeal
	for him): * his reputation was ruined after the first block, hence after
	his return, he was treated with little good faith, and 1 3rr violation
	led to the unfair permanent 1rr restriction * he should have appealed
	that but annoyed with Wikipedia he created a sock account (my
	speculation, but sounds plausible) * neither he nor the sock has
	violated 3rr and there was little edit warring, in other words, since
	June last year his behavior was little different from an average new
	user * however his bad reputation resulted in assumption of much bad
	faith, and now resulted in another year long block Thus the appeal
	should be for the committee to consider whether a year long block is
	really fair in this case. Molobo should ask for a much shorter block (1
	month) and no 1rr restriction. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.3 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

Long story short, since I don't have much time, it was ill advised of 
Molobo to use a sock to avoid the 1RR restriction, and even more ill 
advised how he did it.

That said, I think the 1 year block leaves open one avenue: an appeal to 
ArbCom (not th ANI dramu!). Following arguments should be used (I don't 
have time to write an appeal for him):
* his reputation was ruined after the first block, hence after his 
return, he was treated with little good faith, and 1 3rr violation led 
to the unfair permanent 1rr restriction
* he should have appealed that but annoyed with Wikipedia he created a 
sock account (my speculation, but sounds plausible)
* neither he nor the sock has violated 3rr and there was little edit 
warring, in other words, since June last year his behavior was little 
different from an average new user
* however his bad reputation resulted in assumption of much bad faith, 
and now resulted in another year long block
Thus the appeal should be for the committee to consider whether a year 
long block is really fair in this case. Molobo should ask for a much 
shorter block (1 month) and no 1rr restriction.

That's all I have to say, other whenever Molobo comes back, his new 
account should behave sufficiently different to deal with future 
"behavioral analysis".

-- 
Prokonsul Piotrus aka Piotr Konieczny       |||____  __ __
                                       I=I====__|_|I__I=>
"Lennier, get us the hell out of here."     |||
"Initiating 'getting the hell out of here' maneuver."
  -- Ivanova and Lennier in Babylon 5:"The Hour of the Wolf"

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia statistics discussion list
folks@wikipedometer.net
http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks

