X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Mon Jul  6 05:44:09 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4A515C55.1030505@post.pl>
References: <4A4FBA38.10401@post.pl>
	<f826636f0907041459i2c47ed40pd7714a2c38f773ae@mail.gmail.com>
	<929ed1ec0907050317n18df24d8y23e4688ed617a66f@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3b2b3db0907050620y54f7dca1i8abfcb553018dfda@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0907050741x6c0e8f1ds467261f28da912ce@mail.gmail.com>
	<4f045a880907051836m4b257c48jc001ee9cca91b73c@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A515C55.1030505@post.pl>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 13:43:47 +1000
Message-ID: <4f045a880907052043n23ab2eadje7285c84104068ac@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:  On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Piotr
	Konieczny<piokon@post.pl> wrote: > Martin wrote: >> Sandstein seems to
	think that your are questioning simply the process >> of applying a
	notice and seems to have overlooked that you are making >> a legitimate
	appeal as allowed for in the Arbcom case remedy. Probably >> the only
	way is to appeal to ArbCom. >> >> The issue of the notification for me
	is whether any editor would >> reasonably think that a low level of
	reverts would lead to a heavy >> sanction. Certainly we all believed
	that keeping to one or too reverts >> per day would be okay, but
	evidently not. If an admin is going is >> going to 'm sure any
	reasonable person would have heeded any warning >> that would have been
	given, but none was. >> >> There are a number of issues here that Arbcom
	could look in reviewing an appeal: >> *The actions of Jehochman in
	dramatically reopening the case and >> filing an ArbCom case, and
	Thatcher jumping in and imposing sanctions >> before Shell Kinney could
	complete her investigation poisoning any >> conclusion she would have
	arrived at. Here seems we have some some >> admins unhappy with the
	discretionary sanction regime, citing it is >> too hard to investigate
	the complex interactions. It thus could be >> argued that these
	unnecessarily heavy sanctions are pointy >> demonstration, casting a
	wide area of collateral damage, by these >> admins who wanted to push it
	back on to ArbCom in the first place. >> >> *The muddying of the water
	by Deacon and others in casting this as >> some wider EE dispute, when
	it was originally just involving Biophys >> and Offliner. It should be
	noted that had Piotr not commented in the >> original AE case, Deacon
	wouldn't have reason arrive at jehochman's >> RFAR to throw more mud at
	Piotr and thus hijack the original case >> involving essentially a long
	standing personality dispute between >> Biophys and Offliner and
	turning
	into Balto-Polish consiracy. Here you >> could point out that in
	comparison to your Polish article edits, your >> activity in [...] 
	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] Appealing Molobo's block to ArbCom
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:  On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Piotr
	Konieczny<piokon@post.pl> wrote: > Martin wrote: >> Sandstein seems to
	think that your are questioning simply the process >> of applying a
	notice and seems to have overlooked that you are making >> a legitimate
	appeal as allowed for in the Arbcom case remedy. Probably >> the only
	way is to appeal to ArbCom. >> >> The issue of the notification for me
	is whether any editor would >> reasonably think that a low level of
	reverts would lead to a heavy >> sanction. Certainly we all believed
	that keeping to one or too reverts >> per day would be okay, but
	evidently not. If an admin is going is >> going to 'm sure any
	reasonable person would have heeded any warning >> that would have been
	given, but none was. >> >> There are a number of issues here that Arbcom
	could look in reviewing an appeal: >> *The actions of Jehochman in
	dramatically reopening the case and >> filing an ArbCom case, and
	Thatcher jumping in and imposing sanctions >> before Shell Kinney could
	complete her investigation poisoning any >> conclusion she would have
	arrived at. Here seems we have some some >> admins unhappy with the
	discretionary sanction regime, citing it is >> too hard to investigate
	the complex interactions. It thus could be >> argued that these
	unnecessarily heavy sanctions are pointy >> demonstration, casting a
	wide area of collateral damage, by these >> admins who wanted to push it
	back on to ArbCom in the first place. >> >> *The muddying of the water
	by Deacon and others in casting this as >> some wider EE dispute, when
	it was originally just involving Biophys >> and Offliner. It should be
	noted that had Piotr not commented in the >> original AE case, Deacon
	wouldn't have reason arrive at jehochman's >> RFAR to throw more mud at
	Piotr and thus hijack the original case >> involving essentially a long
	standing personality dispute between >> Biophys and Offliner and turning
	into Balto-Polish consiracy. Here you >> could point out that in
	comparison to your Polish article edits, your >> activity in [...] 
	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

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Piotr Konieczny<piokon@post.pl> wrote:
> Martin wrote:
>> Sandstein seems to think that your are questioning simply the process
>> of applying a notice and seems to have overlooked that you are making
>> a legitimate appeal as allowed for in the Arbcom case remedy. Probably
>> the only way is to appeal to ArbCom.
>>
>> The issue of the notification for me is whether any editor would
>> reasonably think that a low level of reverts would lead to a heavy
>> sanction. Certainly we all believed that keeping to one or too reverts
>> per day would be okay, but evidently not. If an admin is going is
>> going to 'm sure any reasonable person would have heeded any warning
>> that would have been given, but none was.
>>
>> There are a number of issues here that Arbcom could look in reviewing an appeal:
>> *The actions of Jehochman in dramatically reopening the case and
>> filing an ArbCom case, and Thatcher jumping in and imposing sanctions
>> before Shell Kinney could complete her investigation poisoning any
>> conclusion she would have arrived at. Here seems we have some some
>> admins unhappy with the discretionary sanction regime, citing it is
>> too hard to investigate the complex interactions. It thus could be
>> argued that these unnecessarily heavy sanctions are pointy
>> demonstration, casting a wide area of collateral damage, by these
>> admins who wanted to push it back on to ArbCom in the first place.
>>
>> *The muddying of the water by Deacon and others in casting this as
>> some wider EE dispute, when it was originally just involving Biophys
>> and Offliner. It should be noted that had Piotr not commented in the
>> original AE case, Deacon wouldn't have reason arrive at jehochman's
>> RFAR to throw more mud at Piotr and thus hijack the original case
>> involving essentially a long standing personality dispute between
>> Biophys and Offliner and turning into Balto-Polish consiracy. Here you
>> could point out that in comparison to your Polish article edits, your
>> activity in Baltic topics is relatively minor, but that Deacon and
>> others would use any opportunity to sanction Polish editors regardless
>> of whether they were involved or not.
>
> Others who? I don't think there are any non-Deacon admins who are
> anti-Polish currently... and I hope it stays that way :) That's why I
> really don't want to be wikidraming now, as I am afraid this may draw
> some admins like Thather into Deacon's camp.
>
> Unfortunately, I hate to compromise when little editors (i.e.
> non-admins) like Radek are getting unfairly punished.
>
> For me, the case is simple: 3 reverts in 2 weeks with no warning should
> at best result in a civil talk warning on talk page, not in a 6-year
> restriction that is a major blemish on one's reputation. I would have
> stood up for anyone in a similar situation; unfortunately I am sure some
> will see this as a "Polish admin is obviously defending a Polish editor
> because he is Polish". Sigh.
>
> Before this is send to arbcom, maybe we could ask for admins opinion?
> I'll email Kirill and ask him to look on this case. If he will be
> unfavorable, better learn of it sooner than later.

Asking Kirill's opinion is a good idea. The wording of the
discretionary sanctions remedy is that admins must still assume good
faith, and claiming a low level edit war in a single article is
evidence of "tag teaming" and thus justifying the sanction doesn't
seem to be making a good faith assumption in regard to Radek (and
Colchicum), who spend the majority of their time elsewhere.

Martin

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

