X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Sun Jun 21 20:53:49 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4A3E5CD3.6030301@post.pl>
References: <ca3.534dabe2.376d98de@aol.com>
	<4f045a880906191952h2c73b422w3e746cce1bf2ed5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<4f045a880906191958u733dd063if7cd1f77d349e7be@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A3E5CD3.6030301@post.pl>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:53:38 -0500
Message-ID: <25890ca0906211153w307205ceyb364d7ebcf5c45aa@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: Note how in his comment Deacon switches very quickly
	from calling the case "Eastern European Disputes" to "Piotrus 2" then
	uses the latter term throughout the rest of the comment to reinforce
	his
	point. This is probably another good indication, since Deacon's not
	stupid, that it'd be a good idea to rename the Digwuren case to
	something else, since as the above shows, names do matter. [...] 
	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]
	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 autolearn=no version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] It isn't over.
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: -0.8
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:  Note how in his comment Deacon switches very quickly
	from calling the case "Eastern European Disputes" to "Piotrus 2" then
	uses the latter term throughout the rest of the comment to reinforce his
	point. This is probably another good indication, since Deacon's not
	stupid, that it'd be a good idea to rename the Digwuren case to
	something else, since as the above shows, names do matter. [...] 
	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]
	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

Note how in his comment Deacon switches very quickly from calling the
case "Eastern European Disputes" to "Piotrus 2" then uses the latter
term throughout the rest of the comment to reinforce his point. This
is probably another good indication, since Deacon's not stupid, that
it'd be a good idea to rename the Digwuren case to something else,
since as the above shows, names do matter.

Having said that I think it's important to realize that Deacon's
analysis is spot on, except for the part about "this alliance goes
through Piotrus only" (I get a sense that Deacon is a little bit
blinded by his primeval animosity toward Piotrus).

But the things he's right about include:

*We do have superior numbers - this matters, although it is not all
that matters (the formula for winning admin-decided cases is probably
something like = experience*(square root of (numbers)), for winning
editing conflicts it is something like  = numbers*(reliable sources
squared))*(square root of experience) (last one for avoiding 3RR
etc.). Both of course these also involve a term which captures random
errors and deviations.

*Most of our opponents are inexperienced in relative terms to us,
older folks like Ghirla and Irpen having been driven out. This leaves
people like Deacon, and perhaps a few unfavorably disposed admins
(also some among the Greater Germany editors but that's more of a
Poland-specific problem and a number of them, like Matthead, make up
in sheer stupidity for what they've gained in experience)

*We are probably better organized - and by that I don't mean just this
list, a lot of this organizations formed informally at some level
before; I started watching a lot of you guyz's edits long before I
joined this list - this is also a function of the experience. In
contrast some of the other sides' attacks have been clumsy to say the
least (PU's "children are molested there", Russavia generally sounds
half way clueless - on the other hand Offliner and Skapperod can be
quite sneaky)

In other words the status quo isn't all that bad (though of course it
could be better). So yes, this isn't the time to have an ArbCom case.
In fact if admins left this corner of wikipedia alone and only 3RR and
basic civility were enforced by simple bots, most of the problematic
users could be dealt with or contained and the result would be a
better, more reliable source based encyclopedia with more content (as
a number of us would substitute our labor away from fighting these
cases to producing content) - but one that wouldn't be that far off
from what we have now (in other words, good job guys).

However, I do think Deacon's analysis - aside from clearly under
scoring what a danger he poses (note his proposal to "reclassify for
such purpose multiple editors as one editor" - which is just insane
and sooooooo against basic principles of Wikipedia, "the encyclopedia
that anyone can edit") - should make us step back and reassess our
goals here. Look at the big, macro, picture.

I think it would be useful to categorize the activities and purpose
here through the traditional military distinctions between strategy,
tactics, and logistics. These are just my thoughts on the matter and
of course any input is appreciated (take note that I've probably been
reading too many WWII books lately).

Strategy defines the basic aims. For all the scheming and plotting
that we do here, the basic aim of everyone on this list is actually to
build a better, factual, reliable source based, non pov, non undue,
non fringe encyclopedia which truthfully reflects the complicated past
of our respective regions. But when the bad guys don't play by the
rules, a certain amount of scheming and plotting is necessary as a
counter measure. So, beyond that primary goal, our basic aim is to
contain and neutralize The Cartel. This is essentially because they
have the potential to do most damage, they have the potential to
organize themselves to a greater extent than other problematic groups
of editors, and because they're likely to attack on a broad front
(it's Estonia and the Baltics right now but if another Irpen shows up
they will very likely go after other places - as they have in the
past). There are also some more regional aims here of course and
occasionally these intersect. I can't speak for the others but for the
Polish side the Greater Germany faction can be a pain to deal with and
a time drain. The extremist-Lithuanian faction (I'm still holding out
hope that there are normal Lithuanian editors out there somewhere that
will show up one day and that MK, Dr. Dan and Lokyz are just outliers)
is an occasional nuisance. The problem of course would occur if these
guys ever get together and coordinate, as they sometimes have in the
past, on a limited basis.

The Tactics is all the blocking and banning we want to get and how we
get it. It mostly covers all the AE, ANI, 3RR etc. cases that we want
to file and also how we defend against those cases which are filed
against us. Whether to be quiet, or whether to stir up dramu.
Assessing who is the biggest threat and what are their weaknesses;
edit warring, incivility, other. Which editors should become engaged
when and when should they stay out. Which editors that are not on this
list can be regarded as close allies (Mosedchurte, Colchicum, etc.)
Which admins are favorable. Longer term, per Piotrus' suggestion, it
involves getting more of us into the ranks of admins, or pulling the
vanishings to clear the records.

Logistics is the actual content related stuff - coordinating the
reverts when needed so that no one violates 2RR, creating appropriate
articles (like the Historical Truth Commission), exposure of created
articles (which includes getting some of this stuff up on DYK and
getting it to GA/FA status), talk page discussions and related
matters. Remember that this is about information, but information not
only has to be created  but also disseminated. Also very importantly,
finding reliable sources since that pretty much renders the text
untouchable (also, exposing the unreliability of others' sources when
they try to sneak them in). Even though logistics comes at the bottom
of this list in a way it's the most important part - at the end of the
day what others will see is not how many blocks a given editor has on
his record but what a particular article states about X, Y, and Z and
whether or not that information is reliably sourced.

Anyway, this is already too long - probably because I finally got more
than an hour to spend at a computer - so I'll leave it alone. Editing
still limited for the next two months but I generally manage to check
my email at least once a day. For once, England's got nice summer
weather.

Radek

2009/6/21 Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>:
> Martin wrote:
>> The aim here at this stage is not to have ArbCom accept the case, so
>> we don't waat to dive in with diffs and counter accusations because
>> this will only reinforce in ArbComs mind that there really is a battle
>> going on, and thus make it more likely they will accept the case.
>
> Seems like there is a good chance this will get rejected, so far only
> one arb is supporting, two are rejecting and one is likely to do so.
>
> Do read Deacon's comments who discusses the "Polish-Baltic" alliance:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Comment_from_Deacon_of_Pndapetzim
>
> --
> 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

