X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Fri May  1 18:27:07 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <929ed1ec0905010822k1a8ff5e9xef6ca484e032d492@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d2a.4934ac18.372a3d71@aol.com>
	<4f045a880904292015ja4833ccgbf83b371316a008c@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3b2b3db0904292133mc31b72ale0872abae1a24cb6@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3b2b3db0904292153n16843e9dgbc4162a25e7c7e0c@mail.gmail.com>
	<6fb557d70904301111m1a57fb40t7b9d723aa86a1a0a@mail.gmail.com>
	<4f045a880905010636p69bda9c6l3e273739b222a1c@mail.gmail.com>
	<4f045a880905010641x38e9bdfav2fe3abe2062b183b@mail.gmail.com>
	<929ed1ec0905010822k1a8ff5e9xef6ca484e032d492@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 19:26:51 +0300
Message-ID: <f826636f0905010926s3e3fad9ase1742349d5949576@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dorin Cheptea <dorin.cheptea@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: 0.4
X-Spam_score_int: 4
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: How about starting a Request for Comment where all
	these
	facts can be presented nice and clear for everybody to see? Note: don't
	bring up everything you suspect about him now. Just bring up things you
	know for sure can stick (for example: ignoring feedback from others,
	unilateral action, refusing to learn more about the topic before rushing
	into substantial edits, ignoring past consensuses). Don't ask just now
	for desysoping, ask for him to undo his actions. Pending on his reaction
	we will know what to do: if he yields, we would concentrate on salvaging
	the articles, if he does not, we add his refusal to the list and propose
	discussing him (as opposed to just his actions on the particular
	articles) as well. [...] 
	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]
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	1.3 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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] Here we go again, Baltic mediation
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="===============3051795195670844361=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: 0.4
X-Spam_score_int: 4
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:  How about starting a Request for Comment where all these
	facts can be presented nice and clear for everybody to see? Note: don't
	bring up everything you suspect about him now. Just bring up things you
	know for sure can stick (for example: ignoring feedback from others,
	unilateral action, refusing to learn more about the topic before rushing
	into substantial edits, ignoring past consensuses). Don't ask just now
	for desysoping, ask for him to undo his actions. Pending on his reaction
	we will know what to do: if he yields, we would concentrate on salvaging
	the articles, if he does not, we add his refusal to the list and propose
	discussing him (as opposed to just his actions on the particular
	articles) as well. [...] 
	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]
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	1.3 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

--===============3051795195670844361==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00504502c97aadcc6b0468dc47ec

--00504502c97aadcc6b0468dc47ec
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

How about starting a Request for Comment where all these facts can be
presented nice and clear for everybody to see? Note: don't bring up
everything you suspect about him now. Just bring up things you know for sure
can stick (for example: ignoring feedback from others, unilateral action,
refusing to learn more about the topic before rushing into substantial
edits, ignoring past consensuses). Don't ask just now for desysoping, ask
for him to undo his actions. Pending on his reaction we will know what to
do: if he yields, we would concentrate on salvaging the articles, if he does
not, we add his refusal to the list and propose discussing him (as opposed
to just his actions on the particular articles) as well.

Dorin

2009/5/1 Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com>

>  On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 16:41, Martin <martint20@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I propose we draft an ArbCom case to get him desysoped.
>
>
> His actions are clearly against the well-known rules.  As long as Irpendajo
> doesn't show up, we should have a good chance of sanctions against him.
>
> That he himself created that AN/I thread may be considered a post hoc
> display of good faith, unfortunately.  I guess it'll need some reframing.
>  How about guilty conscience, admission that he was going against consensus
> and against policy, and perhaps unabashed side-taking in administrative
> action?
>
> <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hiberniantears&diff=287229946&oldid=287217446>
> should be construable as not wanting to take part in discussion which, in
> combination with the mediation affair, is a display of hypocrisy.  After
> all, this is the sequence of events:
>
> * Hiberiantears showed up, made a few suggestions and edits.  Consensus was
> his POV doesn't match the sources, the main edits got reverted (although I
> think some typofixes were left in).
> * Hiberiantears requested mediation.
> * A number of other editors -- several of whom had partaken in the previous
> mediation --  acknowledged the mediation request, and posted various
> thorough explanations of why doing a new mediation would be pointless.
> * Although mediation was deemed pointless, Martin and others helpfully
> listed a number of sources on Hiberniantears' talkpage so he could acquaint
> himself with the scholarly sources on this topic.  (He or somebody else may
> claim that dumping a large number of sources amounts to stonewalling via the
> "read all or these, and until you're done, shut up" gambit.  We should be
> prepared to counter this approach by "Not every library has all of those --
> we offered a large number of books, but reading just a few should give
> anybody a good grasp at the scholarly consensus.")
> * Hiberniantears dismissed the source list in the above-mentioned diff, and
> proceeded to do the anti-consensus (which he himself admits at AN/I) split,
> then protecting the results.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> I support any reasonable action that is likely to lead significant
> reduction of Hiberniantears' powers.  Probably, desysopping is easiest.  A
> more creative approaches might involve getting him topicbanned from Eastern
> Europe, but this is riskier, and the extra risk is probably not worth it.
>
> --
> Andres Soolo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia statistics discussion list
> folks@wikipedometer.net
> http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks
>
>

--00504502c97aadcc6b0468dc47ec
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div>How about starting a Request for Comment where all these facts can be =
presented nice and clear for everybody to see? Note: don&#39;t bring up eve=
rything you suspect about him now. Just bring up things you know for sure c=
an stick (for example: ignoring feedback from others, unilateral action, re=
fusing to learn more about the topic before rushing into substantial edits,=
 ignoring past consensuses). Don&#39;t ask just now for desysoping, ask for=
 him to undo his actions. Pending on his reaction we will know what to do: =
if he yields, we would concentrate on salvaging the articles, if he does no=
t, we add his refusal to the list and propose discussing him (as opposed to=
=A0just his actions on the particular articles) as well.</div>

<div>=A0</div>
<div>Dorin=A0<br><br></div>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">2009/5/1 Digwuren <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:digwuren@gmail.com">digwuren@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span><br>
<blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex=
; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">
<div class=3D"im">On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 16:41, Martin <span dir=3D"ltr">&l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:martint20@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">martint20@gmail.=
com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex=
; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">I propose we draft an ArbCom cas=
e to get him desysoped.</blockquote>
<div><br></div></div>
<div>His actions are clearly against the well-known rules. =A0As long as Ir=
pendajo doesn&#39;t show up, we should have a good chance of sanctions agai=
nst him.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>That he himself created that AN/I thread may be considered a post hoc =
display of good faith, unfortunately. =A0I guess it&#39;ll need some refram=
ing. =A0How about guilty conscience, admission that he was going against co=
nsensus and against policy, and perhaps unabashed side-taking in administra=
tive action?</div>

<div><br></div>
<div>&lt;<a href=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DUser_talk:H=
iberniantears&amp;diff=3D287229946&amp;oldid=3D287217446" target=3D"_blank"=
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DUser_talk:Hiberniantears&amp;d=
iff=3D287229946&amp;oldid=3D287217446</a>&gt; should be construable as not =
wanting to take part in discussion which, in combination with the mediation=
 affair, is a display of hypocrisy. =A0After all, this is the sequence of e=
vents:</div>

<div><br></div>
<div>* Hiberiantears showed up, made a few suggestions and edits. =A0Consen=
sus was his POV doesn&#39;t match the sources, the main edits got reverted =
(although I think some typofixes were left in).</div>
<div>* Hiberiantears requested mediation.</div>
<div>* A number of other editors -- several of whom had partaken in the pre=
vious mediation -- =A0acknowledged the mediation request, and posted variou=
s thorough explanations of why doing a new mediation would be pointless.</d=
iv>

<div>* Although mediation was deemed pointless, Martin and others helpfully=
 listed a number of sources on Hiberniantears&#39; talkpage so he could acq=
uaint himself with the scholarly sources on this topic. =A0(He or somebody =
else may claim that dumping a large number of sources amounts to stonewalli=
ng via the &quot;read all or these, and until you&#39;re done, shut up&quot=
; gambit. =A0We should be prepared to counter this approach by &quot;Not ev=
ery library has all of those -- we offered a large number of books, but rea=
ding just a few should give anybody a good grasp at the scholarly consensus=
.&quot;)</div>

<div>* Hiberniantears dismissed the source list in the above-mentioned diff=
, and proceeded to do the anti-consensus (which he himself admits at AN/I) =
split, then protecting the results.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex=
; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">Thoughts?</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>I support any reasonable action that is likely to lead significant red=
uction of Hiberniantears&#39; powers. =A0Probably, desysopping is easiest. =
=A0A more creative approaches might involve getting him topicbanned from Ea=
stern Europe, but this is riskier, and the extra risk is probably not worth=
 it.</div>

<div><br></div></div><font color=3D"#888888">-- <br>Andres Soolo<br></font>=
<br>_______________________________________________<br>Wikipedia statistics=
 discussion list<br><a href=3D"mailto:folks@wikipedometer.net">folks@wikipe=
dometer.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>

--00504502c97aadcc6b0468dc47ec--


--===============3051795195670844361==
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

--===============3051795195670844361==--


