X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Mon Jun 29 14:49:04 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <25890ca0906290536t1e1014c7t5915ae76f3772d56@mail.gmail.com>
References: <25890ca0906281732s3836a51i757b5568dd328d63@mail.gmail.com>
	<4f045a880906281902n56be257ao44cc951550f8b1e9@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3b2b3db0906282003j163060b5y8ba6da454b967828@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3b2b3db0906282012r23dcb4fcr3982e02029734d66@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0906290536t1e1014c7t5915ae76f3772d56@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:48:48 -0400
Message-ID: <c3b2b3db0906290548w37de1fa2w2e2e0c4fc73e48d@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrei Dombay <wikibiophys@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: -0.3
X-Spam_score_int: -2
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 would not file an appeal. There is a rude anekdot
	about a little sparrow who fell down into a pile of shit after being
	frozen during a harsh winter. The shit was warm, so the sparrow felt
	better and started singing songs. A cat was nearby, he listen the sings,
	took the sparrow out of the shit and eat him. Three conclusions: (1)
	someone who places you into the shit is not necessarily your enemy; (2)
	someone who removes you from the shit is not necessarily your friend;
	(3) if you are sitting in a shit, do not rise your voice, because a cat
	might be walking nearby. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.3 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.4 HTML_30_40             BODY: Message is 30% to 40% HTML
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.2 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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0592244503614982420=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -0.3
X-Spam_score_int: -2
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 would not file an appeal. There is a rude anekdot
	about a little sparrow who fell down into a pile of shit after being
	frozen during a harsh winter. The shit was warm, so the sparrow felt
	better and started singing songs. A cat was nearby, he listen the sings,
	took the sparrow out of the shit and eat him. Three conclusions: (1)
	someone who places you into the shit is not necessarily your enemy; (2)
	someone who removes you from the shit is not necessarily your friend;
	(3) if you are sitting in a shit, do not rise your voice, because a cat
	might be walking nearby. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.3 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.4 HTML_30_40             BODY: Message is 30% to 40% HTML
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.2 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

--===============0592244503614982420==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6db2d288676dd046d7c1ca7

--0016e6db2d288676dd046d7c1ca7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I would not file an appeal. There is a rude anekdot about  a little sparrow
who fell down into a pile of shit after being frozen during a harsh winter.
The shit was warm, so the sparrow felt better and started singing songs. A
cat was nearby, he listen the sings, took the sparrow out of the shit and
eat him. Three conclusions: (1) someone who places you into the shit is not
necessarily your enemy; (2) someone who removes you from the shit is not
necessarily your friend; (3) if you are sitting in a shit, do not rise your
voice, because a cat might be walking nearby.

This is certainly about me, but might be about others as well.



On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:36 AM, radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks, that's very useful. I anticipate that this will be something
> which comes up in discussion and I'll mention it then - I don't want
> to make the initial request too lengthy.
>
> Radek
>
>
> 2009/6/28 Andrei Dombay <wikibiophys@gmail.com>:
> > Yes, it will be very difficult to explain why you did 3 reverts in
> "Nashi",
> > unless you also followed edits by PU after a conversation (see above) at
> my
> > talk page. You should probably include this link or PU will do it in a
> > comment during your appeal.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Andrei Dombay <wikibiophys@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Radek,
> >>
> >> Be prepared for an attack by certain people who do not like Piotrus
> >>
> >> Weak point: you made 3 reverts in Nashi, on June 11, 14 and 19. That may
> >> be used as an argument of your tag-teaming.
> >>
> >> Note this revert by CrisO:
> >>
> >>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nashi_(youth_movement)&diff=193468247&oldid=193456542<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nashi_%28youth_movement%29&diff=193468247&oldid=193456542>
> >>
> >> He also did not comment like you, but he made only one revert.
> >>
> >> Good points: (1) you indeed had nothing to do with me or other editors
> on
> >> any side until very recently; (2) you got in trouble by following edits
> of
> >> two problematic users: me and Kupredu.
> >>
> >> Not sure if it helps, but I did not always acted as your "ally": I
> >> inserted here some content by the sock of JP, partially reverting you:
> >>
> >> [
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cinema_of_the_Soviet_Union&diff=290002374&oldid=289953685
> ]
> >>
> >> You may or may not wish to include a link to this conversation
> >>
> >>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Biophys&oldid=289969277#2_users
> >>
> >> Maybe not.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Martin <martint20@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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:RFARright?)
> >>> >>> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

--0016e6db2d288676dd046d7c1ca7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br>I would not file an appeal. There is a rude anekdot about=A0 a little s=
parrow who fell down into a pile of shit  after being frozen during a harsh=
 winter. The shit was warm, so the sparrow felt better and started singing =
songs. A cat was nearby, he listen the sings, took the sparrow out of the s=
hit and eat him. Three conclusions: (1) someone who places you into the shi=
t is not necessarily your enemy; (2) someone who removes you from the shit =
is not necessarily your friend; (3) if you are sitting in a shit, do not ri=
se your voice, because a cat might be walking nearby.<br>
<br>This is certainly about me, but might be about others as well.<br><br><=
br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:36 AM, radek sz=
ulga <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:rsszulga@gmail.com">rsszulga@g=
mail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Thanks, that&#39;=
s very useful. I anticipate that this will be something<br>
which comes up in discussion and I&#39;ll mention it then - I don&#39;t wan=
t<br>
to make the initial request too lengthy.<br>
<br>
Radek<br>
<br>
<br>
2009/6/28 Andrei Dombay &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:wikibiophys@gmail.com">wikibi=
ophys@gmail.com</a>&gt;:<br>
<div><div></div><div class=3D"h5">&gt; Yes, it will be very difficult to ex=
plain why you did 3 reverts in &quot;Nashi&quot;,<br>
&gt; unless you also followed edits by PU after a conversation (see above) =
at my<br>
&gt; talk page. You should probably include this link or PU will do it in a=
<br>
&gt; comment during your appeal.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Andrei Dombay &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:=
wikibiophys@gmail.com">wikibiophys@gmail.com</a>&gt;<br>
&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Radek,<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Be prepared for an attack by certain people who do not like Piotru=
s<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Weak point: you made 3 reverts in Nashi, on June 11, 14 and 19. Th=
at may<br>
&gt;&gt; be used as an argument of your tag-teaming.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Note this revert by CrisO:<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DNashi_%28yo=
uth_movement%29&amp;diff=3D193468247&amp;oldid=3D193456542" target=3D"_blan=
k">http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DNashi_(youth_movement)&amp;d=
iff=3D193468247&amp;oldid=3D193456542</a><br>

&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; He also did not comment like you, but he made only one revert.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Good points: (1) you indeed had nothing to do with me or other edi=
tors on<br>
&gt;&gt; any side until very recently; (2) you got in trouble by following =
edits of<br>
&gt;&gt; two problematic users: me and Kupredu.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Not sure if it helps, but I did not always acted as your &quot;all=
y&quot;: I<br>
&gt;&gt; inserted here some content by the sock of JP, partially reverting =
you:<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; [<a href=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DCinema_of_=
the_Soviet_Union&amp;diff=3D290002374&amp;oldid=3D289953685" target=3D"_bla=
nk">http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DCinema_of_the_Soviet_Union&=
amp;diff=3D290002374&amp;oldid=3D289953685</a>]<br>

&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; You may or may not wish to include a link to this conversation<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DUser_talk:B=
iophys&amp;oldid=3D289969277#2_users" target=3D"_blank">http://en.wikipedia=
.org/w/index.php?title=3DUser_talk:Biophys&amp;oldid=3D289969277#2_users</a=
><br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Maybe not.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Martin &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mar=
tint20@gmail.com">martint20@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; I thought your restriction was six months? Anyway, I&#39;d app=
eal to<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; ArbCom via RFAR, (and mention Colchicum in your appeal).<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Martin<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:32 AM, radek szulga&lt;<a href=3D"m=
ailto:rsszulga@gmail.com">rsszulga@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; I&#39;m going to try and file the AE appeal either tomorr=
ow or Tuesday. Of<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; course I&#39;ll post a draft here. I&#39;m not sure how d=
etailed I should be<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; and to what extent to mention the off-wiki conversation I=
 had with<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Thatcher.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Basically the argument is that:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; *I made 3 reverts in 2 weeks and for that got a 1RR a WEE=
K, INDEFINITE<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; restriction. This is a completely crazy definition of &qu=
ot;edit warring&quot;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; and a extremely harsh restriction.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; *I admit that I probably should have said something on ta=
lk, but these<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; were 3 reverts in 2 weeks - at best this is a minor infra=
ction on my<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; part. Furthermore, I used edit summaries each time to exp=
lain my edits<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; (ask for sources, revert reverts w/o edit summaries). If =
I had<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; reverted 3 times in one day, or reverted once per day for=
 two weeks<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; then yes, sure, it&#39;d be edit warring, particularly w/=
o talk<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; discussion. But this was 3 reverts in 2 weeks. Not every =
edit is going<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; to have an essay attached to it and to insist on that for=
 3 reverts in<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; 2 weeks is unrealistic.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; *There was no prior warning nor had I been previously on =
any kind of<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; sanctions or restrictions. Thatcher&#39;s restriction cam=
e out of nowhere<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; and blindsided me. I was not even given a chance to chang=
e my conduct<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; in any way.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; *Unlike most other editors who were restricted (I&#39;m n=
ot sure if I<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; should bring up Colchicum here by name - if so then &quot=
;all editors<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; except for Colchicum&quot;) I do not have an extensive bl=
ock log which also<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; makes this unprecedented (if this develops further - I go=
t one block<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; in four years and I can try and ask Malik to comment that=
 there&#39;s been<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; no further trouble between us)<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; *I was mentioned in a very minor way by Shell Kinney on t=
hat EE page<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; but not as one of the &quot;major&quot; editors. She ment=
ioned me in the context<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; of an &quot;edit war&quot; in an instance where I made 1 =
edit (in the space of 2<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; weeks) on one article, and another instance where I made =
2 edits (in<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; the space of 2 weeks) on another. This means that she was=
 referring to<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; the fact that others were edit warring on those articles =
but obviously<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; does not mean that I, specifically, was edit warring. I t=
hink Thatcher<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; misinterpreted her statement and jumped to a hasty conclu=
sion - he<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; slapped the restriction on every user there without actua=
lly looking<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; at the details.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; *My name is nowhere near the Digwuren case, it&#39;s rest=
rictions, it&#39;s<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; sanctions or anything associated with it. Thatcher - per =
the text of<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; the restriction - seems to be partly basing his restricti=
on on the<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; mistaken impression that I was somehow involved or part o=
f that case.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; *Since I am not engaged in any edit wars, have not been i=
n any<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; recently, I am not violating BLP or copy vio, and I am no=
t being<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; un-civil to anyone or violating any other Wikipedia polic=
ies or<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; guidelines, Thatcher&#39;s restriction is purely (and ina=
ppropriately)<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; punitive. And it is a very harsh punishment (again, 1RR p=
er WEEK,<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; INDEFINITELY) for making 3 edits in 2 weeks. It seems lik=
e Thatcher is<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; trying to make a POINT (what he calls a &quot;canary in t=
he coalmine&quot;) and<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; I&#39;ve become collateral damage in that endeavor.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; *Yes, there was an edit war going on at the time but I ha=
d not been<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; involved much in Estonia-Russia articles until very recen=
tly (and I<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; can explain how*). Hence I thought I was acting as a neut=
ral, outside<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; editor , doing regular grunt editing work and I acted on =
what I<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; thought were the merits of the situation. Thatcher has as=
ked why there<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; was no neutral editors - but by his definition, anyone wh=
o showed up<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; and made even a single edit is obviously automatically no=
t neutral.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; I think part of the way I screwed up with Thatcher is tha=
t I<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; immediately volunteered to a 1RR on the articles that She=
ll listed.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; This was a mistake on my part as it didn&#39;t leave room=
 for him to<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; engage in face-saving bargaining - either he agrees to my=
 proposal or<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; it&#39;s his original decision. I should have just asked =
for the removal<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; of the restriction, let him propose the voluntary 1RR and=
 then agreed<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; to it. So as not to repeat that mistake again, I&#39;m ju=
st going to ask<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; for the removal of the restriction. At some point, if it =
looks like<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; the right time and things look troubled, Piotrus, or one =
of the admins<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; he contacted on IRC, should probably jump in and propose =
the voluntary<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; 1RR - make it PER DAY though, and only on the articles li=
sted by<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Shell, hopefully that will be enough - and at that point =
I&#39;ll be like<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; &quot;Yeah, of course I can do that, no problem&quot; and=
 then hopefully other<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; uninvolved admins will say &quot;ok, he&#39;s agreed to v=
oluntarily abide by<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; 1RR, no need for the ugly sanction&quot;. Hopefully this =
will fly.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; There&#39;s a part of me which wants to sugar coat all th=
e above with<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; &quot;fundamentally Thatcher acted appropriately&quot; an=
d &quot;he was essentially<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; correct, except for me&quot; ... but hypocrisy is labor i=
ntensive and I<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; don&#39;t have time for that right now, so I&#39;d rather=
 just, more or less,<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; tell it like it is, roll the dice, and hope for a bit of =
luck.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; *The story here is essentially true - &quot;I was editing=
 an article when a<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; I got suspicious that Kupredu was a Jacob Peters sock. I =
mentioned it<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; to Moreshi who&#39;s had experience with him before. Appa=
rently some guy<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; named Biophys noticed the same thing at the same time and=
 commented at<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Moreshi&#39;s talk same as me. After that =A0I started wa=
tching Biophys&#39;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; edits just in case the JP sock showed up again in another=
 guise. This<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; led me to looking at some of the Estonia-related articles=
. And then,<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; BOOM! all of sudden I&#39;m restricted.&quot;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Input appreciated.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Radek<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; 2009/6/27 Piotr Konieczny &lt;piokon@post.pl&gt;:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; radek szulga wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; Durova suggested that I file an appeal of my rest=
riction on RFAR<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; (that&#39;s this one: <a href=3D"http://en.wikipe=
dia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFAR" target=3D"_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki=
/Wikipedia:RFAR</a> right?)<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; which if my final appeal to Thorsten (including m=
y argument that it&#39;s<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; best to settle this off wiki and avoid large scal=
e drama) doesn&#39;t<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; work<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; is what I&#39;m going to do early next week.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; I&#39;d think that AE would be the right place for th=
at, not RFAR. You can<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; always go to RFAR once AE fails.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; I contacted some admins on IRC and they were somewhat=
 supportive, and<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; should&#39;ve contacted Thatcher. If there is no chan=
ce in a day or so, we<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; can consider starting an AE thread. I&#39;d suggest t=
o look over the draft<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; of what Radek wants to post here.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; -to make that appear credible I will have to dist=
ance myself from<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; some<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; of you and maybe even make some slightly critical=
 remarks. I might<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; say<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; something like &quot;...if you compare my clean b=
log with that of<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; Digwurgen<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; (sic) or Passwordname, you&#39;ll see that...&quo=
t;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Indeed.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; --<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Piotr Konieczny<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &quot;The problem about Wikipedia is, that it just wo=
rks in reality, not in<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; theory.&quot;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Wikipedia statistics discussion list<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:folks@wikipedometer.net">folks@wiki=
pedometer.net</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; <a href=3D"http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/l=
istinfo/folks" target=3D"_blank">http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/l=
istinfo/folks</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Wikipedia statistics discussion list<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; <a href=3D"mailto:folks@wikipedometer.net">folks@wikipedo=
meter.net</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; <a href=3D"http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listi=
nfo/folks" target=3D"_blank">http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listi=
nfo/folks</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Wikipedia statistics discussion list<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:folks@wikipedometer.net">folks@wikipedometer=
.net</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/f=
olks" target=3D"_blank">http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/f=
olks</a><br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt; Wikipedia statistics discussion list<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:folks@wikipedometer.net">folks@wikipedometer.net</a>=
<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks</a>=
<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Wikipedia statistics discussion list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:folks@wikipedometer.net">folks@wikipedometer.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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>

--0016e6db2d288676dd046d7c1ca7--


--===============0592244503614982420==
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

--===============0592244503614982420==--


