X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Sun Sep 13 08:01:40 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <25890ca0909122059w4729e07cs801a1bb614df9276@mail.gmail.com>
References: <25890ca0909122059w4729e07cs801a1bb614df9276@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 09:01:27 +0300
Message-ID: <929ed1ec0909122301g4fb488c1l2ed1f458adb82a04@mail.gmail.com>
From: Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: -0.2
X-Spam_score_int: -1
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 Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 06:59, radek szulga
	<rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote: > Loosmark followed proper procedures, filed
	a proper appeal, refrained from > making attacks or insulting Sandstein
	or otherwise tried to intimidate him, > did not canvass other
	admins/editors and, well, basically failed to generate > sufficient
	drama to get his appeal revised. Basically for following the > rules
	and
	behaving himself, Loosmark gets screwed. > On the other hand, Russavia, 
	posts long tireds on his talk page, lashes out > and uses profanity at
	Sandstein, goes to all kinds of other editors, becomes > even more
	incivil and provocative, makes statements about "fighting", > blatantly
	misrepresents Sandstein's comments, and generally acts like a > total
	asshole and now it appears that he's got a chance to get his topic ban
	> reviewed (never mind the overall ban). > [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.2 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
	0.7 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-deb3 (2006-10-05) on 
	pakkun.mirky.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=3.1.7-deb3
Subject: Re: [WPM] Russavia and Loosmark
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="===============4942468130046675764=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -0.2
X-Spam_score_int: -1
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 Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 06:59, radek szulga
	<rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote: > Loosmark followed proper procedures, filed
	a proper appeal, refrained from > making attacks or insulting Sandstein
	or otherwise tried to intimidate him, > did not canvass other
	admins/editors and, well, basically failed to generate > sufficient
	drama to get his appeal revised. Basically for following the > rules and
	behaving himself, Loosmark gets screwed. > On the other hand, Russavia,
	posts long tireds on his talk page, lashes out > and uses profanity at
	Sandstein, goes to all kinds of other editors, becomes > even more
	incivil and provocative, makes statements about "fighting", > blatantly
	misrepresents Sandstein's comments, and generally acts like a > total
	asshole and now it appears that he's got a chance to get his topic ban >
	reviewed (never mind the overall ban). > [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.2 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
	0.7 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

--===============4942468130046675764==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016363b7a80aab0ae04736f4775

--0016363b7a80aab0ae04736f4775
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 06:59, radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote:

> Loosmark followed proper procedures, filed a proper appeal, refrained from
> making attacks or insulting Sandstein or otherwise tried to intimidate him,
> did not canvass other admins/editors and, well, basically failed to generate
> sufficient drama to get his appeal revised. Basically for following the
> rules and behaving himself, Loosmark gets screwed.
> On the other hand, Russavia, posts long tireds on his talk page, lashes out
> and uses profanity at Sandstein, goes to all kinds of other editors, becomes
> even more incivil and provocative, makes statements about "fighting",
> blatantly misrepresents Sandstein's comments, and generally acts like a
> total asshole and now it appears that he's got a chance to get his topic ban
> reviewed (never mind the overall ban).
>

Psychosociologically, that's the point of being as inconvenient as possible
-- which Russavia has done.  In bureaucracy-managed organisations, this is
acknowledged and there are enforceable policies in place to neutralise this
problem.  Wikipedia prides itself on being so unorganised that nothing
counters it.  Remember Irpen?

The lesson here seems to be that actually following wiki policies, being
> polite, following rules is a bad idea and being loud, obnoxious and incivil
> is the way to get what you want. Not good incentives.
>
> If nobody else wants to say it, I'll say something (toned down) like that
> to Sandstein.
>

Russavia and his pals have been attacking Sandstein instead of defending
himself for quite a while now.  That's the problem; that's why Sandstein has
gotten ready to retreat.

It would help if, in showing solidarity with Sandstein, some administrator
enforced NPA on Russavia's anti-Sandstein rant.  Where can we get one?

-- 
Andres Soolo

--0016363b7a80aab0ae04736f4775
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 06:59, radek szulga <spa=
n dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:rsszulga@gmail.com">rsszulga@gmail.com<=
/a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Loosmark followed proper procedures, filed a proper appeal, refrained from =
making attacks or insulting Sandstein or otherwise tried to intimidate him,=
 did not canvass other admins/editors and, well, basically failed to genera=
te sufficient drama to get his appeal revised. Basically for following the =
rules and behaving himself, Loosmark gets screwed.<br>

On the other hand, Russavia, posts long tireds on his talk page, lashes out=
 and uses profanity at Sandstein, goes to all kinds of other editors, becom=
es even more incivil and provocative, makes statements about &quot;fighting=
&quot;, blatantly misrepresents Sandstein&#39;s comments, and generally act=
s like a total asshole and now it appears that he&#39;s got a chance to get=
 his topic ban reviewed (never mind the overall ban).<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Psychosociologically, that&#39;s the point=
 of being as inconvenient as possible -- which Russavia has done. =C2=A0In =
bureaucracy-managed organisations, this is acknowledged and there are enfor=
ceable policies in place to neutralise this problem. =C2=A0Wikipedia prides=
 itself on being so unorganised that nothing counters it. =C2=A0Remember Ir=
pen?</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
The lesson here seems to be that actually following wiki policies, being po=
lite, following rules is a bad idea and being loud, obnoxious and incivil i=
s the way to get what you want. Not good incentives.<br><br>If nobody else =
wants to say it, I&#39;ll say something (toned down) like that to Sandstein=
.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Russavia and his pals have been attacking =
Sandstein instead of defending himself for quite a while now. =C2=A0That&#3=
9;s the problem; that&#39;s why Sandstein has gotten ready to retreat.</div=
>
<div><br></div><div>It would help if, in showing solidarity with Sandstein,=
 some administrator enforced NPA on Russavia&#39;s anti-Sandstein rant. =C2=
=A0Where can we get one?</div><div><br></div></div>-- <br>Andres Soolo<br>

--0016363b7a80aab0ae04736f4775--


--===============4942468130046675764==
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

--===============4942468130046675764==--


