X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Mon Jul  6 04:07:49 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
Message-ID: <4A515C55.1030505@post.pl>
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:07:17 -0400
From: Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090303 MultiZilla/1.8.3.4e SeaMonkey/1.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
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>
In-Reply-To: <4f045a880907051836m4b257c48jc001ee9cca91b73c@mail.gmail.com>
X-Spam_score: -2.4
X-Spam_score_int: -23
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: 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 [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.4 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO       Received: contains a forged HELO
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	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=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=unavailable 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: -2.4
X-Spam_score_int: -23
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:  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 [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.4 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO       Received: contains a forged HELO
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.1 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

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.


-- 
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

