X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Mon Jun 29 21:00:30 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <25890ca0906291156y47f38354y606b28ff9640c876@mail.gmail.com>
References: <25890ca0906281732s3836a51i757b5568dd328d63@mail.gmail.com>
	<4f045a880906281902n56be257ao44cc951550f8b1e9@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3b2b3db0906282003j163060b5y8ba6da454b967828@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3b2b3db0906282012r23dcb4fcr3982e02029734d66@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0906290536t1e1014c7t5915ae76f3772d56@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3b2b3db0906290548w37de1fa2w2e2e0c4fc73e48d@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0906290557v54ca84ffw6fd1bfa41726da34@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0906290607n3820f96ledc8b75892a474f3@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A490AA0.4010107@post.pl>
	<25890ca0906291156y47f38354y606b28ff9640c876@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:00:19 -0400
Message-ID: <c3b2b3db0906291200w4701a20es9162d3a13509848b@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:  Radek, what was your explanation of three nearly
	identical reverts by you in "Nash" at close dates? On Mon, Jun 29, 2009
	at 2:56 PM, radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote: > My concern was
	that if I file AE and Thatcher refuses (if it's up to > him alone) then
	if I file it again at RFAR then the clerks are more > likely to reject
	to even hear the case. > But two shots are better than one so it might
	make sense to file it at > AE first. I don't think I'll have time to
	adequately prepare it today > - lots of class prep work. But I should
	have enough time tomorrow > night. > > Radek > > > 2009/6/29 Piotr
	Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>: > > radek szulga wrote: > >> Also, it would
	be useful if someone could elaborate/explain this > >> portion of the
	AE
	guideline: > >> > >> "# In November 2008, the Arbitration Committee
	passed a motion which > >> stated that administrators are prohibited
	from reversing or > >> overturning (explicitly or in substance) any
	action taken by another > >> administrator pursuant to the terms of an
	active arbitration remedy, > >> and explicitly noted as being taken to
	enforce said remedy, except > >> > >> * with the written authorization
	of the Committee, or > >> * following a clear, substantial, and active
	community consensus to > do so. > >> > >> Provisionally (pending
	updates
	to the enforcement process), this > >> applies only to specific
	administrative actions affecting specific > >> users; it does not apply
	to notices, editor lists, warnings, broad > >> topic area actions, or
	other "enforcement actions" that are not > >> specific actions applied
	to specific editors. (Clarification motion)" > >> > >> Obviously there
	is NOT going to be a "clear community consensus". Does > >> this mean
	that Thatcher is the only person who can rescind the ruling? > >> If so,
	then perhaps it would be better to go straight to RFAR? > > > >
	Wikilawyering :) Hope she forgets about this or that it is not > >
	mentioned. If it is, go to RFAR, but there is no reason not to try AE >
	first. > > > > > > -- > > Piotr Konieczny > > > > "The problem about
	Wikipedia is, that it just works in reality, not in > > theory." > > > >
	> > Wikipedia [...] 
	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="===============7966146966170135573=="
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:  Radek, what was your explanation of three nearly
	identical reverts by you in "Nash" at close dates? On Mon, Jun 29, 2009
	at 2:56 PM, radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote: > My concern was
	that if I file AE and Thatcher refuses (if it's up to > him alone) then
	if I file it again at RFAR then the clerks are more > likely to reject
	to even hear the case. > But two shots are better than one so it might
	make sense to file it at > AE first. I don't think I'll have time to
	adequately prepare it today > - lots of class prep work. But I should
	have enough time tomorrow > night. > > Radek > > > 2009/6/29 Piotr
	Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>: > > radek szulga wrote: > >> Also, it would
	be useful if someone could elaborate/explain this > >> portion of the AE
	guideline: > >> > >> "# In November 2008, the Arbitration Committee
	passed a motion which > >> stated that administrators are prohibited
	from reversing or > >> overturning (explicitly or in substance) any
	action taken by another > >> administrator pursuant to the terms of an
	active arbitration remedy, > >> and explicitly noted as being taken to
	enforce said remedy, except > >> > >> * with the written authorization
	of the Committee, or > >> * following a clear, substantial, and active
	community consensus to > do so. > >> > >> Provisionally (pending updates
	to the enforcement process), this > >> applies only to specific
	administrative actions affecting specific > >> users; it does not apply
	to notices, editor lists, warnings, broad > >> topic area actions, or
	other "enforcement actions" that are not > >> specific actions applied
	to specific editors. (Clarification motion)" > >> > >> Obviously there
	is NOT going to be a "clear community consensus". Does > >> this mean
	that Thatcher is the only person who can rescind the ruling? > >> If so,
	then perhaps it would be better to go straight to RFAR? > > > >
	Wikilawyering :) Hope she forgets about this or that it is not > >
	mentioned. If it is, go to RFAR, but there is no reason not to try AE >
	first. > > > > > > -- > > Piotr Konieczny > > > > "The problem about
	Wikipedia is, that it just works in reality, not in > > theory." > > > >
	> > Wikipedia [...] 
	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

--===============7966146966170135573==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485f6cd062910cd046d814dae

--001485f6cd062910cd046d814dae
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Radek, what was your explanation of three nearly identical reverts by you in
"Nash" at close dates?



On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:56 PM, radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote:

> My concern was that if I file AE and Thatcher refuses (if it's up to
> him alone) then if I file it again at RFAR then the clerks are more
> likely to reject to even hear the case.
> But two shots are better than one so it might make sense to file it at
> AE first. I don't think I'll have time to adequately prepare it today
> - lots of class prep work. But I should have enough time tomorrow
> night.
>
> Radek
>
>
> 2009/6/29 Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>:
> > radek szulga wrote:
> >> Also, it would be useful if someone could elaborate/explain this
> >> portion of the AE guideline:
> >>
> >> "# In November 2008, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion which
> >> stated that administrators are prohibited from reversing or
> >> overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another
> >> administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy,
> >> and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except
> >>
> >>     * with the written authorization of the Committee, or
> >>     * following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to
> do so.
> >>
> >> Provisionally (pending updates to the enforcement process), this
> >> applies only to specific administrative actions affecting specific
> >> users; it does not apply to notices, editor lists, warnings, broad
> >> topic area actions, or other "enforcement actions" that are not
> >> specific actions applied to specific editors. (Clarification motion)"
> >>
> >> Obviously there is NOT going to be a "clear community consensus". Does
> >> this mean that Thatcher is the only person who can rescind the ruling?
> >> If so, then perhaps it would be better to go straight to RFAR?
> >
> > Wikilawyering :) Hope she forgets about this or that it is not
> > mentioned. If it is, go to RFAR, but there is no reason not to try AE
> first.
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
>

--001485f6cd062910cd046d814dae
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Radek, what was your explanation of three nearly identical reverts by you i=
n &quot;Nash&quot; at close
dates?<br><br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:=
56 PM, radek szulga <span 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"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt=
 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
My concern was that if I file AE and Thatcher refuses (if it&#39;s up to<br=
>
him alone) then if I file it again at RFAR then the clerks are more<br>
likely to reject to even hear the case.<br>
But two shots are better than one so it might make sense to file it at<br>
AE first. I don&#39;t think I&#39;ll have time to adequately prepare it tod=
ay<br>
- lots of class prep work. But I should have enough time tomorrow<br>
night.<br>
<br>
Radek<br>
<br>
<br>
2009/6/29 Piotr Konieczny &lt;piokon@post.pl&gt;:<br>
<div><div></div><div class=3D"h5">&gt; radek szulga wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt; Also, it would be useful if someone could elaborate/explain this<b=
r>
&gt;&gt; portion of the AE guideline:<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &quot;# In November 2008, the Arbitration Committee passed a motio=
n which<br>
&gt;&gt; stated that administrators are prohibited from reversing or<br>
&gt;&gt; overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by anoth=
er<br>
&gt;&gt; administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remed=
y,<br>
&gt;&gt; and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except=
<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; =A0 =A0 * with the written authorization of the Committee, or<br>
&gt;&gt; =A0 =A0 * following a clear, substantial, and active community con=
sensus to do so.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Provisionally (pending updates to the enforcement process), this<b=
r>
&gt;&gt; applies only to specific administrative actions affecting specific=
<br>
&gt;&gt; users; it does not apply to notices, editor lists, warnings, broad=
<br>
&gt;&gt; topic area actions, or other &quot;enforcement actions&quot; that =
are not<br>
&gt;&gt; specific actions applied to specific editors. (Clarification motio=
n)&quot;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Obviously there is NOT going to be a &quot;clear community consens=
us&quot;. Does<br>
&gt;&gt; this mean that Thatcher is the only person who can rescind the rul=
ing?<br>
&gt;&gt; If so, then perhaps it would be better to go straight to RFAR?<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Wikilawyering :) Hope she forgets about this or that it is not<br>
&gt; mentioned. If it is, go to RFAR, but there is no reason not to try AE =
first.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; --<br>
&gt; Piotr Konieczny<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &quot;The problem about Wikipedia is, that it just works in reality, n=
ot in<br>
&gt; theory.&quot;<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>
<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>

--001485f6cd062910cd046d814dae--


--===============7966146966170135573==
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

--===============7966146966170135573==--


