X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Wed Jun 10 11:47:44 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
Message-ID: <4A2F8122.8060400@post.pl>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:47:14 +0200
From: Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20081204 MultiZilla/1.8.3.4e SeaMonkey/1.1.14
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
References: <4A2F7D8E.30403@post.pl>
In-Reply-To: <4A2F7D8E.30403@post.pl>
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: Piotr Konieczny wrote: > I've asked for a
	clarification
	on DIGWUREN's case and incivility - I was > surprised on rereading the
	case that the new sanctions are less clear on > CIV/NPA/AGF issues than
	the former restriction. > >
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Digwuren
	> > Also, note the thread below about AndriyK and Deacon's involvement
	there. [...] 
	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] Minor abrcom issues
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:  Piotr Konieczny wrote: > I've asked for a clarification
	on DIGWUREN's case and incivility - I was > surprised on rereading the
	case that the new sanctions are less clear on > CIV/NPA/AGF issues than
	the former restriction. > >
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Digwuren
	> > Also, note the thread below about AndriyK and Deacon's involvement
	there. [...] 
	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

Piotr Konieczny wrote:
> I've asked for a clarification on DIGWUREN's case and incivility - I was 
> surprised on rereading the case that the new sanctions are less clear on 
> CIV/NPA/AGF issues than the former restriction.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Digwuren
> 
> Also, note the thread below about AndriyK and Deacon's involvement there.

I've just realized there is a much more important issue to consider with 
regards to adjusting at DIGWUREN's case:

Uninvolved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an 
administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not 
engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the 
user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will 
not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding 
whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be 
treated as any other appeal of sanctions.

In other words, Deacon was uninvolved - although it appears nobody read 
this or decided to bring this up. I think we should lobby to change 
"current" to "current or past" and removal of "on the topic". As it 
stands, I can have a virulent spat with a user on article X, and then 
sanction him a week later for his action on article Y, claiming I am 
uninvolved.

I do wonder whether and if so, how to argue that an admin can be 
prejudiced towards a certain group? The best rule would be that if 
several members of a specific group / wiki-community think an admin is 
involved, he should be considered involved - after all, their perception 
is very important.

-- 
Prokonsul Piotrus aka Piotr Konieczny       |||____  __ __
                                       I=I====__|_|I__I=>
"Lennier, get us the hell out of here."     |||
"Initiating 'getting the hell out of here' maneuver."
  -- Ivanova and Lennier in Babylon 5:"The Hour of the Wolf"

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia statistics discussion list
folks@wikipedometer.net
http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks

