X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Mon Jun 22 03:49:11 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
From: PetersJV@aol.com
Message-ID: <c5e.5961b4cb.37703cfd@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:48:45 EDT
To: folks@wikipedometer.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5377
X-AOL-IP: 205.188.169.199
X-Spam_score: -0.6
X-Spam_score_int: -5
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:  In a message dated 6/21/2009 6:12:14 P.M. Eastern
	Daylight Time, rsszulga@gmail.com writes: "Hi, and sorry to trouble you
	again with this topic. Recently I filed the case on Deacon of
	Pndapetzim at AE
	[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/En
	forcement&diff=prev&oldid=295193286] to basically established that he
	was not an "uninvolved" administrator for Eastern European disputes. It
	seems the same issue has arisen again in relation to the admin Piotrus
	and Baltics-related disputes (the case known as "Digwuren"). I'll
	freely
	admit here that since getting drawn into some of this drama I've put
	several editors talk pages on my watchlist. Recently, admin Jehochman
	posted this "warning"
	[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Piotrus&diff=next&oldid
	=297787433] on Piotrus' talk page, warning Piotrus "not to comment" and
	threatening to "ban him". A few edits later, perhaps realizing he's gone
	too far, Jehochman re-edited his comment to a friendly sounding piece of
	"advice"
	[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Piotrus&diff=next&oldid
	=297788006] (which to me looks like a mafia tactic of making a threat
	then quickly following it up with "but I'm just kidding, we're all
	friends here" for disclaimer purposes). My question is - who gets to
	decide whether an admin is "involved" or "uninvolved" in these cases?
	By
	filing the Deacon case with AE I thought I was following formal Wiki
	procedures and guidelines and going through the appropriate channels -
	if an admin is "involved" there should be a statement to that affect
	made by either consensus or an AE ruling. However, here it seems like
	any admin can usurp the authority to declare another admin "involved"
	and threaten them with bans from the relevant discussions. This is
	beyond and above the fact that these kinds of threats assume bad faith
	and border on incivility. Once again, I apologize if this isn't the
	appropriate venue for my question - is this something that should be
	brought up at ANI? - but I still get lost in all the bureaucracy of
	Wikipedia. Thank you for your time.~~~~" [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.6 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	1.0 NO_REAL_NAME           From: does not include a real name
	-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
	0.6 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=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_30_40,
	HTML_MESSAGE,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] Jehochmann and Piotrus
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="===============0955921538844551155=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
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:  In a message dated 6/21/2009 6:12:14 P.M. Eastern
	Daylight Time, rsszulga@gmail.com writes: "Hi, and sorry to trouble you
	again with this topic. Recently I filed the case on Deacon of Pndapetzim
	at AE
	[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/En
	forcement&diff=prev&oldid=295193286] to basically established that he
	was not an "uninvolved" administrator for Eastern European disputes. It
	seems the same issue has arisen again in relation to the admin Piotrus
	and Baltics-related disputes (the case known as "Digwuren"). I'll freely
	admit here that since getting drawn into some of this drama I've put
	several editors talk pages on my watchlist. Recently, admin Jehochman
	posted this "warning"
	[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Piotrus&diff=next&oldid
	=297787433] on Piotrus' talk page, warning Piotrus "not to comment" and
	threatening to "ban him". A few edits later, perhaps realizing he's gone
	too far, Jehochman re-edited his comment to a friendly sounding piece of
	"advice"
	[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Piotrus&diff=next&oldid
	=297788006] (which to me looks like a mafia tactic of making a threat
	then quickly following it up with "but I'm just kidding, we're all
	friends here" for disclaimer purposes). My question is - who gets to
	decide whether an admin is "involved" or "uninvolved" in these cases? By
	filing the Deacon case with AE I thought I was following formal Wiki
	procedures and guidelines and going through the appropriate channels -
	if an admin is "involved" there should be a statement to that affect
	made by either consensus or an AE ruling. However, here it seems like
	any admin can usurp the authority to declare another admin "involved"
	and threaten them with bans from the relevant discussions. This is
	beyond and above the fact that these kinds of threats assume bad faith
	and border on incivility. Once again, I apologize if this isn't the
	appropriate venue for my question - is this something that should be
	brought up at ANI? - but I still get lost in all the bureaucracy of
	Wikipedia. Thank you for your time.~~~~" [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.7 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	1.0 NO_REAL_NAME           From: does not include a real name
	-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
	0.6 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list


--===============0955921538844551155==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1245635325"


-------------------------------1245635325
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 
In a message dated 6/21/2009 6:12:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
rsszulga@gmail.com writes:

"Hi, and  sorry to trouble you again with this topic. Recently I filed
the case on  Deacon of Pndapetzim at  AE
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/En
forcement&diff=prev&oldid=295193286]
to  basically established that he was not an "uninvolved" administrator
for  Eastern European disputes. It seems the same issue has arisen
again in  relation to the admin Piotrus and Baltics-related disputes
(the case known  as "Digwuren"). I'll freely admit here that since
getting drawn into some  of this drama I've put several editors talk
pages on my watchlist.  Recently, admin Jehochman posted this  "warning"
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Piotrus&diff=next&oldid
=297787433]
on  Piotrus' talk page, warning Piotrus "not to comment" and
threatening to  "ban him". A few edits later, perhaps realizing he's
gone too far,  Jehochman re-edited his comment to a friendly sounding
piece of  "advice"
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Piotrus&diff=next&oldid
=297788006]
(which  to me looks like a mafia tactic of making a threat then quickly
following  it up with "but I'm just kidding, we're all friends here"
for disclaimer  purposes). My question is - who gets to decide whether
an admin is  "involved" or "uninvolved" in these cases? By filing the
Deacon case with  AE I thought I was following formal Wiki procedures
and guidelines and  going through the appropriate channels - if an
admin is "involved" there  should be a statement to that affect made by
either consensus or an AE  ruling. However, here it seems like any
admin can usurp the authority to  declare another admin "involved" and
threaten them with bans from the  relevant discussions. This is beyond
and above the fact that these kinds of  threats assume bad faith and
border on incivility. Once again, I apologize  if this isn't the
appropriate venue for my question - is this something  that should be
brought up at ANI? - but I still get lost in all the  bureaucracy of
Wikipedia. Thank you for your  time.~~~~"



This looks good to me, I would change "mafia tactic" to "intimidation  
tactic."
 
/Peters
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221323000x1201367220/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=
JunestepsfooterNO62)

-------------------------------1245635325
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16825" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=3Drole_body style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY=
: Arial" 
bottomMargin=3D7 leftMargin=3D7 topMargin=3D7 rightMargin=3D7><FONT id=3Dr=
ole_document 
face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 6/21/2009 6:12:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
rsszulga@gmail.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE 
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"=
><FONT 
  style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 siz=
e=3D2>"Hi, and 
  sorry to trouble you again with this topic. Recently I filed<BR>the case=
 on 
  Deacon of Pndapetzim at 
  AE<BR>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DWikipedia:Arbitration=
/Requests/Enforcement&amp;diff=3Dprev&amp;oldid=3D295193286]<BR>to 
  basically established that he was not an "uninvolved" administrator<BR>f=
or 
  Eastern European disputes. It seems the same issue has arisen<BR>again=
 in 
  relation to the admin Piotrus and Baltics-related disputes<BR>(the case=
 known 
  as "Digwuren"). I'll freely admit here that since<BR>getting drawn into=
 some 
  of this drama I've put several editors talk<BR>pages on my watchlist. 
  Recently, admin Jehochman posted this 
  "warning"<BR>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DUser_talk:Piot=
rus&amp;diff=3Dnext&amp;oldid=3D297787433]<BR>on 
  Piotrus' talk page, warning Piotrus "not to comment" and<BR>threatening=
 to 
  "ban him". A few edits later, perhaps realizing he's<BR>gone too far, 
  Jehochman re-edited his comment to a friendly sounding<BR>piece of 
  "advice"<BR>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DUser_talk:Piotr=
us&amp;diff=3Dnext&amp;oldid=3D297788006]<BR>(which 
  to me looks like a mafia tactic of making a threat then quickly<BR>follo=
wing 
  it up with "but I'm just kidding, we're all friends here"<BR>for disclai=
mer 
  purposes). My question is - who gets to decide whether<BR>an admin is 
  "involved" or "uninvolved" in these cases? By filing the<BR>Deacon case=
 with 
  AE I thought I was following formal Wiki procedures<BR>and guidelines an=
d 
  going through the appropriate channels - if an<BR>admin is "involved" th=
ere 
  should be a statement to that affect made by<BR>either consensus or an=
 AE 
  ruling. However, here it seems like any<BR>admin can usurp the authority=
 to 
  declare another admin "involved" and<BR>threaten them with bans from the=
 
  relevant discussions. This is beyond<BR>and above the fact that these ki=
nds of 
  threats assume bad faith and<BR>border on incivility. Once again, I apol=
ogize 
  if this isn't the<BR>appropriate venue for my question - is this somethi=
ng 
  that should be<BR>brought up at ANI? - but I still get lost in all the=
 
  bureaucracy of<BR>Wikipedia. Thank you for your 
time.~~~~"<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>This looks good to me, I would change "mafia tactic" to "intimidation=
 
tactic."</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>/Peters</DIV></FONT><DIV CLASS=3D"aol_ad_footer" ID=3D"787430e5afb933=
968ed9043642afd120"><br/><font style=3D"color:black;font:normal 10pt arial=
,san-serif;"> <hr style=3D"margin-top:10px"/><B>A Good Credit Score is 700=
 or Above. <A HREF=3Dhttp://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221323000x12=
01367220/aol?redir=3Dhttp://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=3D=
668072%26hmpgID=3D62%26bcd=3DJunestepsfooterNO62>See yours in just 2 easy=
 steps!</A></B></font></DIV></BODY></HTML>

-------------------------------1245635325--


--===============0955921538844551155==
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

--===============0955921538844551155==--


