X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Mon Jun 29 14:57:41 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c3b2b3db0906290548w37de1fa2w2e2e0c4fc73e48d@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>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:57:27 -0500
Message-ID: <25890ca0906290557v54ca84ffw6fd1bfa41726da34@mail.gmail.com>
From: radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: -0.8
X-Spam_score_int: -7
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:  Yeah, but I'm not sure what I've got to loose here. I
	find the situation as things stand ridiculous enough to want to leave
	anyway. I am not going to come back in 6 months and beg for mercy. I
	guess in some crazy way they could somehow change this from 1RR a week
	restriction to a perma ban but honestly I wouldn't care that much (in
	economic terms, the marginal cost is small). My only concern is that I
	don't want this to spillover onto others, which is why I was hoping to
	do this off-wiki as this way will generate a lot of heat. I understand
	perfectly if some of you don't want to get involved (Piotrus included -
	since Deacon is sure to show up). [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.8 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST 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: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -0.8
X-Spam_score_int: -7
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:  Yeah, but I'm not sure what I've got to loose here. I
	find the situation as things stand ridiculous enough to want to leave
	anyway. I am not going to come back in 6 months and beg for mercy. I
	guess in some crazy way they could somehow change this from 1RR a week
	restriction to a perma ban but honestly I wouldn't care that much (in
	economic terms, the marginal cost is small). My only concern is that I
	don't want this to spillover onto others, which is why I was hoping to
	do this off-wiki as this way will generate a lot of heat. I understand
	perfectly if some of you don't want to get involved (Piotrus included -
	since Deacon is sure to show up). [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.8 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.1 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

Yeah, but I'm not sure what I've got to loose here. I find the
situation as things stand ridiculous enough to want to leave anyway.
I am not going to come back in 6 months and beg for mercy. I guess in
some crazy way they could somehow change this from 1RR a week
restriction to a perma ban but honestly I wouldn't care that much (in
economic terms, the marginal cost is small). My only concern is that I
don't want this to spillover onto others, which is why I was hoping to
do this off-wiki as this way will generate a lot of heat. I understand
perfectly if some of you don't want to get involved (Piotrus included
- since Deacon is sure to show up).

On the other hand if I can get rid of this crap or even dilute it
substantially I can continue with my work here. So potential marginal
benefits are large. But yeah, at the end of the day, it's a dice roll.

Radek


2009/6/29 Andrei Dombay <wikibiophys@gmail.com>:
>
> I would not file an appeal. There is a rude anekdot about=A0 a little spa=
rrow
> who fell down into a pile of shit after being frozen during a harsh winte=
r.
> The shit was warm, so the sparrow felt better and started singing songs. A
> cat was nearby, he listen the sings, took the sparrow out of the shit and
> eat him. Three conclusions: (1) someone who places you into the shit is n=
ot
> necessarily your enemy; (2) someone who removes you from the shit is not
> necessarily your friend; (3) if you are sitting in a shit, do not rise yo=
ur
> voice, because a cat might be walking nearby.
>
> This is certainly about me, but might be about others as well.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:36 AM, radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, that's very useful. I anticipate that this will be something
>> which comes up in discussion and I'll mention it then - I don't want
>> to make the initial request too lengthy.
>>
>> Radek
>>
>>
>> 2009/6/28 Andrei Dombay <wikibiophys@gmail.com>:
>> > Yes, it will be very difficult to explain why you did 3 reverts in
>> > "Nashi",
>> > unless you also followed edits by PU after a conversation (see above) =
at
>> > my
>> > talk page. You should probably include this link or PU will do it in a
>> > comment during your appeal.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Andrei Dombay <wikibiophys@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Radek,
>> >>
>> >> Be prepared for an attack by certain people who do not like Piotrus
>> >>
>> >> Weak point: you made 3 reverts in Nashi, on June 11, 14 and 19. That
>> >> may
>> >> be used as an argument of your tag-teaming.
>> >>
>> >> Note this revert by CrisO:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DNashi_(youth_movement)&di=
ff=3D193468247&oldid=3D193456542
>> >>
>> >> He also did not comment like you, but he made only one revert.
>> >>
>> >> Good points: (1) you indeed had nothing to do with me or other editors
>> >> on
>> >> any side until very recently; (2) you got in trouble by following edi=
ts
>> >> of
>> >> two problematic users: me and Kupredu.
>> >>
>> >> Not sure if it helps, but I did not always acted as your "ally": I
>> >> inserted here some content by the sock of JP, partially reverting you:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DCinema_of_the_Soviet_Uni=
on&diff=3D290002374&oldid=3D289953685]
>> >>
>> >> You may or may not wish to include a link to this conversation
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DUser_talk:Biophys&oldid=
=3D289969277#2_users
>> >>
>> >> Maybe not.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Martin <martint20@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I thought your restriction was six months? Anyway, I'd appeal to
>> >>> ArbCom via RFAR, (and mention Colchicum in your appeal).
>> >>>
>> >>> Martin
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:32 AM, radek szulga<rsszulga@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > I'm going to try and file the AE appeal either tomorrow or Tuesday.
>> >>> > Of
>> >>> > course I'll post a draft here. I'm not sure how detailed I should =
be
>> >>> > and to what extent to mention the off-wiki conversation I had with
>> >>> > Thatcher.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Basically the argument is that:
>> >>> > *I made 3 reverts in 2 weeks and for that got a 1RR a WEEK,
>> >>> > INDEFINITE
>> >>> > restriction. This is a completely crazy definition of "edit warrin=
g"
>> >>> > and a extremely harsh restriction.
>> >>> > *I admit that I probably should have said something on talk, but
>> >>> > these
>> >>> > were 3 reverts in 2 weeks - at best this is a minor infraction on =
my
>> >>> > part. Furthermore, I used edit summaries each time to explain my
>> >>> > edits
>> >>> > (ask for sources, revert reverts w/o edit summaries). If I had
>> >>> > reverted 3 times in one day, or reverted once per day for two weeks
>> >>> > then yes, sure, it'd be edit warring, particularly w/o talk
>> >>> > discussion. But this was 3 reverts in 2 weeks. Not every edit is
>> >>> > going
>> >>> > to have an essay attached to it and to insist on that for 3 reverts
>> >>> > in
>> >>> > 2 weeks is unrealistic.
>> >>> > *There was no prior warning nor had I been previously on any kind =
of
>> >>> > sanctions or restrictions. Thatcher's restriction came out of
>> >>> > nowhere
>> >>> > and blindsided me. I was not even given a chance to change my
>> >>> > conduct
>> >>> > in any way.
>> >>> > *Unlike most other editors who were restricted (I'm not sure if I
>> >>> > should bring up Colchicum here by name - if so then "all editors
>> >>> > except for Colchicum") I do not have an extensive block log which
>> >>> > also
>> >>> > makes this unprecedented (if this develops further - I got one blo=
ck
>> >>> > in four years and I can try and ask Malik to comment that there's
>> >>> > been
>> >>> > no further trouble between us)
>> >>> > *I was mentioned in a very minor way by Shell Kinney on that EE pa=
ge
>> >>> > but not as one of the "major" editors. She mentioned me in the
>> >>> > context
>> >>> > of an "edit war" in an instance where I made 1 edit (in the space =
of
>> >>> > 2
>> >>> > weeks) on one article, and another instance where I made 2 edits (=
in
>> >>> > the space of 2 weeks) on another. This means that she was referring
>> >>> > to
>> >>> > the fact that others were edit warring on those articles but
>> >>> > obviously
>> >>> > does not mean that I, specifically, was edit warring. I think
>> >>> > Thatcher
>> >>> > misinterpreted her statement and jumped to a hasty conclusion - he
>> >>> > slapped the restriction on every user there without actually looki=
ng
>> >>> > at the details.
>> >>> > *My name is nowhere near the Digwuren case, it's restrictions, it's
>> >>> > sanctions or anything associated with it. Thatcher - per the text =
of
>> >>> > the restriction - seems to be partly basing his restriction on the
>> >>> > mistaken impression that I was somehow involved or part of that
>> >>> > case.
>> >>> > *Since I am not engaged in any edit wars, have not been in any
>> >>> > recently, I am not violating BLP or copy vio, and I am not being
>> >>> > un-civil to anyone or violating any other Wikipedia policies or
>> >>> > guidelines, Thatcher's restriction is purely (and inappropriately)
>> >>> > punitive. And it is a very harsh punishment (again, 1RR per WEEK,
>> >>> > INDEFINITELY) for making 3 edits in 2 weeks. It seems like Thatcher
>> >>> > is
>> >>> > trying to make a POINT (what he calls a "canary in the coalmine")
>> >>> > and
>> >>> > I've become collateral damage in that endeavor.
>> >>> > *Yes, there was an edit war going on at the time but I had not been
>> >>> > involved much in Estonia-Russia articles until very recently (and I
>> >>> > can explain how*). Hence I thought I was acting as a neutral,
>> >>> > outside
>> >>> > editor , doing regular grunt editing work and I acted on what I
>> >>> > thought were the merits of the situation. Thatcher has asked why
>> >>> > there
>> >>> > was no neutral editors - but by his definition, anyone who showed =
up
>> >>> > and made even a single edit is obviously automatically not neutral.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I think part of the way I screwed up with Thatcher is that I
>> >>> > immediately volunteered to a 1RR on the articles that Shell listed.
>> >>> > This was a mistake on my part as it didn't leave room for him to
>> >>> > engage in face-saving bargaining - either he agrees to my proposal
>> >>> > or
>> >>> > it's his original decision. I should have just asked for the remov=
al
>> >>> > of the restriction, let him propose the voluntary 1RR and then
>> >>> > agreed
>> >>> > to it. So as not to repeat that mistake again, I'm just going to a=
sk
>> >>> > for the removal of the restriction. At some point, if it looks like
>> >>> > the right time and things look troubled, Piotrus, or one of the
>> >>> > admins
>> >>> > he contacted on IRC, should probably jump in and propose the
>> >>> > voluntary
>> >>> > 1RR - make it PER DAY though, and only on the articles listed by
>> >>> > Shell, hopefully that will be enough - and at that point I'll be
>> >>> > like
>> >>> > "Yeah, of course I can do that, no problem" and then hopefully oth=
er
>> >>> > uninvolved admins will say "ok, he's agreed to voluntarily abide by
>> >>> > 1RR, no need for the ugly sanction". Hopefully this will fly.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > There's a part of me which wants to sugar coat all the above with
>> >>> > "fundamentally Thatcher acted appropriately" and "he was essential=
ly
>> >>> > correct, except for me" ... but hypocrisy is labor intensive and I
>> >>> > don't have time for that right now, so I'd rather just, more or
>> >>> > less,
>> >>> > tell it like it is, roll the dice, and hope for a bit of luck.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > *The story here is essentially true - "I was editing an article wh=
en
>> >>> > a
>> >>> > I got suspicious that Kupredu was a Jacob Peters sock. I mentioned
>> >>> > it
>> >>> > to Moreshi who's had experience with him before. Apparently some g=
uy
>> >>> > named Biophys noticed the same thing at the same time and commented
>> >>> > at
>> >>> > Moreshi's talk same as me. After that =A0I started watching Biophy=
s'
>> >>> > edits just in case the JP sock showed up again in another guise.
>> >>> > This
>> >>> > led me to looking at some of the Estonia-related articles. And the=
n,
>> >>> > BOOM! all of sudden I'm restricted."
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Input appreciated.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Radek
>> >>> >
>> >>> > 2009/6/27 Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>:
>> >>> >> radek szulga wrote:
>> >>> >>> Durova suggested that I file an appeal of my restriction on RFAR
>> >>> >>> (that's this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFAR
>> >>> >>> right?)
>> >>> >>> which if my final appeal to Thorsten (including my argument that
>> >>> >>> it's
>> >>> >>> best to settle this off wiki and avoid large scale drama) doesn't
>> >>> >>> work
>> >>> >>> is what I'm going to do early next week.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> I'd think that AE would be the right place for that, not RFAR. You
>> >>> >> can
>> >>> >> always go to RFAR once AE fails.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> I contacted some admins on IRC and they were somewhat supportive,
>> >>> >> and
>> >>> >> should've contacted Thatcher. If there is no chance in a day or s=
o,
>> >>> >> we
>> >>> >> can consider starting an AE thread. I'd suggest to look over the
>> >>> >> draft
>> >>> >> of what Radek wants to post here.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> -to make that appear credible I will have to distance myself from
>> >>> >>> some
>> >>> >>> of you and maybe even make some slightly critical remarks. I mig=
ht
>> >>> >>> say
>> >>> >>> something like "...if you compare my clean blog with that of
>> >>> >>> Digwurgen
>> >>> >>> (sic) or Passwordname, you'll see that..."
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Indeed.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> --
>> >>> >> Piotr Konieczny
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> "The problem about Wikipedia is, that it just works in reality, n=
ot
>> >>> >> 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
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>

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

