X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Fri Jul 31 11:18:19 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4A728F86.1040500@post.pl>
References: <628973.19764.qm@web32801.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<736779.88675.qm@web45107.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<BAY110-W372FEBBA66EC2D6A27A1B8D6100@phx.gbl>
	<4A728F86.1040500@post.pl>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:18:02 +0300
Message-ID: <929ed1ec0907310218i2adb2acfra83ac1c6610068f3@mail.gmail.com>
From: Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: 0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 1
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:  On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:30, Piotr Konieczny
	<piokon@post.pl> wrote: > I am afraid I will have to withdraw from the
	WPM group and suggest all Polish editors do so as well. With a member
	suggesting a ban on another [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (0.1 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.5 HTML_40_50             BODY: Message is 40% to 50% HTML
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.5 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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,HTML_40_50,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no 
	version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] HELP!! Radek , Piotrus, Tymek and others.
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="===============4154991343413653069=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: 0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 1
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:  On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:30, Piotr Konieczny
	<piokon@post.pl> wrote: > I am afraid I will have to withdraw from the
	WPM group and suggest all Polish editors do so as well. With a member
	suggesting a ban on another [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (0.1 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.5 HTML_40_50             BODY: Message is 40% to 50% HTML
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.5 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

--===============4154991343413653069==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00163646be02a9d14b046ffce552

--00163646be02a9d14b046ffce552
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:30, Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl> wrote:

> I am afraid I will have to withdraw from the WPM group and suggest all

Polish editors do so as well. With a member suggesting a ban on another

for a petty issue, I no longer have confidence that this group integrity

is uncompromised. With ban proposals on ANI against one of the most

productive members of the Polish community, I will have to take a stance

against the Ukrainian editors, and I cannot assume that this

communication channel nor anything I will say here are secure anymore,

particularly as some of the things said here can be easily used to

justify a ban on the members of this discussion group.


*Piotrus*, please, calm down.  I hope Ostap just didn't think it through
properly.  Poeticbent has written very rarely here; perhaps Ostap just
didn't realise he can resolve any outstanding issues with Poeticbent through
this list in a faster, less dramu-laden and more discreet way than on
Wikipedia.

What I find problematic is that one member of our group is proposing a
> ban on another:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=305222320


This *is* problematic.  *Ostap*, please do not do it.

Minor disagreements on-Wikipedia are OK, and actually encouraged -- it makes
it harder for anybody opposing us claim that we're sockpuppets of each other
--, but Poeticbent has been under severe risk of banning on Wikipedia for
months now.  A push like this can realise this risk, and that would be
rather problematic.

One of the reasons we set up this list was so that the participants could,
through having trust in each other's judgment, and consult each other for
appropriate actions on Wikipedia.  Proposing a ban on Poeticbent on
Wikipedia undermines this trust, and it's a bad idea.  Besides, if you find
Poeticbent is doing something rash, rude or just plain silly, contacting him
privately (or through the list so other supportive editors can help in
resolving any ambiguities) is bound to be more effective.

*Poeticbent*, as Piotrus said, please avoid continued reverting.  Wikipedia
is notorious for lax enforcement of all sorts of policies, but it sure loves
the 3RR policy -- because it's so technical, so easy to assert and enforce.
 If you find an opposing party is reverting you repeatedly, call in help
through the list.  There are about ten of us; we can easily out-revert any
single opponent *and* thus demonstrade wide consensus if it's necessary.
 Then, 3RR will work for us, not against us.

All that having been said, any group of people is bound to get into conflict
every now and then, and we're no exception to this rule.  But let's try to
work out the conflict in a civil, rational manner.  We don't have
fault-seeking Wikipedian politicians here to try and twist everybody's every
word, so we should be able to do it better than it's possible on Wikipedia.

-- 
Andres Soolo

--00163646be02a9d14b046ffce552
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:30, Piotr Konieczny <=
span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;piokon@post.pl&gt;</span> wrote:</div><div class=3D"gm=
ail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin-top: 0px; marg=
in-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1=
px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; paddin=
g-left: 1ex; ">
I am afraid I will have to withdraw from the WPM group and suggest all</blo=
ckquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-=
right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px;=
 border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-l=
eft: 1ex; ">
Polish editors do so as well. With a member suggesting a ban on another</bl=
ockquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin=
-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px=
; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-=
left: 1ex; ">
for a petty issue, I no longer have confidence that this group integrity</b=
lockquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margi=
n-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1p=
x; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding=
-left: 1ex; ">
is uncompromised. With ban proposals on ANI against one of the most</blockq=
uote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-rig=
ht: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; bo=
rder-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left=
: 1ex; ">
productive members of the Polish community, I will have to take a stance</b=
lockquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margi=
n-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1p=
x; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding=
-left: 1ex; ">
against the Ukrainian editors, and I cannot assume that this</blockquote><b=
lockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px=
; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-le=
ft-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; =
">
communication channel nor anything I will say here are secure anymore,</blo=
ckquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-=
right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px;=
 border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-l=
eft: 1ex; ">
particularly as some of the things said here can be easily used to</blockqu=
ote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-righ=
t: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; bor=
der-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left:=
 1ex; ">
justify a ban on the members of this discussion group.</blockquote><div><br=
></div><div><b>Piotrus</b>, please, calm down. =C2=A0I hope Ostap just didn=
&#39;t think it through properly. =C2=A0Poeticbent has written very rarely =
here; perhaps Ostap just didn&#39;t realise he can resolve any outstanding =
issues with Poeticbent through this list in a faster, less dramu-laden and =
more discreet way than on Wikipedia.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class=3D"im">What I fin=
d problematic is that one member of our group is proposing a</div>
ban on another:<br>
<a href=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DWikipedia:Administra=
tors%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&amp;diff=3Dprev&amp;oldid=3D305222320" tar=
get=3D"_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DWikipedia:Admini=
strators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&amp;diff=3Dprev&amp;oldid=3D305222320<=
/a></blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>This *is* problematic. =C2=A0<b>Ostap</b>, please do no=
t do it.</div><div><br></div><div>Minor disagreements on-Wikipedia are OK, =
and actually encouraged -- it makes it harder for anybody opposing us claim=
 that we&#39;re sockpuppets of each other --, but Poeticbent has been under=
 severe risk of banning on Wikipedia for months now. =C2=A0A push like this=
 can realise this risk, and that would be rather problematic.</div>
<div><br></div><div>One of the reasons we set up this list was so that the =
participants could, through having trust in each other&#39;s judgment, and =
consult each other for appropriate actions on Wikipedia. =C2=A0Proposing a =
ban on Poeticbent on Wikipedia undermines this trust, and it&#39;s a bad id=
ea. =C2=A0Besides, if you find Poeticbent is doing something rash, rude or =
just plain silly, contacting him privately (or through the list so other su=
pportive editors can help in resolving any ambiguities) is bound to be more=
 effective.</div>
<div><br></div><div><b>Poeticbent</b>, as Piotrus said, please avoid contin=
ued reverting. =C2=A0Wikipedia is notorious for lax enforcement of all sort=
s of policies, but it sure loves the 3RR policy -- because it&#39;s so tech=
nical, so easy to assert and enforce. =C2=A0If you find an opposing party i=
s reverting you repeatedly, call in help through the list. =C2=A0There are =
about ten of us; we can easily out-revert any single opponent *and* thus de=
monstrade wide consensus if it&#39;s necessary. =C2=A0Then, 3RR will work f=
or us, not against us.</div>
<div><br></div><div>All that having been said, any group of people is bound=
 to get into conflict every now and then, and we&#39;re no exception to thi=
s rule. =C2=A0But let&#39;s try to work out the conflict in a civil, ration=
al manner. =C2=A0We don&#39;t have fault-seeking Wikipedian politicians her=
e to try and twist everybody&#39;s every word, so we should be able to do i=
t better than it&#39;s possible on Wikipedia.</div>
<div><br></div></div>-- <br>Andres Soolo<br>

--00163646be02a9d14b046ffce552--


--===============4154991343413653069==
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

--===============4154991343413653069==--


