X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Mon Jul  6 03:36:58 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <25890ca0907050741x6c0e8f1ds467261f28da912ce@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A4FBA38.10401@post.pl>
	<f826636f0907041459i2c47ed40pd7714a2c38f773ae@mail.gmail.com>
	<929ed1ec0907050317n18df24d8y23e4688ed617a66f@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3b2b3db0907050620y54f7dca1i8abfcb553018dfda@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0907050741x6c0e8f1ds467261f28da912ce@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 11:36:34 +1000
Message-ID: <4f045a880907051836m4b257c48jc001ee9cca91b73c@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin <martint20@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: -0.4
X-Spam_score_int: -3
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:  Sandstein seems to think that your are questioning
	simply the process of applying a notice and seems to have overlooked
	that you are making a legitimate appeal as allowed for in the Arbcom
	case remedy. Probably the only way is to appeal to ArbCom. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.4 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
	0.5 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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST autolearn=no version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] Appealing Molobo's block to ArbCom
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: -0.4
X-Spam_score_int: -3
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:  Sandstein seems to think that your are questioning
	simply the process of applying a notice and seems to have overlooked
	that you are making a legitimate appeal as allowed for in the Arbcom
	case remedy. Probably the only way is to appeal to ArbCom. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.4 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
	0.5 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

Sandstein seems to think that your are questioning simply the process
of applying a notice and seems to have overlooked that you are making
a legitimate appeal as allowed for in the Arbcom case remedy. Probably
the only way is to appeal to ArbCom.

The issue of the notification for me is whether any editor would
reasonably think that a low level of reverts would lead to a heavy
sanction. Certainly we all believed that keeping to one or too reverts
per day would be okay, but evidently not. If an admin is going is
going to 'm sure any reasonable person would have heeded any warning
that would have been given, but none was.

There are a number of issues here that Arbcom could look in reviewing an ap=
peal:
*The actions of Jehochman in dramatically reopening the case and
filing an ArbCom case, and Thatcher jumping in and imposing sanctions
before Shell Kinney could complete her investigation poisoning any
conclusion she would have arrived at. Here seems we have some some
admins unhappy with the discretionary sanction regime, citing it is
too hard to investigate the complex interactions. It thus could be
argued that these unnecessarily heavy sanctions are pointy
demonstration, casting a wide area of collateral damage, by these
admins who wanted to push it back on to ArbCom in the first place.

*The muddying of the water by Deacon and others in casting this as
some wider EE dispute, when it was originally just involving Biophys
and Offliner. It should be noted that had Piotr not commented in the
original AE case, Deacon wouldn't have reason arrive at jehochman's
RFAR to throw more mud at Piotr and thus hijack the original case
involving essentially a long standing personality dispute between
Biophys and Offliner and turning into Balto-Polish consiracy. Here you
could point out that in comparison to your Polish article edits, your
activity in Baltic topics is relatively minor, but that Deacon and
others would use any opportunity to sanction Polish editors regardless
of whether they were involved or not.

Martin

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:41 AM, radek szulga<rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I'm afraid that unless another admin speaks up Sandstein's comments
> will doom the appeal based on a reverence for the "status quo" and the
> tendency of admins not to contradict those of their own caste (except in
> obvious long standing feuds like Deacon vs. Piotrus).
> So I should probably start thinking about either quitting or arb com.
>
> Radek
>
>
> 2009/7/5 Andrei Dombay <wikibiophys@gmail.com>
>>
>> Yes, of course. He wrote in his blocking notice issued to everyone about
>> the "prima facia" of tag-teams in "Nashi".=A0 This way any editors who m=
ake
>> correlated edits can be labeled as tag-team members. For example, he wou=
ld
>> not include Galassi and Domitori to our "team" because they made so far =
only
>> one or a couple of edits supporting certain members of our team. But if =
they
>> make more...=A0 But I talked with the both at their talk pages... Defini=
tely,
>> a tag team already.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 6:17 AM, Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 00:59, Dorin Cheptea <dorin.cheptea@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Please, notice that Thatcher has just posted on Radeksz' appeal.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DWikipedia:Arbitration/Requ=
ests/Enforcement&curid=3D12936136&diff=3D300300352&oldid=3D300295478
>>>> He claims Radek "is no stranger to the EE controversy", and implies he
>>>> should have known better than to revert without comment on the talk pa=
ge.
>>>
>>> It reinforces my preconceived notion that Thatcher is suffering from the
>>> preconceived notion that there's an "EE cabal" which needs to be "round=
ed
>>> up". =A0He's brushing Radek with "no stranger to controversy" because h=
is
>>> pattern-seeking mammalian brain has drawn a (not entirely invalid)
>>> connection between Radek and the "EE cabal", and he really doesn't care=
 if
>>> Radek *individually* merits sanctioning.
>>> --
>>> Andres Soolo
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

