X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Fri Jun 12 11:04:56 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <929ed1ec0906120025q5ffaecacvb348ec9533a8ef81@mail.gmail.com>
References: <292063.51782.qm@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f826636f0906111553l77c2fa8i4498ee714154408b@mail.gmail.com>
	<929ed1ec0906120025q5ffaecacvb348ec9533a8ef81@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:04:34 +0300
Message-ID: <f826636f0906120204y1fba64bagc900122aabaad9c1@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dorin Cheptea <dorin.cheptea@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: 0.2
X-Spam_score_int: 2
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: > Which goes to show that unblocking is not done for
	lack of guilt, but as > an act of mercy. > That's unfortunately so. But
	we knew this. So we should act accordingly. We should keep a list of
	people that practice that. That list will come in handy one day. For
	example I and the rest here will know how to approach Vicenarian. You
	have sacrifized yourself, don't let that be in vain. Let it at least be
	info for the rest of us (incl. those who will join in the future).
	[...] Content analysis details:   (0.2 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	1.1 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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] blocked
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="===============6867576176875793920=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: 0.2
X-Spam_score_int: 2
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:  > Which goes to show that unblocking is not done for
	lack of guilt, but as > an act of mercy. > That's unfortunately so. But
	we knew this. So we should act accordingly. We should keep a list of
	people that practice that. That list will come in handy one day. For
	example I and the rest here will know how to approach Vicenarian. You
	have sacrifized yourself, don't let that be in vain. Let it at least be
	info for the rest of us (incl. those who will join in the future). [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (0.2 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	1.1 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

--===============6867576176875793920==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c5a26e50cbfe046c22ff84

--001636c5a26e50cbfe046c22ff84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>  Which goes to show that unblocking is not done for lack of guilt, but as
> an act of mercy.
>

That's unfortunately so. But we knew this. So we should act accordingly. We
should keep a list of people that practice that. That list will come in
handy one day. For example I and the rest here will know how to
approach Vicenarian.
You have sacrifized yourself, don't let that be in vain. Let it at least be
info for the rest of us (incl. those who will join in the future).

If you show too much dignity in face of such persons, they are angry at you.
Showing lack of dignity is also excluded. So the only way out IMHO is to
show them ignorance. "Ah! That is what you meant! Why didn't you say so?! I
*felt* I forgot something. Oh, that's detail, no matter. How about this...?"
and immediately change the topic of discussion to something requiring to
actually do serious work. They will leave you in peace, because they got
what they wanted and would not steak around to get loaded with some job to
do.


>
> It is a stupid non-sense thing, but PasswordUsername managed to use it for
>> his advantage.
>>
>
> I wouldn't be so sure.  PasswordUsername's clumsy attempts to connect these
> affairs will probably be useful at a future date to demonstrate his
> battleground mentality.
>

Short-term, he did.

But long term, precisely, that is what we should all strive to achieve. The
more such evidence [that he has battlegorund mentality], the better.

Simultaneously we should portray you as a person who only does mistakes
because of forgetting something or because of ignorance or not understanding
what is wanted from you. In short, lack of battleground mentality.

We should all repeat out loud there that you do not have battleground
mentality (and if really necessary criticize you for something minor, like
using or not using British English) and he has battleground mentality until
it sticks on all walls.


>
> But I'm taking Biophys a lot more seriously after PU's outrage being fake
> was clearly demonstrated by his follow-up after I deleted his original
> trolling.  And, of course, after <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Biophys&diff=prev&oldid=295912476>.
>  (As you recall, the ability to ferret out real names of opponents is one of
> the characteristic aspects of Web Brigade members.  It's obvious how a spy
> agency would do it; it can be done by non-spies, but to do it consistently
> takes quite a bit of organisation.)
>

F*&*(% PU, where the h$%^ did he get that. Who the s#$% is he working for.

Andrei, don't leave that like this. It is a core WP policy to preserve
anonymity. For example b/c there might be cases of blackmail (and not only
towards you). This is serious stuff, and it calls for a number of us to jump
in. Just report it, and let us know, pls. We can get to Jimbo Wales or
anyway high enough in the hierarchy. They won't be able to ignore this. We
can achieve an important goal: we can link PU to breaking one of the core WP
policies, much more itchy from their POV than 3RR or any other petty
"crimes". We should make this steak to PU's reputation. And generalizing we
can try sticking it to his entire team.

Now, the rest goes to everyone here:

When you create new articles, they are all listed in RecentArticles until
somebody reviews and approves. Anyone of us ca actually do this! So, ask for
help. We can review each other's new articles and confirm they are
legitimate.

If you try to monitor RecentArticles, it's tedious job. 90% you would have
no idea about. As a civilized person, you would just leave those
non-reviewed until someone who knows the topic finds them. But not everybody
is civilized, and some want to show they did some work, like Vicenarian ...

In case that the new article might be seen a RfD candidate by others, we can
place some intermediate tag or start a discussion before others notice it,
and you can pretend you address the issues. A reviewing admin seeing that in
an RfD would naturally think that the community has it on the radar, so
he/she will be less trigger happy (not so rush to vote delete).

In the yesterday's case, it should have been enough that one of us confirmed
the article is all right. So, IMHO, we should make this a universal rule
whenever one of us creates new articles. It's a good habit that can save us
some potential trouble.

--001636c5a26e50cbfe046c22ff84
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m=
argin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote"><div>=A0Which goes to show that unblocking is not done for=
 lack of guilt, but as an act of mercy.</div>
<div class=3D"im"><div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>T=
hat&#39;s unfortunately so. But we knew this. So we should act accordingly.=
 We should keep a list of people that practice that. That list will come in=
 handy one day. For example I and the rest here will know how to approach=
=A0<span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: collapse; ">V=
icenarian. You have sacrifized yourself, don&#39;t let that be in vain. Let=
 it at least be info for the rest of us (incl. those who will join in the f=
uture).</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>If you show too much dignity in face of such persons, t=
hey are angry at you. Showing lack of dignity is also excluded. So the only=
 way out IMHO is to show them ignorance. &quot;Ah! That is what you meant! =
Why didn&#39;t you say so?! I <i>felt</i> I forgot something. Oh, that&#39;=
s detail, no matter. How about this...?&quot; and immediately change the to=
pic of discussion to something requiring to actually do serious work. They =
will leave you in peace, because they got what they wanted and would not st=
eak around to get loaded with some job to do.</div>
<div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><d=
iv class=3D"im"><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m=
argin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

<div>It is a stupid non-sense thing, but PasswordUsername managed to use it=
 for his advantage.</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>I wouldn&#3=
9;t be so sure. =A0PasswordUsername&#39;s clumsy attempts to connect these =
affairs will probably be useful at a future date to demonstrate his battleg=
round mentality.</div>

<div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Short-term, he did.</div>=
<div><br></div><div>But long term, precisely, that is what we should all st=
rive to achieve. The more such evidence [that he has battlegorund mentality=
], the better.=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>Simultaneously we should portray you as a person who on=
ly does mistakes because of forgetting something or because of ignorance or=
 not understanding what is wanted from you. In short, lack of battleground =
mentality.=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>We should all repeat out loud there that you do not hav=
e battleground mentality (and if really necessary criticize you for somethi=
ng minor, like using or not using British English) and he has battleground =
mentality until it sticks on all walls.</div>
<div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><d=
iv><br></div><div>But I&#39;m taking Biophys a lot more seriously after PU&=
#39;s outrage being fake was clearly demonstrated by his follow-up after I =
deleted his original trolling. =A0And, of course, after &lt;<a href=3D"http=
://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DUser_talk:Biophys&amp;diff=3Dprev&a=
mp;oldid=3D295912476" target=3D"_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php=
?title=3DUser_talk:Biophys&amp;diff=3Dprev&amp;oldid=3D295912476</a>&gt;. =
=A0(As you recall, the ability to ferret out real names of opponents is one=
 of the characteristic aspects of Web Brigade members. =A0It&#39;s obvious =
how a spy agency would do it; it can be done by non-spies, but to do it con=
sistently takes quite a bit of organisation.)</div>

<div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>F*&amp;*(% PU, where the =
h$%^ did he get that. Who the s#$% is he working for.=A0</div><div><br></di=
v><div>Andrei, don&#39;t leave that like this. It is a core WP policy to pr=
eserve anonymity. For example b/c there might be cases of blackmail (and no=
t only towards you). This is serious stuff, and it calls for a number of us=
 to jump in. Just report it, and let us know, pls. We can get to Jimbo Wale=
s or anyway high enough in the hierarchy. They won&#39;t be able to ignore =
this. We can achieve an important goal: we can link PU to breaking one of t=
he core WP policies, much more itchy from their POV than 3RR or any other p=
etty &quot;crimes&quot;. We should make this steak to PU&#39;s reputation. =
And generalizing we can try sticking it to his entire team.=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>Now, the rest goes to everyone here:</div><div><br></di=
v><div>When you create new articles, they are all listed in RecentArticles =
until somebody reviews and approves. Anyone of us ca actually do this! So, =
ask for help. We can review each other&#39;s new articles and confirm they =
are legitimate.=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>If you try to monitor RecentArticles, it&#39;s tedious =
job. 90% you would have no idea about. As a civilized person, you would jus=
t leave those non-reviewed until someone who knows the topic finds them. Bu=
t not everybody is civilized, and some want to show they did some work, lik=
e Vicenarian ...</div>
<div><br></div><div>In case that the new article might be seen a RfD candid=
ate by others, we can place some intermediate tag or start a discussion bef=
ore others notice it, and you can pretend you address the issues. A reviewi=
ng admin seeing that in an RfD would naturally think that the community has=
 it on the radar, so he/she will be less trigger happy (not so rush to vote=
 delete).</div>
<div><br></div><div>In the yesterday&#39;s case, it should have been enough=
 that one of us confirmed the article is all right. So, IMHO, we should mak=
e this a universal rule whenever one of us creates new articles. It&#39;s a=
 good habit that can save us some potential trouble.</div>
</div>

--001636c5a26e50cbfe046c22ff84--


--===============6867576176875793920==
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

--===============6867576176875793920==--


