X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Wed Jun  3 12:34:10 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c3b2b3db0906020733q5e2c8b5cse87200771e07da23@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A238480.5040704@post.pl>
	<929ed1ec0906011031p4b179ea6gffb621a35f27587d@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A2420BE.60108@post.pl>
	<25890ca0906011151l21045a78n579e1ad2bf519f80@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3b2b3db0906011524x15349ae0hfe6f40ecff5ddfbc@mail.gmail.com>
	<929ed1ec0906011555mf106db9rc3944fe7bd94d675@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A24C451.6010301@post.pl>
	<929ed1ec0906020151r2bc76954t97affdaa237a1d22@mail.gmail.com>
	<6fb557d70906020728g3afd6110l5f99cd93ddf01fff@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3b2b3db0906020733q5e2c8b5cse87200771e07da23@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 05:33:59 -0500
Message-ID: <25890ca0906030333q26f46d30yf9351f0e72b9165d@mail.gmail.com>
From: radek szulga <rsszulga@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:  I think this "confession"
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thorsten1#Molobo.27s_SPI_case
	actually opens up a lot of possibilities here, if it's worth it to keep
	making noise about it. Before anyone reads further - that's a big IF
	[...] 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] [WMP] Molobo ban
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:  I think this "confession"
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thorsten1#Molobo.27s_SPI_case
	actually opens up a lot of possibilities here, if it's worth it to keep
	making noise about it. Before anyone reads further - that's a big IF
	[...] 
	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

I think this "confession"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thorsten1#Molobo.27s_SPI_case
actually opens up a lot of possibilities here, if it's worth it to
keep making noise about it.

Before anyone reads further - that's a big IF

Loosemark's actually doing quite a good job of keeping the heat on and
asking some pertinent questions.
Given that all this shit started off with "secret evidence" here we
have Adjust Shift  saying:
"I discussed with Sciurin=E6 regarding the case off-wiki."
"We discussed about the nature of the evidence, which evidence to post
on-wiki, and so on."

I think this establishes the fact that the admin originally in charge
of the case was in touch - off-wiki - with  JUST the accuser and the
case was being decided and tried off wiki and all discussion off the
relevant evidence on wiki was being, more or less ignored (and later
removed). Right at the start Adjust Shift was circumventing the usual
SPI process.

Then we have this comment:
"On 31 May, after Molobo realized that I was not on his side, he
launched an attack on me"

How is this justified? The accusation itself seems like a personal
attack. Was this more than Molobo just defending himself? AS was
convinced of Molobo's guilt (due to off-wiki conversations with
Sciurinea) and mistook Molobo defending himself as a personal attack.

Then:
"I contacted Avraham and asked him to act fast. "

Yes and that's the problem. Adjust Shift made a whole big mess out of
the case and called in damage control. Fast. Not careful. Not
according to procedures. Just "fast".

Here I think the right way to go is to argue is that the clerks/admins
who came in later were just trying to clean up the mess left by AS -
so their intentions were good, but they were prejudiced by AS and his
prior off-wiki (stress off-wiki a lot!) contacts with Sciurinea, and
they were desperate to close the case quickly etc. ... end result
messy, unfair investigation.

"Avraham determined that the published evidence and CU result were
enough to conclude that Gwinndeith is a sockpuppet of Molobo."

Except he didn't. In fact the early consensus among the clerks was
that it was "Unlikely" (Molbo, I know you did it, but ...) Again -
"secret evidence" and "off wiki communication with Sciurinea"
prejudiced the initial clerk and then the later clerks.

Loosemark is also very right to ask this:
"What for did you analyse the two ArbCom cases Piotrus-Ghirla and
Eastern European dispute?"

which is probably a good guess about where that comment about "those
Eastern European editors" came from.

NOW. Not sure the cost is worth the effort. But there could be something he=
re.

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

