X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Mon Jun 29 03:53:23 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
Message-ID: <4A481F02.5070500@post.pl>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:55:14 -0400
From: Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090303 MultiZilla/1.8.3.4e SeaMonkey/1.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
References: <25890ca0906281732s3836a51i757b5568dd328d63@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <25890ca0906281732s3836a51i757b5568dd328d63@mail.gmail.com>
X-Spam_score: -2.4
X-Spam_score_int: -23
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: radek szulga 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 warring" > and a extremely harsh restriction. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.4 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO       Received: contains a forged HELO
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	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=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=unavailable 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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -2.4
X-Spam_score_int: -23
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:  radek szulga 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 warring" > and a extremely harsh restriction. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.4 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO       Received: contains a forged HELO
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.1 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

radek szulga 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 warring"
> and a extremely harsh restriction.

Good point. Note also your low activity on other Baltic topics, but note 
that you are a frequent contributor to many non-controversial Polish 
history articles, where you occasionally revert vandals, and thus the 
1RR will in fact hurt your content creation (and Wikipedia) to a certain 
degree.

Oh, and do stress the obscene lenght of your restriction (6 months). 
It's a major part of the overkill; when I talked to some other admins, 
they said that a week or so may be ok to cool heads down but 6 months, 
in your case, is completely unfounded (you may also say that you'd not 
be complaining if this was a week or so, because you do appreciate the 
importance of warnings and cooling down, and of course point out that a 
week has passed and your edits in that period are hardly controversial; 
if you made no reverts in that time, point that out).

> *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.

The second part is repeating what you said earlier. Keep the one were 
you admit you should have used talk more, note that you usually do so 
but did not consider it here due to your low activity on this article 
(one edit every ~5 days) add a promise that in the future, you'll not 
only try to comment even more often, but will try to help others and 
create mediation.

> *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.

OK.

> *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 block
> in four years and I can try and ask Malik to comment that there's been
> no further trouble between us)

Stress that you've been a constructive editor for 4 years, and you are 
not happy with how you are being treated and lumped together with a 
bunch of more disruptive editors.

> *I was mentioned in a very minor way by Shell Kinney on that EE page

Were you? The last time I looked I couldn't even find a mention of you; 
and I am almost certain that was some time AFTER you've got restricted.

Anyway, if you mention Shelly in your post, you have a great excuse to 
link it from her talk page and ask her to comment.

> *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.

Indeed. The EE arbitration requires warning a user first, and you were 
not warned - I think this is a major part of Durova's argument, although 
to be honest, I find it a bit wikilawyering, and wouldn't stress it too 
much.

> *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.

Indeed. Neutral editors are allowed to take sides, this is how extremist 
and NPOV-violating points are removed from this project.

> 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. 

Perhaps, but it was hard to know that he is such a "I-am-perfect" 
person. Do mention all the restrictions  you've voluntarily proposed to 
put on yourself, and how your gesture(s) of good will was/were 
repeatedly ignored.

> I should have just asked for the removal
> 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 ask
> 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 other
> uninvolved admins will say "ok, he's agreed to voluntarily abide by
> 1RR, no need for the ugly sanction". Hopefully this will fly.

I disagree with this, I think the fact that you came out with voluntary 
restrictions on yourself is important to demonstrate your good will and 
reasonability.

> *The story here is essentially true - "I was editing an article when 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 guy
> named Biophys noticed the same thing at the same time and commented at
> Moreshi's talk same as me. After that  I started watching Biophys'
> 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 then,
> BOOM! all of sudden I'm restricted."

Good explanation :) Don't forget to mention - even if that is becoming 
boring to us - that you did your 3 reverts in two weeks and than got 
restricted for half a year :D

Further arguments:
* note that you consider yourself to be reasonably neutral in the Baltic 
issues, and that you were editing those articles as a neutral editor, 
not part of Baltic or Russian tag team
* state that you were unaware of edit warring in this article, which is 
a major reason you have not commented on talk. You looked at the last 
diff, disagreed with it, and reverted it with an edit summary. You did 
it three times in two weeks, and then you find yourself under 1RR for 
participating in an edit war you did not even know was taking place. In 
other words, you are an innocent bystander that got mauled in the 
ongoing fighting and otherwise helpful admin response.

G'luck

-- 
Piotr Konieczny

"The problem about Wikipedia is, that it just works in reality, not in 
theory."

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

