X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Wed May 27 22:43:08 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4A1D9D29.5020807@post.pl>
References: <6c9a05ec0905231259r4ffb1fa7i350386b8cd565ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<929ed1ec0905240459g618ce5bbod4c4be35baa9d4df@mail.gmail.com>
	<4f045a880905241413v2e69659dt38897431bfaa4f9a@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A1B0B07.8070607@post.pl> <4A1C2981.5070801@post.pl>
	<25890ca0905261104q5c8255esa31cff6978356cdf@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A1C5890.7070103@post.pl>
	<4f045a880905261543v482cac2ew3343341990304cb6@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A1D9D29.5020807@post.pl>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 15:42:59 -0500
Message-ID: <25890ca0905271342p2266776el5ab3e92702419fef@mail.gmail.com>
From: radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
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:  The only thing is that the person who removed those
	comments, Mayalld, seems to quite sympathetic to the view that this case
	was a mess from the get go and that all this secret stuff should've
	never happened. Basically I think s/he is just generally annoyed at how
	this was handled and so he's trying to re-focus it. So we don't want to
	annoy him more than the other side. But fuss maybe a good idea -
	particularly since Deacon's comment "The unpublished evidence makes it
	highly likely that Molobo ..." was not removed - maybe just ask Mayalld
	why that was left in there. [...] 
	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]
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.8 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 autolearn=no version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] Deacon and Molobo
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: -0.3
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:  The only thing is that the person who removed those
	comments, Mayalld, seems to quite sympathetic to the view that this case
	was a mess from the get go and that all this secret stuff should've
	never happened. Basically I think s/he is just generally annoyed at how
	this was handled and so he's trying to re-focus it. So we don't want to
	annoy him more than the other side. But fuss maybe a good idea -
	particularly since Deacon's comment "The unpublished evidence makes it
	highly likely that Molobo ..." was not removed - maybe just ask Mayalld
	why that was left in there. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.3 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
	0.6 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

The only thing is that the person who removed those comments, Mayalld,
seems to quite sympathetic to the view that this case was a mess from
the get go and that all this secret stuff should've never happened.
Basically I think s/he is just generally annoyed at how this was
handled and so he's trying to re-focus it. So we don't want to annoy
him more than the other side.
But fuss maybe a good idea - particularly since Deacon's comment "The
unpublished evidence makes it highly likely that Molobo ..." was not
removed - maybe just ask Mayalld why that was left in there.

The other thing is to somehow bring up the motion to just close this
case and let Skapperod or Sciurinea start over with their secret
evidence. Basically, THIS particular case was a) mishandled from the
beginning, b) the public evidence presented by Sciurinea does not
prove Molobo and Gwinn are same person and now, apparently, c)
checkuser says "unrelated/unlikely". In light of that the "secret"
evidence would have to be unequivocal.

Hence, the only way to ensure fairness here is to close the present
case (which includes checkuser and the evidence presented by Sci
publicly - even Skapperod has backed off somewhat only saying now that
Gwinn was "probably SOMEBODY's sockpuppet"), declare mistrial.
If after that Sciurinea or Deacon or Skapperod wish to have the case
re-opened by making their secret evidence public then that's fine.

Anyway - I think the above argument needs to be made somewhere but I'm
not sure where.

Radek


2009/5/27 Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>:
> Please note that Radeksz and Marting questions about how Deacon received
> the evidence and requests that they should be turned over to me were
> REMOVED:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DWikipedia:Sockpuppet_investig=
ations/Molobo&diff=3D292608408&oldid=3D292593075
> without a comment!
>
> I think we should reinsert the comments, start a fuss on the talk page,
> repeating the above requests, and asking how such an important requests
> were removed without a comment. I will join soon with an official
> request to look at the evidence.
>
>
> --
> Prokonsul Piotrus aka Piotr Konieczny =A0 =A0 =A0 |||____ =A0__ __
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 I=3DI=3D=3D=3D=3D__|_|I__I=3D>
> "Lennier, get us the hell out of here." =A0 =A0 |||
> "Initiating 'getting the hell out of here' maneuver."
> =A0-- Ivanova and Lennier in Babylon 5:"The Hour of the Wolf"
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

