X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Wed Jun 10 19:47:10 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4A2F8122.8060400@post.pl>
References: <4A2F7D8E.30403@post.pl> <4A2F8122.8060400@post.pl>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:47:00 -0500
Message-ID: <25890ca0906101047l75a229b2nbd3ec6323c587479@mail.gmail.com>
From: radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
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 saw that as well and wondered if it was gonna come
	up
	at the AE case and had the defense all planned out - pretty much saying
	what you're saying below. This is also why I tried to stress Deacon's
	most recent remarks to Jacurek. (Note that there is also no definition
	of "current" means - last week? last month? last year?) AGK however
	took
	the broader interpretation of "involved" anyway so it wasn't necessary
	-
	I think in doing so he also established a precedent. I'm not sure if
	lobbying for changing the loophole should be a priority right now
	though. Are there other"uninvolved involved" admins that we have to
	worry about atm? And at some point exploiting the loophole might come
	in
	useful - though obviously it's a one shot deal. But involvement should
	definetly be decided the way you suggest if we do try to make the
	changes. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.7 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
	0.2 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=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST autolearn=no version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] Minor abrcom issues
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: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
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 saw that as well and wondered if it was gonna come up
	at the AE case and had the defense all planned out - pretty much saying
	what you're saying below. This is also why I tried to stress Deacon's
	most recent remarks to Jacurek. (Note that there is also no definition
	of "current" means - last week? last month? last year?) AGK however took
	the broader interpretation of "involved" anyway so it wasn't necessary -
	I think in doing so he also established a precedent. I'm not sure if
	lobbying for changing the loophole should be a priority right now
	though. Are there other"uninvolved involved" admins that we have to
	worry about atm? And at some point exploiting the loophole might come in
	useful - though obviously it's a one shot deal. But involvement should
	definetly be decided the way you suggest if we do try to make the
	changes. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.7 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
	0.1 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

I saw that as well and wondered if it was gonna come up at the AE case
and had the defense all planned out - pretty much saying what you're
saying below. This is also why I tried to stress Deacon's most recent
remarks to Jacurek. (Note that there is also no definition of
"current" means - last week? last month? last year?) AGK however took
the broader interpretation of "involved" anyway so it wasn't necessary
- I think in doing so he also established a precedent.
I'm not sure if lobbying for changing the loophole should be a
priority right now though. Are there other"uninvolved involved" admins
that we have to worry about atm? And at some point exploiting the
loophole might come in useful - though obviously it's a one shot deal.
But involvement should definetly be decided the way you suggest if we
do try to make the changes.

Radek


2009/6/10 Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>:
> Piotr Konieczny wrote:
>> I've asked for a clarification on DIGWUREN's case and incivility - I was
>> surprised on rereading the case that the new sanctions are less clear on
>> CIV/NPA/AGF issues than the former restriction.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Re=
quest_to_amend_prior_case:_Digwuren
>>
>> Also, note the thread below about AndriyK and Deacon's involvement there.
>
> I've just realized there is a much more important issue to consider with
> regards to adjusting at DIGWUREN's case:
>
> Uninvolved administrators
>
> For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an
> administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not
> engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the
> user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will
> not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding
> whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be
> treated as any other appeal of sanctions.
>
> In other words, Deacon was uninvolved - although it appears nobody read
> this or decided to bring this up. I think we should lobby to change
> "current" to "current or past" and removal of "on the topic". As it
> stands, I can have a virulent spat with a user on article X, and then
> sanction him a week later for his action on article Y, claiming I am
> uninvolved.
>
> I do wonder whether and if so, how to argue that an admin can be
> prejudiced towards a certain group? The best rule would be that if
> several members of a specific group / wiki-community think an admin is
> involved, he should be considered involved - after all, their perception
> is very important.
>
> --
> 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

