X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Thu Jul  2 06:27:07 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
Message-ID: <4A4C3798.1080006@post.pl>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:29:12 -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>	<c3b2b3db0906291200w4701a20es9162d3a13509848b@mail.gmail.com>	<25890ca0906291205q41ca8f46jb5bdeeaf0e22cf43@mail.gmail.com>	<25890ca0906300826w3d2e7055k36965f3a3ed4729e@mail.gmail.com>	<4A4A8840.8040803@post.pl>	<25890ca0906301452q70e09962v271a9b21198f06ad@mail.gmail.com>	<c3b2b3db0906301558l3dd6f4b9p3f901958325e637a@mail.gmail.com>	<25890ca0906301642qa1b9a47ncd8a4c76dfb74e1a@mail.gmail.com>	<4A4AC42E.9080204@post.pl>	<c3b2b3db0906301929o30d77c9bi2b9114bf6be20c3c@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3b2b3db0907011244l6efbb29wf0ea850c623211cf@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c3b2b3db0907011244l6efbb29wf0ea850c623211cf@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: Andrei Dombay wrote: > I suggest that someone should
	file a clarification request to ArbCom to > clarify several confusing
	issues that already caused problems at AE > (let's help AE
	administrators and user . The questions: > > (1) Uninvolved
	administrators. According to current definition, people > like Piotrus, 
	Alex_Bakharev and Deacon would certainly qualify. Please > reconfirm
	this or change the definition of uninvolved administrators. If > these
	admins do not qualify, one could dispute Jehochman and some others > as
	well. [...] 
	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:  Andrei Dombay wrote: > I suggest that someone should
	file a clarification request to ArbCom to > clarify several confusing
	issues that already caused problems at AE > (let's help AE
	administrators and user . The questions: > > (1) Uninvolved
	administrators. According to current definition, people > like Piotrus,
	Alex_Bakharev and Deacon would certainly qualify. Please > reconfirm
	this or change the definition of uninvolved administrators. If > these
	admins do not qualify, one could dispute Jehochman and some others > as
	well. [...] 
	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

Andrei Dombay wrote:
> I suggest that someone should  file a clarification request to ArbCom to 
> clarify several confusing issues that already caused problems at AE 
> (let's help AE administrators and user . The questions:
> 
> (1) Uninvolved administrators. According to current definition, people 
> like Piotrus, Alex_Bakharev and Deacon would certainly qualify. Please 
> reconfirm this or change the definition of uninvolved administrators. If 
> these admins do not qualify, one could dispute Jehochman and some others 
> as well.

What definition? I can't find one, and that's a big part of the problem. 
Currently, being involved or not depends on the PERCEPTION of the person 
making the comment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Definition_of_an_.28un.29involved_admin

> (2) Warnings. Should the users receive an official warning (logged in 
> the case), then be given some time to improve, and sanctioned if that 
> does not happen, as stipulated in the Arbcom decision?  This issue was 
> first raised by Grandmestein at AE (see his appeal), and now there is a 
> confusion about Thatcher's sanctions (I asked him a couple of questions 
> at talk page to clarify his opinion).

Thathcher first warned editors... than restricted them further 
~hours/day later - this seems like gaming the system. And he never 
warned Radek - actually Radek is still not mentions in the DIGWUREN log 
for warned people...

> (3) Edit warring. If someone limit himself to 1RR per article per day 
> AND participate in discussion,  can he be safe from sanctions for "edit 
> warring"? Last sanctions by T. show that no one is safe. Let's place 
> some reasonable safeguards.

Indeed. Once we start restricting people that revert 3 times in two 
weeks, this is a free season for anyone. This is why 3RR rules was 
created; and edit warring should be clearly defined as well. Leaving it 
to arbitrary admin's decisions creates chaos and unfair treatment of 
editors depending on what admins looks at them and in what mood is he 
that day...

> (4) Tag-teams mentioned by T in his official 1RR restriction message. 
> Should the idea of collective responsibility ever be used by 
> administrators? (several users treayed as one, as Deacon said). The 
> tag-team is a controversial concept, which was not supported by ArbCom 
> in the last EE case. A group of editors may indeed revert someone who 
> fights against  consensus. A tag-team?

Exactly. EE Arbcom specifically noted that there is no conclusive 
evidence about existence of those tag teams. So I think it is pretty 
clear that admins should not impose sanctions "per sides", and thus T 
went against the ArbCom wisdom / intents. Collective responsibility = 
collateral damage.



-- 
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

