X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Thu Jul  2 20:47:37 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <364902.84843.qm@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <364902.84843.qm@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 14:47:23 -0400
Message-ID: <c3b2b3db0907021147n4b80cfe6m3ed00042e88be074@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrei Dombay <wikibiophys@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@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: I can prepare a short draft of the clarification
	request
	if there are no objections. Piotrus and Radek, should we do it? On Thu, 
	Jul 2, 2009 at 1:58 PM, piotr micula <basiaipiotr@yahoo.com> wrote: > I
	can file whatever you need, but please write here whatever is necessary,
	> and I will paste it. I want to help you guys, and I really do not have
	time > to search all diffs, to keep all these lists and stuff. So
	whatever you > need, just write here. You guys know best what is going
	on in all these > conflicts and arbitrations. > > Tymek > > --- On *Thu,
	7/2/09, Andrei Dombay <wikibiophys@gmail.com>* wrote: > > > From: Andrei
	Dombay <wikibiophys@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [WPM] Appeal at AE (was:
	Let's give Thatcher some breathing > space) > To: "Wikipedia
	statistics"
	<folks@wikipedometer.net> > Date: Thursday, July 2, 2009, 7:36 AM > > >
	Here it is: > >
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions
	> > "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." > > You, Deacon, or Alex certainly
	qualify as such. > > There is a difference between an appeal
	(challenging an administrative > sanction), and request for
	clarification - something to facilitate work of > administrators at AE.
	I could file it, but this should be better done by > someone else. > > >
	On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl> wrote:
	> >> 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 [...] 
	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]
	0.4 HTML_30_40             BODY: Message is 30% to 40% HTML
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no 
	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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1039319401801722374=="
Mime-version: 1.0
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:  I can prepare a short draft of the clarification request
	if there are no objections. Piotrus and Radek, should we do it? On Thu,
	Jul 2, 2009 at 1:58 PM, piotr micula <basiaipiotr@yahoo.com> wrote: > I
	can file whatever you need, but please write here whatever is necessary,
	> and I will paste it. I want to help you guys, and I really do not have
	time > to search all diffs, to keep all these lists and stuff. So
	whatever you > need, just write here. You guys know best what is going
	on in all these > conflicts and arbitrations. > > Tymek > > --- On *Thu,
	7/2/09, Andrei Dombay <wikibiophys@gmail.com>* wrote: > > > From: Andrei
	Dombay <wikibiophys@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [WPM] Appeal at AE (was:
	Let's give Thatcher some breathing > space) > To: "Wikipedia statistics"
	<folks@wikipedometer.net> > Date: Thursday, July 2, 2009, 7:36 AM > > >
	Here it is: > >
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions
	> > "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." > > You, Deacon, or Alex certainly
	qualify as such. > > There is a difference between an appeal
	(challenging an administrative > sanction), and request for
	clarification - something to facilitate work of > administrators at AE.
	I could file it, but this should be better done by > someone else. > > >
	On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl> wrote:
	> >> 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 [...] 
	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]
	0.4 HTML_30_40             BODY: Message is 30% to 40% HTML
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	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

--===============1039319401801722374==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c5a4fb724edb046dbd7857

--001636c5a4fb724edb046dbd7857
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I can prepare a short draft of the clarification request if there are no
objections. Piotrus and Radek, should we do it?

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 1:58 PM, piotr micula <basiaipiotr@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I can file whatever you need, but please write here whatever is necessary,
> and I will paste it. I want to help you guys, and I really do not have time
> to search all diffs, to keep all these lists and stuff. So whatever you
> need, just write here. You guys know best what is going on in all these
> conflicts and arbitrations.
>
> Tymek
>
> --- On *Thu, 7/2/09, Andrei Dombay <wikibiophys@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Andrei Dombay <wikibiophys@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WPM] Appeal at AE (was: Let's give Thatcher some breathing
> space)
> To: "Wikipedia statistics" <folks@wikipedometer.net>
> Date: Thursday, July 2, 2009, 7:36 AM
>
>
> Here it is:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions
>
> "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."
>
> You, Deacon, or Alex certainly qualify as such.
>
> There is a difference between an appeal (challenging an administrative
> sanction), and request for clarification - something to facilitate work of
> administrators at AE.  I could file it, but this  should be better done by
> someone else.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl> wrote:
>
>> 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://us.mc328.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=folks@wikipedometer.net>
>> http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks
>>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia statistics discussion list
> folks@wikipedometer.net<http://us.mc328.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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
>
>

--001636c5a4fb724edb046dbd7857
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I can prepare a short draft of the clarification request if there are no ob=
jections. Piotrus and Radek, should we do it? <br><br><div class=3D"gmail_q=
uote">On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 1:58 PM, piotr micula <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a=
 href=3D"mailto:basiaipiotr@yahoo.com">basiaipiotr@yahoo.com</a>&gt;</span>=
 wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><table border=3D"=
0" cellpadding=3D"0" cellspacing=3D"0"><tbody><tr><td style=3D"font-family:=
 inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit;=
 font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-size-adjust: inherit; font-=
stretch: inherit;" valign=3D"top">
<div>I can file whatever you need, but please write here whatever is necess=
ary, and I will paste it. I want to help you guys, and I really do not have=
 time to search all diffs, to keep all these lists and stuff. So whatever y=
ou need, just write here. You guys know best what is going on in all these =
conflicts and arbitrations.</div>

<div>=A0</div>
<div>Tymek<br><br>--- On <b>Thu, 7/2/09, Andrei Dombay <i>&lt;<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:wikibiophys@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">wikibiophys@gmail.com</a>&gt;=
</i></b> wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote style=3D"border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); padding-left:=
 5px; margin-left: 5px;"><br>From: Andrei Dombay &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:wiki=
biophys@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">wikibiophys@gmail.com</a>&gt;<br>Subje=
ct: Re: [WPM] Appeal at AE (was: Let&#39;s give Thatcher some breathing spa=
ce)<br>
To: &quot;Wikipedia statistics&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:folks@wikipedome=
ter.net" target=3D"_blank">folks@wikipedometer.net</a>&gt;<br>Date: Thursda=
y, July 2, 2009, 7:36 AM<div><div></div><div class=3D"h5"><br><br>
<div>Here it is: <br><a href=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requ=
ests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions" rel=3D"nofollow" tar=
get=3D"_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitrat=
ion/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions</a><br>
<br>&quot;an administrator will be considered &quot;uninvolved&quot; if he =
or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic =
with the user receiving sanctions.&quot;<br><br>You, Deacon, or Alex certai=
nly qualify as such.<br>
<br>There is a difference between an appeal (challenging an administrative =
sanction), and request for clarification - something to facilitate work of =
administrators at AE.=A0 I could file it, but this=A0 should be better done=
 by someone else. <br>
<br><br>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Piotr Konieczny=
 <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;piokon@post.pl&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>Andrei Dombay wrote:<br>&gt; I suggest that someone should =A0file a c=
larification request to ArbCom to<br>&gt; clarify several confusing issues =
that already caused problems at AE<br>&gt; (let&#39;s help AE administrator=
s and user . The questions:<br>
&gt;<br>&gt; (1) Uninvolved administrators. According to current definition=
, people<br>&gt; like Piotrus, Alex_Bakharev and Deacon would certainly qua=
lify. Please<br>&gt; reconfirm this or change the definition of uninvolved =
administrators. If<br>
&gt; these admins do not qualify, one could dispute Jehochman and some othe=
rs<br>&gt; as well.<br><br></div>What definition? I can&#39;t find one, and=
 that&#39;s a big part of the problem.<br>Currently, being involved or not =
depends on the PERCEPTION of the person<br>
making the comment.<br><a href=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_ta=
lk:Arbitration/Requests#Definition_of_an_.28un.29involved_admin" rel=3D"nof=
ollow" target=3D"_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitr=
ation/Requests#Definition_of_an_.28un.29involved_admin</a><br>

<div><br>&gt; (2) Warnings. Should the users receive an official warning (l=
ogged in<br>&gt; the case), then be given some time to improve, and sanctio=
ned if that<br>&gt; does not happen, as stipulated in the Arbcom decision? =
=A0This issue was<br>
&gt; first raised by Grandmestein at AE (see his appeal), and now there is =
a<br>&gt; confusion about Thatcher&#39;s sanctions (I asked him a couple of=
 questions<br>&gt; at talk page to clarify his opinion).<br><br></div>Thath=
cher first warned editors... than restricted them further<br>
~hours/day later - this seems like gaming the system. And he never<br>warne=
d Radek - actually Radek is still not mentions in the DIGWUREN log<br>for w=
arned people...<br>
<div><br>&gt; (3) Edit warring. If someone limit himself to 1RR per article=
 per day<br>&gt; AND participate in discussion, =A0can he be safe from sanc=
tions for &quot;edit<br>&gt; warring&quot;? Last sanctions by T. show that =
no one is safe. Let&#39;s place<br>
&gt; some reasonable safeguards.<br><br></div>Indeed. Once we start restric=
ting people that revert 3 times in two<br>weeks, this is a free season for =
anyone. This is why 3RR rules was<br>created; and edit warring should be cl=
early defined as well. Leaving it<br>
to arbitrary admin&#39;s decisions creates chaos and unfair treatment of<br=
>editors depending on what admins looks at them and in what mood is he<br>t=
hat day...<br>
<div><br>&gt; (4) Tag-teams mentioned by T in his official 1RR restriction =
message.<br>&gt; Should the idea of collective responsibility ever be used =
by<br>&gt; administrators? (several users treayed as one, as Deacon said). =
The<br>
&gt; tag-team is a controversial concept, which was not supported by ArbCom=
<br>&gt; in the last EE case. A group of editors may indeed revert someone =
who<br>&gt; fights against =A0consensus. A tag-team?<br><br></div>Exactly. =
EE Arbcom specifically noted that there is no conclusive<br>
evidence about existence of those tag teams. So I think it is pretty<br>cle=
ar that admins should not impose sanctions &quot;per sides&quot;, and thus =
T<br>went against the ArbCom wisdom / intents. Collective responsibility =
=3D<br>
collateral damage.<br><font color=3D"#888888"><br><br><br>--<br></font>
<div>
<div></div>
<div>Piotr Konieczny<br><br>&quot;The problem about Wikipedia is, that it j=
ust works in reality, not in<br>theory.&quot;<br><br>______________________=
_________________________<br>Wikipedia statistics discussion list<br><a hre=
f=3D"http://us.mc328.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3Dfolks@wikipedometer.net=
" rel=3D"nofollow" target=3D"_blank">folks@wikipedometer.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks" rel=3D"=
nofollow" target=3D"_blank">http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listin=
fo/folks</a><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div><br></div></div>--=
---Inline Attachment Follows-----<div class=3D"im">
<br><br>
<div>_______________________________________________<br>Wikipedia statistic=
s discussion list<br><a href=3D"http://us.mc328.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?t=
o=3Dfolks@wikipedometer.net" target=3D"_blank">folks@wikipedometer.net</a><=
br>
<a href=3D"http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks" target=
=3D"_blank">http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks</a><br>=
</div></div></blockquote></td></tr></tbody></table><br>

      <br>_______________________________________________<br>
Wikipedia statistics discussion list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:folks@wikipedometer.net">folks@wikipedometer.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks" target=
=3D"_blank">http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>

--001636c5a4fb724edb046dbd7857--


--===============1039319401801722374==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============1039319401801722374==--


