X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Fri Apr  3 15:13:16 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f826636f0904030603v46797bf8x382795167fd9b01e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <929ed1ec0904021519y23c5e37bm2dd7bd3e71b2aea6@mail.gmail.com>
	<49D53E8B.6090902@post.pl>
	<4f045a880904021614y5e0f78bcn4ae396902de2e37d@mail.gmail.com>
	<49D5510F.2040405@post.pl>
	<4f045a880904021713v13da21e0h44055f5fb1b46f6d@mail.gmail.com>
	<4f045a880904030315u745efe0eyba8a71f652dc5481@mail.gmail.com>
	<f826636f0904030603v46797bf8x382795167fd9b01e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 16:12:59 +0300
Message-ID: <929ed1ec0904030612r1ec1120fjc3a6203c08b6aa63@mail.gmail.com>
From: Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: 1.0
X-Spam_score_int: 10
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:  On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 16:03, Dorin Cheptea
	<dorin.cheptea@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't know what would be the best
	next strategy. If none of you had any > unpleasant experience with
	William, then I would suggest we all try to talk > him nicely into
	looking at the articles, and we should all behave very nice > when
	editting there, but a little bit provocative, only enough that >
	Offliner, Russavia, the anon (possibly Baeckman) and/or PetriKrohn react
	in > a bad behaved fashion. > [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (1.0 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.4 HTML_10_20             BODY: Message is 10% to 20% HTML
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.5 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=2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,HTML_10_20,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no 
	version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] WMConnolly blocked Martin
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-Archive: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/private/folks>
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="===============2765916612532146358=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: 1.9
X-Spam_score_int: 19
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:  On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 16:03, Dorin Cheptea
	<dorin.cheptea@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't know what would be the best
	next strategy. If none of you had any > unpleasant experience with
	William, then I would suggest we all try to talk > him nicely into
	looking at the articles, and we should all behave very nice > when
	editting there, but a little bit provocative, only enough that >
	Offliner, Russavia, the anon (possibly Baeckman) and/or PetriKrohn react
	in > a bad behaved fashion. > [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (1.9 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.4 HTML_10_20             BODY: Message is 10% to 20% HTML
	-0.7 BAYES_20               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 5 to 20%
	[score: 0.1025]
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	-0.4 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

--===============2765916612532146358==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c5ad4dd5555a0466a64ee0

--001636c5ad4dd5555a0466a64ee0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 16:03, Dorin Cheptea <dorin.cheptea@gmail.com> wrote=
:

> I don't know what would be the best next strategy. If none of you had any
> unpleasant experience with William, then I would suggest we all try to ta=
lk
> him nicely into looking at the articles, and we should all behave very ni=
ce
> when editting there, but a little bit provocative, only enough that
> Offliner, Russavia, the anon (possibly Baeckman) and/or PetriKrohn react =
in
> a bad behaved fashion.
>

William is generally not hostile for us.  We don't probably have to take an=
y
particular provocative actions -- considering yesterday's testosterone-fest=
,
it seems rather likely Russavia or Offliner will come up with the next
battleground rather well.  But we'll have to figure out how to exploit the
next battleground.  I'm quite disappointed by the fact that *nobody* outsid=
e
our own circle paid attention to the AN/I thread I created regarding the
anonymous editor at [[Johan B=C3=A4ckman]].

Meanwhile, it's important to clean B=C3=A4ckman's two articles up, so they'=
re
good articles about this truly weird person.  I'm hoping to do a major
cleanup today, but I'm still analysing the revisions that arose in the
recent days.

When this happens, Martin can step up and say to William: there are two way=
s
> to respond to such edits: 1) give up editting the article and let it be o=
wed
> by the offender, or 2) revert with the risk of getting 3RR reported and m=
ud
> stuck at you. And then we all can step up and say that it is abnormal to =
be
> put in front of such an alternative, and that William should do something=
 to
> avoid in the future such dilema-situations.
> If this is too complicate, then at least I could help do some reverts/edi=
ts
> in these articles at times. Now that I have been involved a little bit, i=
t
> won't look strange if I get more interested in the future.
>

Wikipedia discussion culture is dead.  There's no point in trying to
convince William of this important issue -- since he doesn't trust us, he
won't hear us.

Instead, we'll have to make sure to back each other up.  The maximum number
of reverts that is reasonably safe to do in any day is two. When those two
reverts are up -- and preferrably even earlier --, call in reinforcement.
 Experience tells us that when the edit history of an article looks like a
checkerboard of two editor's edits, administrators like to blame both
editors -- but when there's one editor against several others,
administrators tend to think the single editor is editwarring.  Of course,
if several teams are reverting each other, the article may get protected.

--=20
Andres Soolo

--001636c5ad4dd5555a0466a64ee0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 16:03, Dorin Cheptea <spa=
n dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:dorin.cheptea@gmail.com">dorin.cheptea@=
gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div>I don&#39;t know what would be the best next strategy. If none of you =
had any unpleasant experience with William, then I would suggest we all try=
 to talk him nicely into looking at the articles, and we should all behave =
very nice when editting there, but a little bit provocative, only enough th=
at Offliner, Russavia, the anon=C2=A0(possibly Baeckman)=C2=A0and/or PetriK=
rohn react in a bad behaved fashion.</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>William is generally not hostile for us. =
=C2=A0We don&#39;t probably have to take any particular provocative actions=
 -- considering yesterday&#39;s testosterone-fest, it seems rather likely R=
ussavia or Offliner will come up with the next battleground rather well. =
=C2=A0But we&#39;ll have to figure out how to exploit the next battleground=
. =C2=A0I&#39;m quite disappointed by the fact that *nobody* outside our ow=
n circle paid attention to the AN/I thread I created regarding the anonymou=
s editor at [[Johan B=C3=A4ckman]].</div>
<div><br></div><div>Meanwhile, it&#39;s important to clean B=C3=A4ckman&#39=
;s two articles up, so they&#39;re good articles about this truly weird per=
son. =C2=A0I&#39;m hoping to do a major cleanup today, but I&#39;m still an=
alysing the revisions that arose in the recent days.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div>When this happens, Mart=
in can step up and say to William: there are two ways to respond to such ed=
its: 1) give up editting the article and let it be owed by the offender, or=
 2) revert with the risk of getting 3RR reported and mud stuck at you. And =
then we all can step up and say that it is abnormal to be put in front of s=
uch an alternative, and that William should do something to avoid in the fu=
ture such dilema-situations.<br>
</div>
<div>If this is too complicate, then at least I could help do some reverts/=
edits in these articles at times. Now that I have been involved a little bi=
t, it won&#39;t look strange if I get more interested in the future.</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Wikipedia discussion culture is dead. =C2=
=A0There&#39;s no point in trying to convince William of this important iss=
ue -- since he doesn&#39;t trust us, he won&#39;t hear us.</div><div><br></=
div>
<div>Instead, we&#39;ll have to make sure to back each other up. =C2=A0The =
maximum number of reverts that is reasonably safe to do in any day is two. =
When those two reverts are up -- and preferrably even earlier --, call in r=
einforcement. =C2=A0Experience tells us that when the edit history of an ar=
ticle looks like a checkerboard of two editor&#39;s edits, administrators l=
ike to blame both editors -- but when there&#39;s one editor against severa=
l others, administrators tend to think the single editor is editwarring. =
=C2=A0Of course, if several teams are reverting each other, the article may=
 get protected.</div>
<div><br></div></div>-- <br>Andres Soolo<br>

--001636c5ad4dd5555a0466a64ee0--


--===============2765916612532146358==
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

--===============2765916612532146358==--


