X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Tue Jul  7 21:57:50 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <25890ca0907071029i797e4a8eh9ecad7b50b1992dd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <25890ca0907031517taba84aaodd143d82c724e8db@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A5282D8.5000604@post.pl>
	<929ed1ec0907061610o58cd553cw39ee9c1de14f6bf@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A5299F1.1000207@post.pl>
	<929ed1ec0907070059v59ab4d50wca39f1a9d5a87cc8@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3b2b3db0907070514m197bc2a0o1baab97ce1a1c625@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0907070533m7f13c010p8b06b8a6a2e1edbc@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0907070621k61699b99kc595911ad1914881@mail.gmail.com>
	<929ed1ec0907070955g12b898f7i7b9adb461218cc24@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0907071029i797e4a8eh9ecad7b50b1992dd@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 22:57:39 +0300
Message-ID: <929ed1ec0907071257x75de5276xcdbe0eb2fbfe7147@mail.gmail.com>
From: Digwuren <digwuren@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:  On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 20:29, radek szulga
	<rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote: > *In general this is a legit concern. At
	the same time appeals need to have > a chance of succeeding (hence my
	disagreement with Sandstein on THIS > particular appeal) [...] 
	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]
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	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=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] Appeal
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="===============3702782966765555505=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@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:  On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 20:29, radek szulga
	<rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote: > *In general this is a legit concern. At
	the same time appeals need to have > a chance of succeeding (hence my
	disagreement with Sandstein on THIS > particular appeal) [...] 
	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]
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	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

--===============3702782966765555505==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00163645876ee86e0c046e230870

--00163645876ee86e0c046e230870
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 20:29, radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote:

> *In general this is a legit concern. At the same time appeals need to have
> a chance of succeeding (hence my disagreement with Sandstein on THIS
> particular appeal)


That's quite tricky a thing.

In real-world courts, the point of the appeal system is to enforce a measure
of consistency between many courts staffed with varying human beings.  But
Wikipedia's sanction mechanism does not require consistence; instead, it's
high on discretion of individual administrators.  And with discretion on the
high horse, what is the point of allowing appeals to succeed?  It would only
reduce the discretionary powers of the administrators.

Naturally, it doesn't matter in the actual on-Wikipedia discussion.  I'm
just pointing out some of the philosophical nuances.

*This is part of the reason why I filed my appeal with three arguments - not
> just the procedural one - this makes my appeal exceptional. Basically to
> their own peril, most admins took the 'bureaucratic view' and focused just
> on the lack of a warning, procedural, aspect.


Standard us versus them sociology.  In this case, the "us" is "good
Wikipedians" and the "them" is "a troublemaker nobody knows".

At this point there's probably no chance in getting the sanctions reinstated
> on Offliner and PU, and probably not Russavia, but it should be possible to
> prevent sanctions being removed from BFF and Shot.


Let's start by drawing the line between Thatcher's sanctions (which can be
depicted as rash and poorly thought of, leading to Thatcher undoing them
himself) and Sandstein's sanctions (which aren't rash and poorly thought
of).  For one, only Thatcher went for the "canary theory"; Sandstein
actually considered BFF and Shotlandiya, one by one.

-- 
Andres Soolo

--00163645876ee86e0c046e230870
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 20:29, radek szulga <span=
 dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:rsszulga@gmail.com">rsszulga@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;">
*In general this is a legit concern. At the same time appeals need to have =
a chance of succeeding (hence my disagreement with Sandstein on THIS partic=
ular appeal)</blockquote><div><br></div><div>That&#39;s quite tricky a thin=
g.</div>
<div><br></div><div>In real-world courts, the point of the appeal system is=
 to enforce a measure of consistency between many courts staffed with varyi=
ng human beings. =C2=A0But Wikipedia&#39;s sanction mechanism does not requ=
ire consistence; instead, it&#39;s high on discretion of individual adminis=
trators. =C2=A0And with discretion on the high horse, what is the point of =
allowing appeals to succeed? =C2=A0It would only reduce the discretionary p=
owers of the administrators.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Naturally, it doesn&#39;t matter in the actual on-Wikip=
edia discussion. =C2=A0I&#39;m just pointing out some of the philosophical =
nuances.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
*This is part of the reason why I filed my appeal with three arguments - no=
t just the procedural one - this makes my appeal exceptional. Basically to =
their own peril, most admins took the &#39;bureaucratic view&#39; and focus=
ed just on the lack of a warning, procedural, aspect.</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>Standard us versus them sociology. =C2=A0In this case, =
the &quot;us&quot; is &quot;good Wikipedians&quot; and the &quot;them&quot;=
 is &quot;a troublemaker nobody knows&quot;.</div><div><br></div><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc sol=
id;padding-left:1ex;">
At this point there&#39;s probably no chance in getting the sanctions reins=
tated on Offliner and PU, and probably not Russavia, but it should be possi=
ble to prevent sanctions being removed from BFF and Shot.</blockquote><div>
<br></div><div>Let&#39;s start by drawing the line between Thatcher&#39;s s=
anctions (which can be depicted as rash and poorly thought of, leading to T=
hatcher undoing them himself) and Sandstein&#39;s sanctions (which aren&#39=
;t rash and poorly thought of). =C2=A0For one, only Thatcher went for the &=
quot;canary theory&quot;; Sandstein actually considered BFF and Shotlandiya=
, one by one.</div>
<div><br></div></div>-- <br>Andres Soolo<br>

--00163645876ee86e0c046e230870--


--===============3702782966765555505==
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

--===============3702782966765555505==--


