X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Mon Jun 29 02:32:45 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:32:36 -0500
Message-ID: <25890ca0906281732s3836a51i757b5568dd328d63@mail.gmail.com>
From: radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: -0.8
X-Spam_score_int: -7
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'm going to try and file the AE appeal either
	tomorrow
	or Tuesday. Of course I'll post a draft here. I'm not sure how detailed
	I should be and to what extent to mention the off-wiki conversation I
	had with Thatcher. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.8 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
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-deb (2006-10-05) on 
	pakkun.mirky.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST autolearn=no version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: [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: -0.8
X-Spam_score_int: -7
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'm going to try and file the AE appeal either tomorrow
	or Tuesday. Of course I'll post a draft here. I'm not sure how detailed
	I should be and to what extent to mention the off-wiki conversation I
	had with Thatcher. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.8 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'm going to try and file the AE appeal either tomorrow or Tuesday. Of
course I'll post a draft here. I'm not sure how detailed I should be
and to what extent to mention the off-wiki conversation I had with
Thatcher.

Basically the argument is that:
*I made 3 reverts in 2 weeks and for that got a 1RR a WEEK, INDEFINITE
restriction. This is a completely crazy definition of "edit warring"
and a extremely harsh restriction.
*I admit that I probably should have said something on talk, but these
were 3 reverts in 2 weeks - at best this is a minor infraction on my
part. Furthermore, I used edit summaries each time to explain my edits
(ask for sources, revert reverts w/o edit summaries). If I had
reverted 3 times in one day, or reverted once per day for two weeks
then yes, sure, it'd be edit warring, particularly w/o talk
discussion. But this was 3 reverts in 2 weeks. Not every edit is going
to have an essay attached to it and to insist on that for 3 reverts in
2 weeks is unrealistic.
*There was no prior warning nor had I been previously on any kind of
sanctions or restrictions. Thatcher's restriction came out of nowhere
and blindsided me. I was not even given a chance to change my conduct
in any way.
*Unlike most other editors who were restricted (I'm not sure if I
should bring up Colchicum here by name - if so then "all editors
except for Colchicum") I do not have an extensive block log which also
makes this unprecedented (if this develops further - I got one block
in four years and I can try and ask Malik to comment that there's been
no further trouble between us)
*I was mentioned in a very minor way by Shell Kinney on that EE page
but not as one of the "major" editors. She mentioned me in the context
of an "edit war" in an instance where I made 1 edit (in the space of 2
weeks) on one article, and another instance where I made 2 edits (in
the space of 2 weeks) on another. This means that she was referring to
the fact that others were edit warring on those articles but obviously
does not mean that I, specifically, was edit warring. I think Thatcher
misinterpreted her statement and jumped to a hasty conclusion - he
slapped the restriction on every user there without actually looking
at the details.
*My name is nowhere near the Digwuren case, it's restrictions, it's
sanctions or anything associated with it. Thatcher - per the text of
the restriction - seems to be partly basing his restriction on the
mistaken impression that I was somehow involved or part of that case.
*Since I am not engaged in any edit wars, have not been in any
recently, I am not violating BLP or copy vio, and I am not being
un-civil to anyone or violating any other Wikipedia policies or
guidelines, Thatcher's restriction is purely (and inappropriately)
punitive. And it is a very harsh punishment (again, 1RR per WEEK,
INDEFINITELY) for making 3 edits in 2 weeks. It seems like Thatcher is
trying to make a POINT (what he calls a "canary in the coalmine") and
I've become collateral damage in that endeavor.
*Yes, there was an edit war going on at the time but I had not been
involved much in Estonia-Russia articles until very recently (and I
can explain how*). Hence I thought I was acting as a neutral, outside
editor , doing regular grunt editing work and I acted on what I
thought were the merits of the situation. Thatcher has asked why there
was no neutral editors - but by his definition, anyone who showed up
and made even a single edit is obviously automatically not neutral.

I think part of the way I screwed up with Thatcher is that I
immediately volunteered to a 1RR on the articles that Shell listed.
This was a mistake on my part as it didn't leave room for him to
engage in face-saving bargaining - either he agrees to my proposal or
it's his original decision. I should have just asked for the removal
of the restriction, let him propose the voluntary 1RR and then agreed
to it. So as not to repeat that mistake again, I'm just going to ask
for the removal of the restriction. At some point, if it looks like
the right time and things look troubled, Piotrus, or one of the admins
he contacted on IRC, should probably jump in and propose the voluntary
1RR - make it PER DAY though, and only on the articles listed by
Shell, hopefully that will be enough - and at that point I'll be like
"Yeah, of course I can do that, no problem" and then hopefully other
uninvolved admins will say "ok, he's agreed to voluntarily abide by
1RR, no need for the ugly sanction". Hopefully this will fly.

There's a part of me which wants to sugar coat all the above with
"fundamentally Thatcher acted appropriately" and "he was essentially
correct, except for me" ... but hypocrisy is labor intensive and I
don't have time for that right now, so I'd rather just, more or less,
tell it like it is, roll the dice, and hope for a bit of luck.

*The story here is essentially true - "I was editing an article when a
I got suspicious that Kupredu was a Jacob Peters sock. I mentioned it
to Moreshi who's had experience with him before. Apparently some guy
named Biophys noticed the same thing at the same time and commented at
Moreshi's talk same as me. After that  I started watching Biophys'
edits just in case the JP sock showed up again in another guise. This
led me to looking at some of the Estonia-related articles. And then,
BOOM! all of sudden I'm restricted."


Input appreciated.

Radek

2009/6/27 Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>:
> radek szulga wrote:
>> Durova suggested that I file an appeal of my restriction on RFAR
>> (that's this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFAR right?)
>> which if my final appeal to Thorsten (including my argument that it's
>> best to settle this off wiki and avoid large scale drama) doesn't work
>> is what I'm going to do early next week.
>
> I'd think that AE would be the right place for that, not RFAR. You can
> always go to RFAR once AE fails.
>
> I contacted some admins on IRC and they were somewhat supportive, and
> should've contacted Thatcher. If there is no chance in a day or so, we
> can consider starting an AE thread. I'd suggest to look over the draft
> of what Radek wants to post here.
>
>> -to make that appear credible I will have to distance myself from some
>> of you and maybe even make some slightly critical remarks. I might say
>> something like "...if you compare my clean blog with that of Digwurgen
>> (sic) or Passwordname, you'll see that..."
>
> Indeed.
>
>
> --
> 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
>

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

