X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Mon Jun 22 18:42:40 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4A3FABB7.7000302@post.pl>
References: <4f045a880906212005o116c23f0l5d42e3cc5d0808cc@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A3F0974.10908@post.pl>
	<929ed1ec0906220040m7117e01dg3771b4145b48b147@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3b2b3db0906220722k7c087c49m369a3d84a509972d@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3b2b3db0906220740s3bb68919qed15ab389ee872b1@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A3FABB7.7000302@post.pl>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:42:25 +0300
Message-ID: <f826636f0906220942r6f1e5bceu92040091f8ee5e40@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dorin Cheptea <dorin.cheptea@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: 0.7
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: 1) I believe you could remind her that sometimes it is
	difficult to know when an article is contentious in the
	Russian-Estonian
	dispute. For example, an Estonian could edit an article about a town in
	Estonia, and among 5 new paragraphs there is one sentence that mentions
	Soviet occupation of Estonia. I believe it wouldn't be fair to restrict
	to 1 edit in such a case. Therefore I believe there should be a precise
	list of articles that are involved in the dispute. In practice that
	means about 10 articles. The list could be dynamic, i.e. new items can
	be added to it (and removed, but that's unlikely from practical pov). 2)
	Issuing a 1RR or other punishment on "the lot of them" does not have
	the
	desired effect. It has some effect, but not the desired. That is because
	both parties believe to be punished only because the other party was.
	In
	an "edit warrior's" mind that signals the part of the brain that looks
	for alternative ways to edit war, not the part of the brain that is
	responsible for survival. Some degree of personalized punishment should
	exist. For example, X can be given ban to edit the article A altogether,
	Y can be given a 1RR for the same article, while the rest of the crowd
	can be recommended to self-impose a 1RR for that article. Similarly for
	articles B, C, D, ... but for different users. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (0.7 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
	0.3 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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,HTML_10_20,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no 
	version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] Shell Kinney investigating AE issues
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="===============5061409706582616676=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: 0.7
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:  1) I believe you could remind her that sometimes it is
	difficult to know when an article is contentious in the Russian-Estonian
	dispute. For example, an Estonian could edit an article about a town in
	Estonia, and among 5 new paragraphs there is one sentence that mentions
	Soviet occupation of Estonia. I believe it wouldn't be fair to restrict
	to 1 edit in such a case. Therefore I believe there should be a precise
	list of articles that are involved in the dispute. In practice that
	means about 10 articles. The list could be dynamic, i.e. new items can
	be added to it (and removed, but that's unlikely from practical pov). 2)
	Issuing a 1RR or other punishment on "the lot of them" does not have the
	desired effect. It has some effect, but not the desired. That is because
	both parties believe to be punished only because the other party was. In
	an "edit warrior's" mind that signals the part of the brain that looks
	for alternative ways to edit war, not the part of the brain that is
	responsible for survival. Some degree of personalized punishment should
	exist. For example, X can be given ban to edit the article A altogether,
	Y can be given a 1RR for the same article, while the rest of the crowd
	can be recommended to self-impose a 1RR for that article. Similarly for
	articles B, C, D, ... but for different users. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (0.7 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
	0.3 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

--===============5061409706582616676==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e64c1ab413db3f046cf28f74

--0016e64c1ab413db3f046cf28f74
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

1) I believe you could remind her that sometimes it is difficult to know
when an article is contentious in the Russian-Estonian dispute. For example,
an Estonian could edit an article about a town in Estonia, and among 5 new
paragraphs there is one sentence that mentions Soviet occupation of Estonia.
I believe it wouldn't be fair to restrict to 1 edit in such a case.
Therefore I believe there should be a precise list of articles that are
involved in the dispute. In practice that means about 10 articles. The list
could be dynamic, i.e. new items can be added to it (and removed, but that's
unlikely from practical pov).
2) Issuing a 1RR or other punishment on "the lot of them" does not have the
desired effect. It has some effect, but not the desired. That is because
both parties believe to be punished only because the other party was. In an
"edit warrior's" mind that signals the part of the brain that looks for
alternative ways to edit war, not the part of the brain that is responsible
for survival. Some degree of personalized punishment should exist. For
example, X can be given ban to edit the article A altogether, Y can be given
a 1RR for the same article, while the rest of the crowd can be recommended
to self-impose a 1RR for that article. Similarly for articles B, C, D, ...
but for different users.

In suggesting this I have in mind that admins since the last several months
favor to look more into the issue and know the content of the dispute.
Having different punishments for different articles means she looked into
the issues and content, not just superficially. Since she already has taken
a lot of time to look into the matter, she can actually do it thoroughly. It
is better to record the issues that she noticed with each article now,
rather than to come again to the same in 6 months and ask herself what did
she thought about that and that article. An added bonus is that other admins
would know precisely what to look for in each article.

3) You can also suggest her to make the proper punishment suggestions to
each person's talk page and see their reaction. If the person reacts in
relation to his own past edits - means that the person is trying to defend
his name or is edit war oriented with a defensive tactic. If the person
reacts in relation to other editors - mean that the person is edit war
oriented with an offensive tactic. If the person discusses his future
abilities to edit particular articles - means that the person is interested
in content, not in warring. This is a phychological test she can try on the
users involved, the results of which would suggest her whether her proposals
are too much or too little.


2009/6/22 Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>

> Shelly wrote to me: "I'm planning on looking at Offliner, Biophys,
> Digwuren, PasswordUsername, Russavia, Martintg and Ellol. Is there
> anyone else you think should be added in?" That includes banned editors
> who will come back (not permbanned).
>
> We are discussing 1rr instead of content bans. "Do you think putting the
> lot of them on 1RR would fix the problem?  Would you suggest one
> revert per article per week in anything Russian/Estonian related?"
>
>
> --
> 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
>

--0016e64c1ab413db3f046cf28f74
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

1) I believe you could remind her that sometimes it is difficult to know wh=
en an article is contentious in the Russian-Estonian dispute. For example, =
an Estonian could edit an article about a town in Estonia, and among 5 new =
paragraphs there is one sentence that mentions Soviet occupation of Estonia=
. I believe it wouldn&#39;t be fair to restrict to 1 edit in such a case. T=
herefore I believe there should be a precise list of articles that are invo=
lved in the dispute. In practice that means about 10 articles. The list cou=
ld be dynamic, i.e. new items can be added to it (and removed, but that&#39=
;s unlikely from practical pov).<div>
<br></div><div>2) Issuing a 1RR or other punishment on &quot;the lot of the=
m&quot; does not have the desired effect. It has some effect, but not the d=
esired. That is because both parties believe to be punished only because th=
e other party was. In an &quot;edit warrior&#39;s&quot; mind that signals t=
he part of the brain that looks for alternative ways to edit war, not the p=
art of the brain that is responsible for survival. Some degree of personali=
zed punishment should exist. For example, X can be given ban to edit the ar=
ticle A altogether, Y can be given a 1RR for the same article, while the re=
st of the crowd can be recommended to self-impose a 1RR for that article. S=
imilarly for articles B, C, D, ... but for different users.=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>In suggesting this I have in mind that admins since the=
 last several months favor to look more into the issue and know the content=
 of the dispute. Having different punishments for different articles means =
she looked into the issues and content, not just superficially. Since she a=
lready has taken a lot of time to look into the matter, she can actually do=
 it thoroughly. It is better to record the issues that she noticed with eac=
h article now, rather than to come again to the same in 6 months and ask he=
rself what did she thought about that and that article. An added bonus is t=
hat other admins would know precisely what to look for in each article.</di=
v>
<div><br></div><div>3) You can also suggest her to make the proper punishme=
nt suggestions to each person&#39;s talk page and see their reaction. If th=
e person reacts in relation to his own past edits - means that the person i=
s trying to defend his name or is edit war oriented with a defensive tactic=
. If the person reacts in relation to other editors - mean that the person =
is edit war oriented with an offensive tactic. If the person discusses his =
future abilities to edit particular articles - means that the person is int=
erested in content, not in warring. This is a phychological test she can tr=
y on the users involved, the results of which would suggest her whether her=
 proposals are too much or too little.</div>
<div>=A0<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2009/6/22 Piotr Konieczny <span =
dir=3D"ltr">&lt;piokon@post.pl&gt;</span><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;=
">Shelly wrote to me: &quot;I&#39;m planning on looking at Offliner, Biophy=
s,<br>

Digwuren, PasswordUsername, Russavia, Martintg and Ellol. Is there<br>
anyone else you think should be added in?&quot; That includes banned editor=
s<br>
who will come back (not permbanned).<br>
<br>
We are discussing 1rr instead of content bans. &quot;Do you think putting t=
he<br>
lot of them on 1RR would fix the problem? =A0Would you suggest one<br>
revert per article per week in anything Russian/Estonian related?&quot;<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
<br>
--<br>
Piotr Konieczny<br>
<br>
&quot;The problem about Wikipedia is, that it just works in reality, not in=
<br>
theory.&quot;<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
</div><div><div></div><div class=3D"h5">Wikipedia statistics discussion lis=
t<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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--0016e64c1ab413db3f046cf28f74--


--===============5061409706582616676==
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

--===============5061409706582616676==--


