X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Mon Jun 29 21:05:30 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c3b2b3db0906291200w4701a20es9162d3a13509848b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <25890ca0906281732s3836a51i757b5568dd328d63@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3b2b3db0906282003j163060b5y8ba6da454b967828@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3b2b3db0906282012r23dcb4fcr3982e02029734d66@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0906290536t1e1014c7t5915ae76f3772d56@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3b2b3db0906290548w37de1fa2w2e2e0c4fc73e48d@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0906290557v54ca84ffw6fd1bfa41726da34@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0906290607n3820f96ledc8b75892a474f3@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A490AA0.4010107@post.pl>
	<25890ca0906291156y47f38354y606b28ff9640c876@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3b2b3db0906291200w4701a20es9162d3a13509848b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:05:18 -0500
Message-ID: <25890ca0906291205q41ca8f46jb5bdeeaf0e22cf43@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 asked for a source, it wasn't supplied, somebody
	reverted my edits without explanation. I restored. And that it's still
	just 3 edits in 10 tens. Radek 2009/6/29 Andrei Dombay
	<wikibiophys@gmail.com>: > Radek, what was your explanation of three
	nearly identical reverts by you in > "Nash" at close dates? > > > > On
	Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:56 PM, radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote:
	>> >> My concern was that if I file AE and Thatcher refuses (if it's up
	to >> him alone) then if I file it again at RFAR then the clerks are
	more >> likely to reject to even hear the case. >> But two shots are
	better than one so it might make sense to file it at >> AE first. I
	don't think I'll have time to adequately prepare it today >> - lots of
	class prep work. But I should have enough time tomorrow >> night. >> >>
	Radek >> >> >> 2009/6/29 Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>: >> > radek
	szulga wrote: >> >> Also, it would be useful if someone could
	elaborate/explain this >> >> portion of the AE guideline: >> >> >> >>
	"#
	In November 2008, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion which >> >>
	stated that administrators are prohibited from reversing or >> >>
	overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another >>
	>> administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, 
	>> >> and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except
	>> >> >> >> * with the written authorization of the Committee, or >> >>
	* following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to >>
	>> do so. >> >> >> >> Provisionally (pending updates to the enforcement
	process), this >> >> applies only to specific administrative actions
	affecting specific >> >> users; it does not apply to notices, editor
	lists, warnings, broad >> >> topic area actions, or other "enforcement
	actions" that are not >> >> specific actions applied to specific
	editors. (Clarification motion)" >> >> >> >> Obviously there is NOT
	going to be a "clear community consensus". Does >> >> this mean that
	Thatcher is the only person who can rescind the ruling? >> >> If so,
	then perhaps it would be better to go straight to RFAR? >> > >> >
	Wikilawyering :) Hope she forgets about this or that it is not >> >
	[...] 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: 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: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 asked for a source, it wasn't supplied, somebody
	reverted my edits without explanation. I restored. And that it's still
	just 3 edits in 10 tens. Radek 2009/6/29 Andrei Dombay
	<wikibiophys@gmail.com>: > Radek, what was your explanation of three
	nearly identical reverts by you in > "Nash" at close dates? > > > > On
	Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:56 PM, radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote:
	>> >> My concern was that if I file AE and Thatcher refuses (if it's up
	to >> him alone) then if I file it again at RFAR then the clerks are
	more >> likely to reject to even hear the case. >> But two shots are
	better than one so it might make sense to file it at >> AE first. I
	don't think I'll have time to adequately prepare it today >> - lots of
	class prep work. But I should have enough time tomorrow >> night. >> >>
	Radek >> >> >> 2009/6/29 Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>: >> > radek
	szulga wrote: >> >> Also, it would be useful if someone could
	elaborate/explain this >> >> portion of the AE guideline: >> >> >> >> "#
	In November 2008, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion which >> >>
	stated that administrators are prohibited from reversing or >> >>
	overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another >>
	>> administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy,
	>> >> and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except
	>> >> >> >> * with the written authorization of the Committee, or >> >>
	* following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to >>
	>> do so. >> >> >> >> Provisionally (pending updates to the enforcement
	process), this >> >> applies only to specific administrative actions
	affecting specific >> >> users; it does not apply to notices, editor
	lists, warnings, broad >> >> topic area actions, or other "enforcement
	actions" that are not >> >> specific actions applied to specific
	editors. (Clarification motion)" >> >> >> >> Obviously there is NOT
	going to be a "clear community consensus". Does >> >> this mean that
	Thatcher is the only person who can rescind the ruling? >> >> If so,
	then perhaps it would be better to go straight to RFAR? >> > >> >
	Wikilawyering :) Hope she forgets about this or that it is not >> >
	[...] 
	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 asked for a source, it wasn't supplied, somebody reverted my edits
without explanation. I restored. And that it's still just 3 edits in
10 tens.

Radek

2009/6/29 Andrei Dombay <wikibiophys@gmail.com>:
> Radek, what was your explanation of three nearly identical reverts by you=
 in
> "Nash" at close dates?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:56 PM, radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> My concern was that if I file AE and Thatcher refuses (if it's up to
>> him alone) then if I file it again at RFAR then the clerks are more
>> likely to reject to even hear the case.
>> But two shots are better than one so it might make sense to file it at
>> AE first. I don't think I'll have time to adequately prepare it today
>> - lots of class prep work. But I should have enough time tomorrow
>> night.
>>
>> Radek
>>
>>
>> 2009/6/29 Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>:
>> > radek szulga wrote:
>> >> Also, it would be useful if someone could elaborate/explain this
>> >> portion of the AE guideline:
>> >>
>> >> "# In November 2008, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion which
>> >> stated that administrators are prohibited from reversing or
>> >> overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another
>> >> administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy,
>> >> and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except
>> >>
>> >> =A0 =A0 * with the written authorization of the Committee, or
>> >> =A0 =A0 * following a clear, substantial, and active community consen=
sus to
>> >> do so.
>> >>
>> >> Provisionally (pending updates to the enforcement process), this
>> >> applies only to specific administrative actions affecting specific
>> >> users; it does not apply to notices, editor lists, warnings, broad
>> >> topic area actions, or other "enforcement actions" that are not
>> >> specific actions applied to specific editors. (Clarification motion)"
>> >>
>> >> Obviously there is NOT going to be a "clear community consensus". Does
>> >> this mean that Thatcher is the only person who can rescind the ruling?
>> >> If so, then perhaps it would be better to go straight to RFAR?
>> >
>> > Wikilawyering :) Hope she forgets about this or that it is not
>> > mentioned. If it is, go to RFAR, but there is no reason not to try AE
>> > first.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

