X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Mon Jun 22 19:46:22 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
Message-ID: <4A3FC3E7.6090204@post.pl>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:48:23 -0400
From: Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090303 MultiZilla/1.8.3.4e SeaMonkey/1.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
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>
	<f826636f0906220942r6f1e5bceu92040091f8ee5e40@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f826636f0906220942r6f1e5bceu92040091f8ee5e40@mail.gmail.com>
X-Spam_score: -2.4
X-Spam_score_int: -23
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: Dorin Cheptea wrote: > 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 [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.4 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO       Received: contains a forged HELO
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	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=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=unavailable 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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -2.4
X-Spam_score_int: -23
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:  Dorin Cheptea wrote: > 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 [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.4 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO       Received: contains a forged HELO
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.1 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

Dorin Cheptea wrote:
> 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.

Good points, why don't you suggest it to her yourself? You can do it on 
her talkpage, too (to avoid, as somebody noted, sudden email spam).


-- 
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

