X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Wed Jul  1 21:44:20 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c3b2b3db0906301929o30d77c9bi2b9114bf6be20c3c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <25890ca0906281732s3836a51i757b5568dd328d63@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3b2b3db0906291200w4701a20es9162d3a13509848b@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0906291205q41ca8f46jb5bdeeaf0e22cf43@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0906300826w3d2e7055k36965f3a3ed4729e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A4A8840.8040803@post.pl>
	<25890ca0906301452q70e09962v271a9b21198f06ad@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3b2b3db0906301558l3dd6f4b9p3f901958325e637a@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0906301642qa1b9a47ncd8a4c76dfb74e1a@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A4AC42E.9080204@post.pl>
	<c3b2b3db0906301929o30d77c9bi2b9114bf6be20c3c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 15:44:07 -0400
Message-ID: <c3b2b3db0907011244l6efbb29wf0ea850c623211cf@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrei Dombay <wikibiophys@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: -0.5
X-Spam_score_int: -4
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 suggest that someone should file a clarification
	request to ArbCom to clarify several confusing issues that already
	caused problems at AE (let's help AE administrators and user . The
	questions: (1) Uninvolved administrators. According to current
	definition, people like Piotrus, Alex_Bakharev and Deacon would
	certainly qualify. Please reconfirm this or change the definition of
	uninvolved administrators. If these admins do not qualify, one could
	dispute Jehochman and some others as well. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.5 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
	0.4 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=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,HTML_MESSAGE 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3967931507328049837=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -0.5
X-Spam_score_int: -4
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 suggest that someone should file a clarification
	request to ArbCom to clarify several confusing issues that already
	caused problems at AE (let's help AE administrators and user . The
	questions: (1) Uninvolved administrators. According to current
	definition, people like Piotrus, Alex_Bakharev and Deacon would
	certainly qualify. Please reconfirm this or change the definition of
	uninvolved administrators. If these admins do not qualify, one could
	dispute Jehochman and some others as well. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.5 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
	0.4 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

--===============3967931507328049837==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c5bdc47fa9b4046daa25ad

--001636c5bdc47fa9b4046daa25ad
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I suggest that someone should  file a clarification request to ArbCom to
clarify several confusing issues that already caused problems at AE (let's
help AE administrators and user . The questions:

(1) Uninvolved administrators. According to current definition, people like
Piotrus, Alex_Bakharev and Deacon would certainly qualify. Please reconfirm
this or change the definition of uninvolved administrators. If these admins
do not qualify, one could dispute Jehochman and some others as well.

(2) Warnings. Should the users receive an official warning (logged in the
case), then be given some time to improve, and sanctioned if that does not
happen, as stipulated in the Arbcom decision?  This issue was first raised
by Grandmestein at AE (see his appeal), and now there is a confusion about
Thatcher's sanctions (I asked him a couple of questions at talk page to
clarify his opinion).

(3) Edit warring. If someone limit himself to 1RR per article per day AND
participate in discussion,  can he be safe from sanctions for "edit
warring"? Last sanctions by T. show that no one is safe. Let's place some
reasonable safeguards.

(4) Tag-teams mentioned by T in his official 1RR restriction message. Should
the idea of collective responsibility ever be used by administrators?
(several users treayed as one, as Deacon said). The tag-team is a
controversial concept, which was not supported by ArbCom in the last EE
case. A group of editors may indeed revert someone who fights against
consensus. A tag-team?



On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Andrei Dombay <wikibiophys@gmail.com>wrote:

> Technically, this gives an excuse for everyone. Per ruling:
>
> Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose
> sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles
> which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being
> warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose
> of Wikipedia...
>
> It assumes that an editor can be sanctioned only for the violations that
> took place AFTER him receiving the official warning. Although T. issued
> warnings to several users (including me), the alleged violation in "Nashi"
> took place BEFORE his official warning.
>
> This can be filed as a "request for clarification" about Digwuren ruling to
> ArbCom, which is a lot less contentious than filing an appeal to AE.
>
> Yes, voluntarily 1RR is good.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:04 PM, Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl> wrote:
>
>> radek szulga wrote:
>> > I think I'm ok with Sandstein. Thatcher...
>> > And yes the Skapperod crap comes at a bad time. I am still writing
>> > this AE appeal up and probably won't make it for at least a day or
>> > two. But I need to know how this is going to play out.
>>
>>
>> Thathcher... has just dug out his own grave (or at least waved a shovel):
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=299606947&oldid=299594987
>> "At RFAR/Digwuren, users must be notified of the existence of the case
>> and the possibility of further sanctions, with the notification logged,
>> prior to imposing any sanctions."
>> Yet as Durova pointed out, Radek was not warned before he was
>> sanctioned. I'd strongly recommend Radek cite this diff when he goes to
>> appear at AE.
>>
>> On the other hand, please note that he tends to follow the principle of
>> "warn everyone who is even a little bit associated with others". I would
>> urge Jacurek to ask why his name was brought up there?
>>
>> I strongly encourage adopting voluntary 1RR for a while. Let's try to
>> use our numbers to deal with them, if they do more than 1RR a day they
>> should become objects of Thatcher affection :)
>>
>> I am almost thinking that considering his irrational attitude
>> (sanctioning editors who are reverting like 0.25 a day on a given
>> article) it may be a good idea to create SPS to take care of reverting.
>> As long as the socks are not identifiable, and if they do only a few
>> reverts before being retired, they should not be easy to identify with
>> existing editors... I hate to suggest such an option, but if he is going
>> to sanction people for a few related reverts over a period of a month,
>> we have to consider such actions.
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
>

--001636c5bdc47fa9b4046daa25ad
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I suggest that someone should=A0 file a clarification request to ArbCom to =
clarify several confusing issues that already caused problems at AE (let&#3=
9;s help AE administrators and user . The questions:<br><br>(1) Uninvolved =
administrators. According to current definition, people like Piotrus, Alex_=
Bakharev and Deacon would certainly qualify. Please reconfirm this or chang=
e the definition of uninvolved administrators. If these admins do not quali=
fy, one could dispute Jehochman and some others as well.<br>
<br>(2) Warnings. Should the users receive an official warning (logged in t=
he case), then be given some time to improve, and sanctioned if that does n=
ot happen, as stipulated in the Arbcom decision?=A0  This issue was first r=
aised by Grandmestein at AE (see his appeal), and now there is a confusion =
about Thatcher&#39;s sanctions (I asked him a couple of questions at talk p=
age to clarify his opinion).<br>
<br>(3) Edit warring. If someone limit himself to 1RR per article per day A=
ND participate in discussion,=A0 can he be safe from sanctions for &quot;ed=
it warring&quot;? Last sanctions by T. show that no one is safe. Let&#39;s =
place some reasonable safeguards.  <br>
<br>(4) Tag-teams mentioned by T in his official 1RR restriction message. S=
hould the idea of collective responsibility ever be used by administrators?=
 (several users treayed as one, as Deacon said). The tag-team is a controve=
rsial concept, which was not supported by ArbCom in the last EE case. A gro=
up of editors may indeed revert someone who fights against=A0 consensus. A =
tag-team? <br>
<br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:29 PM, An=
drei Dombay <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:wikibiophys@gmail.com">=
wikibiophys@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_q=
uote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0=
pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Technically, this gives an excuse for everyone. Per ruling:<br><br>Any unin=
volved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose
sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as
articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if,
despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to
adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia...<br><br>It assumes that an editor can =
be sanctioned only for the violations that took place AFTER him receiving t=
he official warning. Although T. issued warnings to several users (includin=
g me), the alleged violation in &quot;Nashi&quot; took place BEFORE his off=
icial warning.<br>

<br>This can be filed as a &quot;request for clarification&quot; about Digw=
uren ruling to ArbCom, which is a lot less contentious than filing an appea=
l to AE.<br><br>Yes, voluntarily 1RR is good.<div><div></div><div class=3D"=
h5">
<br><br>=A0 =A0  <br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:04 PM, Piotr Konieczny <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;pio=
kon@post.pl&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padd=
ing-left: 1ex;">

<div>radek szulga wrote:<br>
&gt; I think I&#39;m ok with Sandstein. Thatcher...<br>
&gt; And yes the Skapperod crap comes at a bad time. I am still writing<br>
&gt; this AE appeal up and probably won&#39;t make it for at least a day or=
<br>
&gt; two. But I need to know how this is going to play out.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>Thathcher... has just dug out his own grave (or at least waved a shov=
el):<br>
<a href=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DWikipedia:Arbitratio=
n/Requests/Enforcement&amp;diff=3D299606947&amp;oldid=3D299594987" target=
=3D"_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DWikipedia:Arbitrati=
on/Requests/Enforcement&amp;diff=3D299606947&amp;oldid=3D299594987</a><br>


&quot;At RFAR/Digwuren, users must be notified of the existence of the case=
<br>
and the possibility of further sanctions, with the notification logged,<br>
prior to imposing any sanctions.&quot;<br>
Yet as Durova pointed out, Radek was not warned before he was<br>
sanctioned. I&#39;d strongly recommend Radek cite this diff when he goes to=
<br>
appear at AE.<br>
<br>
On the other hand, please note that he tends to follow the principle of<br>
&quot;warn everyone who is even a little bit associated with others&quot;. =
I would<br>
urge Jacurek to ask why his name was brought up there?<br>
<br>
I strongly encourage adopting voluntary 1RR for a while. Let&#39;s try to<b=
r>
use our numbers to deal with them, if they do more than 1RR a day they<br>
should become objects of Thatcher affection :)<br>
<br>
I am almost thinking that considering his irrational attitude<br>
(sanctioning editors who are reverting like 0.25 a day on a given<br>
article) it may be a good idea to create SPS to take care of reverting.<br>
As long as the socks are not identifiable, and if they do only a few<br>
reverts before being retired, they should not be easy to identify with<br>
existing editors... I hate to suggest such an option, but if he is going<br=
>
to sanction people for a few related reverts over a period of a month,<br>
we have to consider such actions.<br>
<font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
</font><div><div></div><div>Piotr Konieczny<br>
<br>
&quot;The problem about Wikipedia is, that it just works in reality, not in=
<br>
theory.&quot;<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Wikipedia statistics discussion list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:folks@wikipedometer.net" target=3D"_blank">folks@wikipedo=
meter.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></div></blockquote></div><br>

--001636c5bdc47fa9b4046daa25ad--


--===============3967931507328049837==
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

--===============3967931507328049837==--


