X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Sun Aug 16 11:19:10 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4A87C5AD.1020605@post.pl>
References: <310272.42262.qm@web45106.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<4A87C5AD.1020605@post.pl>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:19:01 +0300
Message-ID: <929ed1ec0908160219k31e293e5m634bc68d1b2b6676@mail.gmail.com>
From: Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
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:  On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 11:39, Piotr Konieczny
	<piokon@post.pl> wrote: > Jack wrote: > > Can Lokyz be reported? He
	reverted 5 times? Radek? > > >
	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithuanian_collaboration_during_World_War_II&action=history
	> > And how many times you reverted...? I am too tired to check the
	details > but history implies 4, and remember - even three can get you
	in trouble. > In other words, if you have to revert 3 times, you are
	making your > opponent reverts meaningless, since you are in danger of
	getting a > double block :(( [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (0.0 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.4 HTML_30_40             BODY: Message is 30% to 40% HTML
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-deb3 (2006-10-05) on 
	pakkun.mirky.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no 
	version=3.1.7-deb3
Subject: Re: [WPM] Can Lokyz be reported?
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="===============4545564763525203915=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
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:  On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 11:39, Piotr Konieczny
	<piokon@post.pl> wrote: > Jack wrote: > > Can Lokyz be reported? He
	reverted 5 times? Radek? > > >
	http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithuanian_collaboration_during_World_War_II&action=history
	> > And how many times you reverted...? I am too tired to check the
	details > but history implies 4, and remember - even three can get you
	in trouble. > In other words, if you have to revert 3 times, you are
	making your > opponent reverts meaningless, since you are in danger of
	getting a > double block :(( [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (0.0 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.4 HTML_30_40             BODY: Message is 30% to 40% HTML
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.5 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

--===============4545564763525203915==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00163630f715a870d804713ec607

--00163630f715a870d804713ec607
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 11:39, Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl> wrote:

> Jack wrote:
> > Can Lokyz be reported? He reverted 5 times? Radek?
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithuanian_collaboration_during_World_War_II&action=history
>
> And how many times you reverted...? I am too tired to check the details
> but history implies 4, and remember - even three can get you in trouble.
> In other words, if you have to revert 3 times, you are making your
> opponent reverts meaningless, since you are in danger of getting a
> double block :((


Maybe, it can still be helped.

How about this kind of approach:

* Jacurek self-reverts to Lokyz' version, then reports and explicitly says
in the report that he got carried away, but self-reverted as soon as he
realised it's an editwar;
* with a little bit of luck, the passingby administrator takes it into
account;
:* if Jacurek gets blocked, it can be reasonably argued that such a block
has no preventive utility, which may lead to reversal;
* once Lokyz is blocked, somebody else points out that Lokyz' redirect is
patently silly and restores the content.

It's risky, but could it work?

-- 
Andres Soolo

--00163630f715a870d804713ec607
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 11:39, Piotr Konieczny <=
span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;piokon@post.pl&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex;">
<div class=3D"im">Jack wrote:<br>
&gt; Can Lokyz be reported? He reverted 5 times? Radek?<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DLithuanian_coll=
aboration_during_World_War_II&amp;action=3Dhistory" target=3D"_blank">http:=
//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DLithuanian_collaboration_during_Worl=
d_War_II&amp;action=3Dhistory</a><br>

<br>
</div>And how many times you reverted...? I am too tired to check the detai=
ls<br>
but history implies 4, and remember - even three can get you in trouble.<br=
>
In other words, if you have to revert 3 times, you are making your<br>
opponent reverts meaningless, since you are in danger of getting a<br>
double block :((</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Maybe, it can still be hel=
ped.</div><div><br></div><div>How about this kind of approach:</div><div><b=
r></div><div>* Jacurek self-reverts to Lokyz&#39; version, then reports and=
 explicitly says in the report that he got carried away, but self-reverted =
as soon as he realised it&#39;s an editwar;</div>
<div>* with a little bit of luck, the passingby administrator takes it into=
 account;</div><div>:* if Jacurek gets blocked, it can be reasonably argued=
 that such a block has no preventive utility, which may lead to reversal;</=
div>
<div>* once Lokyz is blocked, somebody else points out that Lokyz&#39; redi=
rect is patently silly and restores the content.</div><div><br></div><div>I=
t&#39;s risky, but could it work?</div><div><br></div></div>-- <br>Andres S=
oolo<br>


--00163630f715a870d804713ec607--


--===============4545564763525203915==
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

--===============4545564763525203915==--


