X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Sun Jun 21 23:12:14 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <929ed1ec0906211406l280b7081w8bdd6aa9264193da@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A3E9C6F.4040704@post.pl>
	<929ed1ec0906211401s5b6f5011hc6c5073933981872@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0906211403v2e2b9beep263b646b1188bd4e@mail.gmail.com>
	<929ed1ec0906211406l280b7081w8bdd6aa9264193da@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:12:03 -0500
Message-ID: <25890ca0906211412u4bb53dadpe3ddaa3845965a62@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: Yes this needs to be brought up at the original forum
	-
	the arbitrary unilateral moving around of Piotrus' comments as well.
	The
	basic problem here is that we're pretending that admins are neutral, or
	as the language goes, "uninvolved" - but this is really just another
	layer of the same dispute the editors have. Somehow nobody wants to say
	this out loud. Durova's making a lot of sense. I think. [...] 
	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] Jehochmann and Piotrus
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:  Yes this needs to be brought up at the original forum -
	the arbitrary unilateral moving around of Piotrus' comments as well. The
	basic problem here is that we're pretending that admins are neutral, or
	as the language goes, "uninvolved" - but this is really just another
	layer of the same dispute the editors have. Somehow nobody wants to say
	this out loud. Durova's making a lot of sense. I think. [...] 
	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

Yes this needs to be brought up at the original forum - the arbitrary
unilateral moving around of Piotrus' comments as well.
The basic problem here is that we're pretending that admins are
neutral, or as the language goes, "uninvolved" - but this is really
just another layer of the same dispute the editors have. Somehow
nobody wants to say this out loud.
Durova's making a lot of sense. I think.


2009/6/21 Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 00:03, radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> He just took a huuuuuggggggeeeee step backward with his latest redact
>> - he realized he got ahead of himself. Still, it shows his prejudices
>> and that he definitely is either a) on a power trip or b) has a
>> personal grudge here. This is the sort of wavering that needs to be
>> exploited.
>
> I still think the idea that an administrator can threaten another
> administrator by banning him from AE is worth bringing to some sort of ma=
ss
> scrutiny. =A0Nobody cares what a power-hungry administrator does in a lit=
tle
> ethnopolitical content war, but when an administrator starts threatening
> other administrators, yet other administrators can easily empathise. =A0T=
his
> might be the undoing of Jehochman, given enough time.
> --
> Andres Soolo
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

