X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Sun Jun 28 23:12:59 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
Message-ID: <4A47DD58.5010509@post.pl>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:15:04 -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: <d36.4afca08c.377933f9@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <d36.4afca08c.377933f9@aol.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: PetersJV@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 6/28/2009
	4:19:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > digwuren@gmail.com writes: > >
	apparently, Offliner has given Shell Kinney a barnstar. It would > seem
	he thinks that the Cartel won this round. What might be the > criteria
	he used for evaluation? > > Also, considering the Wikipedia maxim that
	neutrality means no side > is happy, can this be used to demonstrate
	Shell Kinney's > non-neutrality in a future battle? > > I think Shell
	Kinney can be an asset, you'll note she was not kind to > Offliner, and
	it is true he's the only one who has done anything > off-our-topic.
	I've
	corresponded off-Wiki with Shell Kinney and found > them receptive to
	my
	characterization of shopping for admins on > their talk pages, et al.
	Personally, I'm taking this as a suck-up > curry-favor
	I'm-trying-to-be-good move by Offliner, quite creative, but > I would
	not put any stock in it (at least for now) as a thanks for any > sort
	of favoritism. [...] 
	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] Offliner barnstaring Shell Kinney?
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:  PetersJV@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 6/28/2009
	4:19:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > digwuren@gmail.com writes: > >
	apparently, Offliner has given Shell Kinney a barnstar. It would > seem
	he thinks that the Cartel won this round. What might be the > criteria
	he used for evaluation? > > Also, considering the Wikipedia maxim that
	neutrality means no side > is happy, can this be used to demonstrate
	Shell Kinney's > non-neutrality in a future battle? > > I think Shell
	Kinney can be an asset, you'll note she was not kind to > Offliner, and
	it is true he's the only one who has done anything > off-our-topic. I've
	corresponded off-Wiki with Shell Kinney and found > them receptive to my
	characterization of shopping for admins on > their talk pages, et al.
	Personally, I'm taking this as a suck-up > curry-favor
	I'm-trying-to-be-good move by Offliner, quite creative, but > I would
	not put any stock in it (at least for now) as a thanks for any > sort of
	favoritism. [...] 
	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

PetersJV@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 6/28/2009 4:19:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
> digwuren@gmail.com writes:
> 
>     apparently, Offliner has given Shell Kinney a barnstar.  It would
>     seem he thinks that the Cartel won this round.  What might be the
>     criteria he used for evaluation?
> 
>     Also, considering the Wikipedia maxim that neutrality means no side
>     is happy, can this be used to demonstrate Shell Kinney's
>     non-neutrality in a future battle?
> 
> I think Shell Kinney can be an asset, you'll note she was not kind to 
> Offliner, and it is true he's the only one who has done anything 
> off-our-topic. I've corresponded off-Wiki with Shell Kinney and found 
> them receptive to my characterization of shopping for admins on 
> their talk pages, et al. Personally, I'm taking this as a suck-up 
> curry-favor I'm-trying-to-be-good move by Offliner, quite creative, but 
> I would not put any stock in it (at least for now) as a thanks for any 
> sort of favoritism.

Agreed. I suggest that we support Offliner, write on her page that we 
agree with him that she has handled that well, albeit a question or two 
about what she thinks about sanctions for Colchium and Radek wouldn't be 
amiss there.

-- 
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

