X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Sun Jun 21 18:23:59 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:23:47 +0300
Message-ID: <929ed1ec0906210923j6aac2be5g29f238e82c25e25d@mail.gmail.com>
From: Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: 0.5
X-Spam_score_int: 5
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:  Hi, actually,
	some sort of double jeopardy clause might
	be useful to set up in Wikipedia. Also, since Sandstein, Jehochman & co
	are busily rebuilding the AE to get rid of "crud" (read: arguments they
	don't like), it might be possible to sneak in a "bickering-reducing
	measure" saying that diffs older than, say, two months are ineligible
	for AE. Reasonably, if disruption was really disruptive, it would have
	been noticed right away; if it wasn't, it must not have been *that*
	disruptive. And if it was noticed right away, and not considered worthy
	of enforcement, then it means something else. Possibly that Wikipedia's
	rules are unenforceable anyway, or perhaps that administrators couldn't
	find consensus that it was disruptive, or maybe that there was no
	interested administrator willing to enter the hornet's nest. And if
	interested administrators don't bother, what possible motivation could
	there be for an uninterested administrator? [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (0.5 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	0.8 HTML_00_10             BODY: Message is 0% to 10% HTML
	-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
	0.5 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_00_10,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no 
	version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: [WPM] Double jeopardy?
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="===============1369095273817016554=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: 0.5
X-Spam_score_int: 5
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:  Hi, actually, some sort of double jeopardy clause might
	be useful to set up in Wikipedia. Also, since Sandstein, Jehochman & co
	are busily rebuilding the AE to get rid of "crud" (read: arguments they
	don't like), it might be possible to sneak in a "bickering-reducing
	measure" saying that diffs older than, say, two months are ineligible
	for AE. Reasonably, if disruption was really disruptive, it would have
	been noticed right away; if it wasn't, it must not have been *that*
	disruptive. And if it was noticed right away, and not considered worthy
	of enforcement, then it means something else. Possibly that Wikipedia's
	rules are unenforceable anyway, or perhaps that administrators couldn't
	find consensus that it was disruptive, or maybe that there was no
	interested administrator willing to enter the hornet's nest. And if
	interested administrators don't bother, what possible motivation could
	there be for an uninterested administrator? [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (0.5 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	0.8 HTML_00_10             BODY: Message is 0% to 10% HTML
	-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
	0.5 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

--===============1369095273817016554==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d999daa46668046cde2e6f

--0016e6d999daa46668046cde2e6f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,
actually, some sort of double jeopardy clause might be useful to set up in
Wikipedia.  Also, since Sandstein, Jehochman & co are busily rebuilding the
AE to get rid of "crud" (read: arguments they don't like), it might be
possible to sneak in a "bickering-reducing measure" saying that diffs older
than, say, two months are ineligible for AE.  Reasonably, if disruption was
really disruptive, it would have been noticed right away; if it wasn't, it
must not have been *that* disruptive.  And if it was noticed right away, and
not considered worthy of enforcement, then it means something else.
 Possibly that Wikipedia's rules are unenforceable anyway, or perhaps that
administrators couldn't find consensus that it was disruptive, or maybe that
there was no interested administrator willing to enter the hornet's nest.
 And if interested administrators don't bother, what possible motivation
could there be for an uninterested administrator?

-- 
Andres Soolo

--0016e6d999daa46668046cde2e6f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,<div><br></div><div>actually, some sort of double jeopardy clause might =
be useful to set up in Wikipedia. =C2=A0Also, since Sandstein, Jehochman &a=
mp; co are busily rebuilding the AE to get rid of &quot;crud&quot; (read: a=
rguments they don&#39;t like), it might be possible to sneak in a &quot;bic=
kering-reducing measure&quot; saying that diffs older than, say, two months=
 are ineligible for AE. =C2=A0Reasonably, if disruption was really disrupti=
ve, it would have been noticed right away; if it wasn&#39;t, it must not ha=
ve been *that* disruptive. =C2=A0And if it was noticed right away, and not =
considered worthy of enforcement, then it means something else. =C2=A0Possi=
bly that Wikipedia&#39;s rules are unenforceable anyway, or perhaps that ad=
ministrators couldn&#39;t find consensus that it was disruptive, or maybe t=
hat there was no interested administrator willing to enter the hornet&#39;s=
 nest. =C2=A0And if interested administrators don&#39;t bother, what possib=
le motivation could there be for an uninterested administrator?<br clear=3D=
"all">
<br>-- <br>Andres Soolo<br>
</div>

--0016e6d999daa46668046cde2e6f--


--===============1369095273817016554==
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

--===============1369095273817016554==--


