X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Mon Jun 22 07:57:22 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
From: PetersJV@aol.com
Message-ID: <cdd.524e956d.37707720@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:56:48 EDT
To: folks@wikipedometer.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5377
X-AOL-IP: 205.188.169.201
X-Spam_score: -0.6
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:  In a message dated 6/22/2009 1:40:10 A.M. Eastern
	Daylight Time, martint20@gmail.com writes: I've just chatted to Durova, 
	and my idea of getting ArbCom to accept the case is a bad idea. This is
	what she says: nadezhda.durova: In Scientology last month they handed
	out several stern topic bans on editors who hadn't touched the subject
	since 2007, and who had never been blocked or even warned regarding
	their conduct. In at least one instance there was no visible evidence
	onsite, and the diffs the Committee cited in its findings of fact were
	actually diffs of the editor complying with policy. Not violating it.
	[...] Content analysis details:   (-0.6 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	1.0 NO_REAL_NAME           From: does not include a real name
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.5 HTML_40_50             BODY: Message is 40% to 50% HTML
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	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=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_40_50,
	HTML_MESSAGE,NO_REAL_NAME 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3295673487913943110=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -0.6
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:  In a message dated 6/22/2009 1:40:10 A.M. Eastern
	Daylight Time, martint20@gmail.com writes: I've just chatted to Durova,
	and my idea of getting ArbCom to accept the case is a bad idea. This is
	what she says: nadezhda.durova: In Scientology last month they handed
	out several stern topic bans on editors who hadn't touched the subject
	since 2007, and who had never been blocked or even warned regarding
	their conduct. In at least one instance there was no visible evidence
	onsite, and the diffs the Committee cited in its findings of fact were
	actually diffs of the editor complying with policy. Not violating it.
	[...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.6 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	1.0 NO_REAL_NAME           From: does not include a real name
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.5 HTML_40_50             BODY: Message is 40% to 50% HTML
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	0.5 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list


--===============3295673487913943110==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1245650208"


-------------------------------1245650208
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 
In a message dated 6/22/2009 1:40:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
martint20@gmail.com writes:

I've  just chatted to Durova, and my idea of getting ArbCom to accept
the case is  a bad idea. This is what she says:
nadezhda.durova:  In Scientology  last month they handed out several
stern topic bans on editors who hadn't  touched the subject since 2007,
and who had never been blocked or even  warned regarding their conduct.
In at least one instance there was no  visible evidence onsite, and
the diffs the Committee cited in its findings  of fact were actually
diffs of the editor complying with policy.  Not  violating it.



Ultimately such a ban could not stand if implemented. Our editing is based  
on reputable schoarship of "nationalist" and western sources, we are not a 
cult  nor writing about a cult. I can see where, however, based on J's 
interview I  came across, that J. and perhaps others are loaded for bear and will 
only be  satisfied if they can empty all barrels to their satisfaction. As 
there is no  due process on Wikipedia, we need to (a) tread carefully and 
(b) have a  contingency plan should a widely applied ban occur and we need to 
exercise the  "nuclear option" whatever we determine that to be.
 
/Peters
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy 
Steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221823273x1201398689/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=Jun
eExcfooterNO62)

-------------------------------1245650208
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16825" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=3Drole_body style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY=
: Arial" 
bottomMargin=3D7 leftMargin=3D7 topMargin=3D7 rightMargin=3D7><FONT id=3Dr=
ole_document 
face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 6/22/2009 1:40:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
martint20@gmail.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE 
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"=
><FONT 
  style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 siz=
e=3D2>I've 
  just chatted to Durova, and my idea of getting ArbCom to accept<BR>the=
 case is 
  a bad idea. This is what she says:<BR>nadezhda.durova:&nbsp; In Scientol=
ogy 
  last month they handed out several<BR>stern topic bans on editors who ha=
dn't 
  touched the subject since 2007,<BR>and who had never been blocked or eve=
n 
  warned regarding their conduct.<BR>In at least one instance there was no=
 
  visible evidence onsite, and<BR>the diffs the Committee cited in its fin=
dings 
  of fact were actually<BR>diffs of the editor complying with policy.&nbsp=
; Not 
  violating it.<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Ultimately such a ban could not stand if implemented. Our editing is=
 based 
on reputable schoarship of "nationalist" and western sources, we are not=
 a cult 
nor writing about a cult. I can see where, however, based on J's interview=
 I 
came across, that J. and perhaps others are loaded for bear and will only=
 be 
satisfied if they can empty all barrels to their satisfaction. As there is=
 no 
due process on Wikipedia, we need to (a) tread carefully and (b) have a 
contingency plan should a widely applied ban occur and we need to exercise=
 the 
"nuclear option" whatever we determine that to be.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>/Peters</DIV></FONT><DIV CLASS=3D"aol_ad_footer" ID=3D"fa1cbca3a4c3a8=
aa85eeb2223259a71a"><br/><font style=3D"color:black;font:normal 10pt arial=
,san-serif;"> <hr style=3D"margin-top:10px"/><B>An Excellent Credit Score=
 is 750. <A HREF=3Dhttp://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221823273x1201=
398689/aol?redir=3Dhttp://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=3D66=
8072%26hmpgID=3D62%26bcd=3DJuneExcfooterNO62>See Yours in Just 2 Easy Step=
s!</A></B></font></DIV></BODY></HTML>

-------------------------------1245650208--


--===============3295673487913943110==
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

--===============3295673487913943110==--


