X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Sat Aug 22 20:40:33 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
Message-ID: <4A903B96.1010100@post.pl>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:40:22 -0400
From: Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.8.1.22) Gecko/20090605 MultiZilla/1.8.3.4e SeaMonkey/1.1.17
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
References: <611295.52139.qm@web45107.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<929ed1ec0908221018q2a809e1fm1e8a33ea92e441c9@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <929ed1ec0908221018q2a809e1fm1e8a33ea92e441c9@mail.gmail.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:  Digwuren wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 19:25, Jack
	<jacurek@yahoo.com > <mailto:jacurek@yahoo.com>> wrote: > > What's up
	with PU report?? No admin. fellow wants to touch it > fearing
	"fireworks"?:) > > > Pretty much. Why risk getting involved in a
	complex
	case if you can > just as easily go and ban three obvious vandals?
	Simpler to do, greater > benefit. > >
	_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:PasswordUsername_reported_by_User:jacurek_.28Result:_.29_
	>
	<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring/lUser:PasswordUsername_reported_by_User:jacurek_.28Result:_.29>
	> It is long overdue. Can report as such get ignored and forgotten ? >
	>
	> Yes. It's called "stale". Nowadays, it's automated by the archival >
	bot; see >
	<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive107#User:PasswordUsername_reported_by_User:jacurek_.28Result:_.29>.
	[...] 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]
	0.0 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=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7-deb3
Subject: Re: [WPM] What's up with PU report??
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:  Digwuren wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 19:25, Jack
	<jacurek@yahoo.com > <mailto:jacurek@yahoo.com>> wrote: > > What's up
	with PU report?? No admin. fellow wants to touch it > fearing
	"fireworks"?:) > > > Pretty much. Why risk getting involved in a complex
	case if you can > just as easily go and ban three obvious vandals?
	Simpler to do, greater > benefit. > >
	_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:PasswordUsername_reported_by_User:jacurek_.28Result:_.29_
	>
	<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring/lUser:PasswordUsername_reported_by_User:jacurek_.28Result:_.29>
	> It is long overdue. Can report as such get ignored and forgotten ? > >
	> Yes. It's called "stale". Nowadays, it's automated by the archival >
	bot; see >
	<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive107#User:PasswordUsername_reported_by_User:jacurek_.28Result:_.29>.
	[...] 
	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]
	0.0 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

Digwuren wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 19:25, Jack <jacurek@yahoo.com 
> <mailto:jacurek@yahoo.com>> wrote:
> 
>     What's up with PU report?? No admin. fellow wants to touch it
>     fearing "fireworks"?:)
> 
> 
> Pretty much.  Why risk getting involved in a complex case if you can 
> just as easily go and ban three obvious vandals?  Simpler to do, greater 
> benefit.
> 
>     _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:PasswordUsername_reported_by_User:jacurek_.28Result:_.29_
>     <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring/lUser:PasswordUsername_reported_by_User:jacurek_.28Result:_.29>
>     It is long overdue. Can report as such get ignored and forgotten ?
> 
> 
> Yes.  It's called "stale".  Nowadays, it's automated by the archival 
> bot; see 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive107#User:PasswordUsername_reported_by_User:jacurek_.28Result:_.29>.

Only thing to do - when it's archived, keep the link for future 
RfC/ArbComs and so on.

And we still desperately need a working wiki to start collaborating on 
our black book diffs for future dispute resolutions...

-- 
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

