X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Sat Jul 11 20:12:59 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <25890ca0907111013m233e8badp2f0c92024ec22c7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <25890ca0907110652x50262100t4905f563a92bd416@mail.gmail.com>
	<848790.6704.qm@web45107.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
	<929ed1ec0907110936g4d749368mf2e187af1506eb8c@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0907111013m233e8badp2f0c92024ec22c7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:12:48 +1000
Message-ID: <4f045a880907111112l6355ee91o364d7439865748a1@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin <martint20@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: 0.4
X-Spam_score_int: 4
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:  I read the AE report and it looks like a content
	dispute, so I agree with Andres that restraint is needed here. Radek has
	done a good job in his reply. If everyone piles on it will only look
	like teaming, and that will only give a bruised Thatcher reason to
	sanction everyone. ---~~~~ [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (0.4 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	1.7 SUBJECT_ENCODED_TWICE  Subject: MIME encoded twice
	-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
	-0.4 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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, SUBJECT_ENCODED_TWICE autolearn=no version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM]
	=?utf-8?q?Sneaky_blanking_by_Skapperod_in_Ko=C5=82obrzeg_ar?=
	=?utf-8?q?ticle_=28IMPORTANT=29?=
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: 0.4
X-Spam_score_int: 4
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:  I read the AE report and it looks like a content
	dispute, so I agree with Andres that restraint is needed here. Radek has
	done a good job in his reply. If everyone piles on it will only look
	like teaming, and that will only give a bruised Thatcher reason to
	sanction everyone. ---~~~~ [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (0.4 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	1.7 SUBJECT_ENCODED_TWICE  Subject: MIME encoded twice
	-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
	-0.4 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

I read the AE report and it looks like a content dispute, so I agree
with Andres that restraint is needed here. Radek has done a good job
in his reply. If everyone piles on it will only look like teaming, and
that will only give a bruised Thatcher reason to sanction everyone.
---~~~~

On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 3:13 AM, radek szulga<rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote:
> Loosemark also supported me.
>
> Yeah I think it's obvious that Skapperod is hoping to exploit the recent
> appeal and hopes to just stir up controversy, roll the die and hope for t=
he
> best. I said so much in my response but then took it out - probably better
> not to make the connection in admins minds. Though if someone else brings=
 it
> up then I will note this.
>
> Radek
>
>
> 2009/7/11 Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com>
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 18:19, Jack <jacurek@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is TOTAL BS !!!
>>
>> Yes it is.
>>>
>>> Radek I will comment on it very soon. All our members should get involv=
ed
>>> here.
>>
>> Let's not be too hasty. =A0The request is not put together too well; the=
re's
>> a good chance it'll be rejected by an administrator who thinks it's "just
>> another of those silly Eastern European disputes".
>> I recommend that the development be closely watched, and if need be, we
>> should get involved over time, not all at once.
>> However, right now, only Radek has made a statement in his support.
>> =A0Somebody else should support him, too, to let the administrator who s=
hows
>> up know that it is not a "People v. Radek" case.
>> If there's too much dramu, somebody like Thatcher might eventually be the
>> only administrator willing to take the thread. =A0Somebody who thinks he
>> should "do a lot of work" and then "sanction everybody who gave an evil =
eye
>> to the canary". =A0Ideally, it should look like an easy case of an obvio=
usly
>> frivolous complaint. =A0Ideally, a random passing-by administrator shoul=
d not
>> be shied away from this thread, and should then hastily resolve it in fa=
vour
>> of Radek. =A0Alas, achieving that is nontrivial :-(
>> Of course, if Jehochman shows up, generating a lot of dramu might be the
>> safe approach.
>> --
>> 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
>
>



-- =

Regards,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia statistics discussion list
folks@wikipedometer.net
http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks

