X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Mon Jun 22 07:40:05 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4f045a880906212008y451e7bd5nec82b3ad8db84c96@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A3E9C6F.4040704@post.pl>
	<929ed1ec0906211401s5b6f5011hc6c5073933981872@mail.gmail.com>
	<4f045a880906212008y451e7bd5nec82b3ad8db84c96@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:39:47 +1000
Message-ID: <4f045a880906212239y17b24c03t77d6241472ff891c@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin <martint20@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: -0.3
X-Spam_score_int: -2
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'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:   (-0.3 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	-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
	0.6 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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST 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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -0.3
X-Spam_score_int: -2
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'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:   (-0.3 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-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
	0.6 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

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.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Martin<martint20@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jimbo is no help unless it gets to ArbCom.
>
> Would it be worth supporting acceptance of the case to review Jehochman's
> conduct? I've alrady written some stuff on the request page, but can
> withdraw if it is not the right way to go.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 23:47, Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok, I surprised:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APiotrus&diff=297788006&oldid=297787433
>>> I tried talking to him nicely on AE/talk pages, but he replies with
>>> this. Should I go to AN, ANI or some ArbCom page to deal with this? Best
>>> argument so far is that nobody else criticized my posts and he didn't
>>> even cite diffs to what exactly in my posts was unhelpful/inflammatory.
>>
>> It's a clear example of incivility, disrespect for a fellow administrator,
>> and can be painted as a power trip.  I think we want a speedy resolution,
>> therefore arbcom is out.  AN/I or Jimbo's talkpage?
>> --
>> 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

