X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Mon Jun 22 06:12:54 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
Message-ID: <4A3F0537.1080508@post.pl>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:14:47 -0400
From: Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090303 MultiZilla/1.8.3.4e SeaMonkey/1.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
References: <4A3E9C6F.4040704@post.pl>	<929ed1ec0906211401s5b6f5011hc6c5073933981872@mail.gmail.com>	<4A3EA461.2050208@post.pl>
	<25890ca0906211423x2123ead9v1da04a5fa7e3242c@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <25890ca0906211423x2123ead9v1da04a5fa7e3242c@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:  radek szulga wrote: > Ok, let's get this a bit
	organized: > > 1. Contact a ArbCom clerk and ask about the moving of
	other admin's > comments w/o proving he is involved. Would AGK be a
	good
	person here? > If I do it, I can point out that in getting Deacon
	declared "involved" > I followed a formal procedure whereas Jeh is
	doing this unilaterally > here. [...] 
	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]
	0.1 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=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=unavailable 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: -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:  radek szulga wrote: > Ok, let's get this a bit
	organized: > > 1. Contact a ArbCom clerk and ask about the moving of
	other admin's > comments w/o proving he is involved. Would AGK be a good
	person here? > If I do it, I can point out that in getting Deacon
	declared "involved" > I followed a formal procedure whereas Jeh is doing
	this unilaterally > here. [...] 
	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]
	0.1 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

radek szulga wrote:
> Ok, let's get this a bit organized:
> 
> 1. Contact a ArbCom clerk and ask about the moving of other admin's
> comments w/o proving he is involved. Would AGK be a good person here?
> If I do it, I can point out that in getting Deacon declared "involved"
> I followed a formal procedure whereas Jeh is doing this unilaterally
> here.

He is a good one, but the more the merrier - if contacted by email. We 
only need one to review the issue in our favor and reverse his moves...


-- 
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

