User Lir insists on claiming that Christopher Columbus was a slave trader prior to his 1492 voyage. He refuses to substantiate his claim, and continually reverts the page when his claim is removed. Can someone deal with him?
Zoe
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
Does anyone have a strong objection to banning Lir for an hour or so, to let him cool off?
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com
[mailto:wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com] On Behalf Of Zoe Comnena
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 19:44 To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
User Lir insists on claiming that Christopher Columbus was a slave
trader prior to his 1492 voyage. He refuses to substantiate his claim, and continually reverts the page when his claim is removed. Can someone deal with him?
Zoe
I sure don't. :-) Zoe Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:Does anyone have a strong objection to banning Lir for an hour or so, to let him cool off?
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com
[mailto:wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com] On Behalf Of Zoe Comnena
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 19:44 To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
User Lir insists on claiming that Christopher Columbus was a slave
trader prior to his 1492 voyage. He refuses to substantiate his claim, and continually reverts the page when his claim is removed. Can someone deal with him?
Zoe
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
Sean Barrett wrote:
Does anyone have a strong objection to banning Lir for an hour or so, to let him cool off?
I'm a little late to weigh in on this, but my personal mode of conduct is that instead of banning someone to let them cool off, I should let them have their way for an hour to let them cool off. Just come back to the article tomorrow or the next day and fix it. Probably he won't feel as emotional about it then -- and neither will I.
Banning, even for an hour, should be reserved for pure vandalism. Disagreements about content seldom rise to that level.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
My personal mode of conduct is that instead of banning someone to let them cool off, I should let them have their way for an hour to let them cool off. Just come back to the article tomorrow or the next day and fix it. Probably he won't feel as emotional about it then -- and neither will I.
Banning, even for an hour, should be reserved for pure vandalism. Disagreements about content seldom rise to that level.
I think that Jimbo has the right idea here.
-- Toby
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Sean Barrett wrote:
Does anyone have a strong objection to banning Lir for an hour or so, to let him cool off?
I'm a little late to weigh in on this, but my personal mode of conduct is that instead of banning someone to let them cool off, I should let them have their way for an hour to let them cool off. Just come back to the article tomorrow or the next day and fix it. Probably he won't feel as emotional about it then -- and neither will I.
Banning, even for an hour, should be reserved for pure vandalism. Disagreements about content seldom rise to that level.
In some respects one-hour bans are useless. If by pure chance the offender had just finished his evening's efforts and gone to bed hoping to take the matter up again in the morning, he might not even notice that he has been banned. Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org