Poor, Edmund W wrote:
*Jimbo had said that he reserves the right to ban
logged-in
users. Perhaps he meant only people antagonizing
others with
historical revisionism or personal remarks -- not
kids who replace
entire articles with the word "kool" --
but I'd
like to see a
clarification from him.
I see no particular difference between a vandal who
logs in and a
vandal who doesn't. Of course, a person who has
bothered to log in is
less likely to be a vandal than someone who doesn't,
at least in our
experience so far. And we've never really had a
_persistent_ vandal.
And so, yes, I'd like to say that I'll take the
responsibility and
political heat for banning (or failing to ban, as is
more likely!) in
cases that don't fit neatly into "simple vandalism",
i.e. cases like
'24' and Helga.
And I'll make frowny faces at people who ban people
as a method of
settling a debate about content. That's not
WikiLove.
Hey Wikilover,
Will you come make frowny faces to half of the french
board next time it is jumping on the head of a
logged-in user trying to defend a CE/BCE issue that
stands no chance in front of conventions ? :-))
Looking forward that moment. Thanks alot.
peace
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More