Just as in justice, a jugdement declares someone guilty (or innocent) first
Which set somehow a range of punishement, depending on the crime
then the points in favor of the accused are examined. and help to decide on which side of the range of punishement he will be.
Fred Bauder a écrit:
I think we need to consider what they destroy and how without consideration of what good things they have done. In other words, if some one is accused of destructive behavior, evidence that they wrote a good article or were polite in some other context is inadmissible evidence. After it is determined that we are dealing with someone who regularly transgresses, then as we consider remedies we might consider all the wonderful things they did.
Fred
From: Anthere anthere8@yahoo.com Reply-To: anthere8@yahoo.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:26:55 +0100 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration progress report #2
Basically the same question as above; when are people "highly detrimental to wikipedia"? The current policy, by my interpretation, states that someone is highly detrimental to wikipedia if their personal attacks are extreme. Which is obviously far from a clear-cut answer.
But the practice is that someone is highly detrimental to Wikipedia, when the sum of what he brings is lower that the sum of what he destroys.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l