Fennec Foxen wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:16:20 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I just read through it. It looks like an honest expression of views in the Wikipedia namespace. Nobody is being attacked. What is there about the post that "provokes conflict"? Surely this is not an opinion that would merit banning.
Without commenting on whether or not this is honest or bannable or anything like that... this looks like it belongs on Meta.
Perhaps so, but putting it on the wrong project is not a bannable offence. What the appropriate project should be is arguable either way.
Now, regarding the "banned user", I believe standard practice (at least on certain hard-banned users - Michael... 142? if not everyone) is to revert everything they do on Wikipedia, whether or not it is good, valid, right, wrong, misleading, or enlightening.
Be that as it may you said before that it was his first post. That's inconsistent with his being a banned user.
The implication in the preceding post seems to be that it's obvious via this page history that the user in question is in fact a user who is already hard-banned.
There's nothing obvious in it at all. That post was slightly more than 11 days after the previous one. That's a flimsy excuse for evidence.