I think it would be hard to imagine a legitimate reason to run a vandalbot - there doesn't seem to be much room to argue that a user who does this should not be banned. Mark R.
--- "James D. Forrester" james@jdforrester.org wrote:
On Wednesday, June 16th, 2004, at 09:50 Delirium wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
I am trying to get an arbitration ruling on this
as part of Wik2.
Better evidence that the vandal bot is actually
Wik would be helpful.
I'm not sure this is really something the
arbitration committee
needs to deal with.
I agree.
If Wik ran a vandal bot, I assume there's a
consensus to ban him.
Well, it's clear and established policy (for once), so, yes.
So it seems to be simply a matter of facts (was
the vandal bot Wik
or not?), and the arbitration committee has no
particular knowledge
that the general community doesn't have when it
comes to deciding
that issue.
The evidence available, though circumstantial, is rather significant.
Yours,
James D. Forrester Mail: james@jdforrester.org | jon@eh.org | james.forrester@orange.net csvla@dcs.warwick.ac.uk || [[en:User:Jdforrester]] on Wikipedia IM : ICQ:15108888 | MSN:jamesdforrester@hotmail.com | YM:Jdforrester
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo